Article snippet: In the letter, Nunes argued that Schiff should testify in lieu of the “whistleblower,” since the “whistleblower” went to Schiff’s staff before filing his complaint and since Schiff will not let the whistleblower testify. In his letter to Schiff, Nunes wrote: Nunes noted that there is precedent: Members of Congress participated for closed-door depositions during the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He added: “Given your championing of such an arrangement two years ago, you should have no problem with you appearing before the three committees to discuss your interaction with the whistleblower.” The New York Times reported on October 2 that the “whistleblower” went to Schiff’s staff with his concerns about Trump’s phone call, and the “outlines” of those concerns were passed on to Schiff. The report said the “whistleblower” was instructed by staff to seek legal representation and file a whistleblower complaint with the intelligence community inspector general. Schiff had initially denied that the “whistleblower” had ever spoken to him or his committee before he filed the complaint, and after the Times report, his staff was forced to walk back that assertion, saying that Schiff meant that he did not personally meet the “whistleblower” and that his staff did not officially interview the “whistleblower.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) put Schiff in charge of leading the impeachment inquiry for the House Demo... Link to the full article to read more