House Republicans Storm Secret Impeachment Hearing Today

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Blaine91555

When it happens to them in the future, they will scream to high heaven about how wrong what they just did themselves is.

The future? You mean the past?

Like the one million pointless hearings into Hillary Clinton in fear of her running for office? Or the Real Estate investigation that ended with President Clinton getting impeached for oral sex?

Please...

Trump extorted a Foreign Country for personal gain and used Military Aid to do it.

It warrants an investigation to make sure no one is missing anything and if confirmed he needs to be impeached.

No, the Future. The Democrats are setting a precedent for all future Presidents to be treated this way with improper proceedings. And yes I did watch Lindsay Graham on my lunch break.

You do understand the the rules the Democrats are operating under are the ones that the REPUBLICANS put in place in 2015 do you not?

Which ones were those exactly? The allowance of behind closed door hearings? If so, it is what it is.

But, I think most of the shenanigans that is really really disturbing is the all-Democrat secret hearings taking place in the SCIF. Still trying to determine if even one Republican was present....don't think so.

But But But ... 😎


Un clear what my friend Andrew is talking about here, but Boehner just told me the only change he made to house rules was one allowing committee chairmen/women to issue subpoenas on their authorty alone, without committee votes. No changes made, he said, to rules on impeachment.

a reply to: xuenchen

Ha ha! Andrew is losing it. I have totally lost all faith in anything he says anymore.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: xuenchen

Ha ha! Andrew is losing it. I have totally lost all faith in anything he says anymore.

This may be the actual 2015 rules "resolution"....

H.Res.5 - Adopting rules for the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.
114th Congress (2015-2016)

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: rnaa

You do understand the the rules the Democrats are operating under are the ones that the REPUBLICANS put in place in 2015 do you not?

Which ones were those exactly? The allowance of behind closed door hearings? If so, it is what it is.

Yes those ones exactly. The ones put in place by the Republicans in 2015 when they removed the Independent Prosecutor. The IP (think Starr going after Clinton) held all of his investigation in secret and there weren't even any national security issues at stake.

So what don't you understand about the closed door process?

In either the House or the Senate, when security issues (or other issues like protection of whistle blowers identity) arise that cannot be discussed in open hearings, the committee and the witnesses retire to a SCIF and hear the testemony BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

This does not apply only impeachment hearings, nor does it apply to a Democratic majority or a Republican majority led process.

It is the only way that such testimony can be heard by the people who need to act on that testimony.

But, I think most of the shenanigans that is really really disturbing is the all-Democrat secret hearings taking place in the SCIF. Still trying to determine if even one Republican was present....don't think so.

Actually, I believe that many of the Republicans that 'stormed' the committee room were actually authorized to be in that room, (and yet they are claiming that they are not?) however WITHOUT their electronic devices which are strictly forbidden in a SCIF (and now that room is useless as a SCIF until it is sanitized).

In fact the number 2 ranking House Minority member who have more sense and who WAS authorized to be there as a official member of the relevant committee, followed the very junior ringleader around like a puppy dog and pretended he was being excluded. The whole stunt was preplanned and manipulated from the White House are carried out by Trump's favorite lap-dog in the House, Mr. DUI Gaetz.

a reply to: rnaa
Perhaps then what you “believe” isn’t relevant. The rules posted here don’t seem to be about changing the rules to create secret impeachment hearings behind closed doors. Napolitano has allowed personal differences to cloud his judgement and he has twisted information to make it seem different. I’ll go by a real conservative Constitutional lawyer- Mark Levin

originally posted by: Blaine91555

Removing a President needs to be transparent from beginning to end.

That is all I'm saying here. By all means investigate, but make the entire process transparent.

I'm surprised anyone on either side or in the middle would argue that lack of transparency is OK?

Absolutely removing a President should AND IS fully transparent, ONCE THE INVESTIGATION is over.

During Investigations? No. Never.

Not with Nixon, Not with Clinton (Both Special Prosecutors making the impeachment referral)

This Presidential Impeachment investigation is actually more transparent than any other in history.

Investigations of any sort are never public. You don't want to broadcast to every future witness what you know already and what others have told you and help everyone align their story.

That is just basic investigations 101.

No need to get upset at the Dems ! It’s a natural evolution of ignorance ! They are in their death throes ! JFK type might emerge from Pelosi’s ashes ! I love seeing the Dementedcrats burning their ships , next is cannibalism and then they will beg for mercy until they get one more book deal . I just ordered the second shortest book in the world ! “ Arrests made for murders committed for the Clintons “ The shortest book ever printed is “ French War Hero’s “ I also have beautiful WW1 & WW2 French rifles ! They were never fired and only dropped once ! France is and always will be punks , just like Pelosiville

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: rnaa
Perhaps then what you “believe” isn’t relevant. The rules posted here don’t seem to be about changing the rules to create secret impeachment hearings behind closed doors. Napolitano has allowed personal differences to cloud his judgement and he has twisted information to make it seem different. I’ll go by a real conservative Constitutional lawyer- Mark Levin

For a place who's moto is Deny Ignorance... there is so much ignorance in these threads. Whether or not you "trust" the judge on Fox.. he is stating factual information. They are following the rules put in place by John Boehner in 2015. You can argue the source of the information until you are blue in the face but the facts are still the facts...

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt
No need to get upset at the Dems ! It’s a natural evolution of ignorance ! They are in their death throes ! JFK type might emerge from Pelosi’s ashes ! I love seeing the Dementedcrats burning their ships , next is cannibalism and then they will beg for mercy until they get one more book deal . I just ordered the second shortest book in the world ! “ Arrests made for murders committed for the Clintons “ The shortest book ever printed is “ French War Hero’s “ I also have beautiful WW1 & WW2 French rifles ! They were never fired and only dropped once ! France is and always will be punks , just like Pelosiville

Get back on your meds.. you are rambling again grandpa.

a reply to: queenofswords

Do you mean heroin ! The west coast liberal street dweller social failure drug of choice ! I’ll get right on it ! Once my tent is set up and I’m done pooping on your bumper of your BMW parked in your whites only liberal neighborhoods of California . I may be in my 40s but your lost and the wisdom boat left your shores in the 90s ! I hope we never need a draft again , because the western men today are women .

originally posted by: [post=24718941]DoubleDNH[/
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has said that the committee will release transcripts and hold public hearings, but said they are conducting the fact-finding part of the investigation, like a grand jury before a trial, that’s done behind closed doors. a tool for the Deep State as Romney and Ryan. The fact that you had to use ad hominem and call me ignorant under the guise of “deny ignorance” shows that you have already lost the debate.
Also I found this very interesting

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has said that the committee will release transcripts and hold public hearings, but said they are conducting the fact-finding part of the investigation, like a grand jury before a trial, that’s done behind closed doors.

www.marklevinshow.com...
So he’s admitted they are treating this as a grand jury behind closed doors without a formal vote by the House.

edit on 25-10-2019 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: rnaa
Perhaps then what you “believe” isn’t relevant. The rules posted here don’t seem to be about changing the rules to create secret impeachment hearings behind closed doors. Napolitano has allowed personal differences to cloud his judgement and he has twisted information to make it seem different. I’ll go by a real conservative Constitutional lawyer- Mark Levin

For a place who's moto is Deny Ignorance... there is so much ignorance in these threads. Whether or not you "trust" the judge on Fox.. he is stating factual information. They are following the rules put in place by John Boehner in 2015. You can argue the source of the information until you are blue in the face but the facts are still the facts...

They listen to whomever Fox tells them to until that person starts disagreeing with the party propaganda line, at which point that person was always crazy and nobody ever listened to them. Simple really.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: rnaa
Perhaps then what you “believe” isn’t relevant. The rules posted here don’t seem to be about changing the rules to create secret impeachment hearings behind closed doors. Napolitano has allowed personal differences to cloud his judgement and he has twisted information to make it seem different. I’ll go by a real conservative Constitutional lawyer- Mark Levin

For a place who's moto is Deny Ignorance... there is so much ignorance in these threads. Whether or not you "trust" the judge on Fox.. he is stating factual information. They are following the rules put in place by John Boehner in 2015. You can argue the source of the information until you are blue in the face but the facts are still the facts...

They listen to whomever Fox tells them to until that person starts disagreeing with the party propaganda line, at which point that person was always crazy and nobody ever listened to them. Simple really.

Mo
I’m
Listening to Mark Levin, a Constitutional lawyer who
Is a genuine conservative.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: rnaa
Perhaps then what you “believe” isn’t relevant. The rules posted here don’t seem to be about changing the rules to create secret impeachment hearings behind closed doors. Napolitano has allowed personal differences to cloud his judgement and he has twisted information to make it seem different. I’ll go by a real conservative Constitutional lawyer- Mark Levin

For a place who's moto is Deny Ignorance... there is so much ignorance in these threads. Whether or not you "trust" the judge on Fox.. he is stating factual information. They are following the rules put in place by John Boehner in 2015. You can argue the source of the information until you are blue in the face but the facts are still the facts...

They listen to whomever Fox tells them to until that person starts disagreeing with the party propaganda line, at which point that person was always crazy and nobody ever listened to them. Simple really.

Mo
I’m
Listening to Mark Levin, a Constitutional lawyer who
Is a genuine conservative.

And if Mark Levin started saying Trump is screwed and should be punished for breaking the law, who is the next "Constitutional Lawyer" you've got lined up to jump ship to? Its always prudent to have the next fallback point planned and prepared.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Blaine91555

That is all I'm saying here. By all means investigate, but make the entire process transparent.

It is transparent as can be when National Security issues are being discussed.

Republicans ARE on the committees doing the investigating, and they ARE authorized to participate in closed door proceedings - just as in ANY other House or Senate process.

The Committee process is being operated under the rules put in place by the REPUBLICANS in 2015.

Yes, I think everyone knows that Republicans are on the committees. Does not change my point.

Of course I believe that when they say "national security" it actually is a security issue Isn't it amazing how when both sides invoke "national security" things that benefit them get leaked illegally and yet nobody is ever charged for the leak or jailed?

National security is a scam used often by both parties when they want to cherry pick what they release and be able to edit information before it gets to the public. Whenever I hear "national security", I hear we want to hide something from the voters that makes us look bad. Like I said, both parties do it all the time.

a reply to: Extorris

You mean release redacted, carefully edited facts after the fact don't you. Both parties have been using that tactic to fool people. Both Republicans and Democrats know their constituents will stand behind their team and not question whether or not the redactions and edited facts are legitimate.

It's SOP when the truth is, that the bad guys investigate themselves.

If the shoe were on the other foot would you be happy about closed door investigations, knowing those investigating had partisan motives and would do anything to hold on to their power?

Like I said, both sides are corrupt and it's all a dog an pony show.

a reply to: Wayfarer

www.google.com...
Levin won’t be saying it because he’s right the first time around
Also www.americanthinker.com...

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Extorris

You mean release redacted, carefully edited facts after the fact don't you.

No. Any vote to impeach would include full evidence, transcripts, depostions etc., un-redacted, for consideration.
And in a Senate Trial, like a regular trial, all evidence, full transcripts as well as any additional evidence the GOP wishes to enter, witnesses both examined and cross-examined and a process overseen by Chief Justice Roberts.

You keep claiming a non-partisan view, while at the same time aping inaccurate claims meant to derail the process.

YES. There is NO PATH TOWARD Impeachment without full and underacted disclosure of all the evidence.
The demand that the investigation must be transparent is illogical and unethical.

The current process is wildly more transparent than either Nixon or Clinton received when a Special Prosecutor was tasked with the investigation. These are hearings where a total of 47 GOP House members can attend and are afforded equal time questioning witnesses.

THOSE are Non-Partisan facts.

The talking points aimed at obstructing the investigation are not credible.