House Republicans Storm Secret Impeachment Hearing Today

a reply to: smurfy

My "trust" as you call it, is almost non-existent. I may trust them to open a door for a lady, but that's about as far as it goes.

My post didn't reflect it, but I am aware that there is a minority number of Republicans on any House committee, save, of course, for the Party Caucuses.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That is exactly what you detect.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Exactly!!

Precedence is everything in politics. What's done today, will be done tomorrow, and likely it'll be done to you.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I wasted a ton of time on this stuff the last election, but basically they pick known liberal areas to do polling, then oversample Democrats by about 5 - 10% consistently. Same strategy was used for the last election too. Many posters on here were telling the left the polls were rigged, but they didn't want to believe it, then Trump won. I don't know, maybe I got unlucky and picked the only 2 random bias polls in the 20, but I'm not gonna waste any more time on it. I was just curious if they are using that same tactic again and it seems so.

a reply to: smurfy

I think Schiff is shutting out Republicans in an effort to pull some shenanigans, as is usual for him. Republicans, of course, do serve on the House Intelligence Committee, but I think they are being shut out on these secret hearings in the sciff. Thus, we see the pushback.

a reply to: queenofswords

I think Schiff is shutting out Republicans in an effort to pull some shenanigans, as is usual for him.

Schiff is doing what anyone doing an investigation would do. You don't consult and share evidence with the person under investigation while doing the investigation..

What kind of sense does that make. That's what the impeachment hearing is for, after the investigation.

ETA: to help people better understand, think of it like this. Say a drug dealer is being investigated for dealing drugs. Do the Police keep the drug dealer updated with what they're investigating him for? Of course not.

That's what you're asking this committee to do.

It's hysterical that Schiff threatened to lodge ethic violations against the party-crashers.

Yes, Mr. Schiff, by all means let's launch an ethics investigation into these hearings.

a reply to: seagull

Closed door hearing on a matter of this magnitude are not the right way to do things. Open hearings should be held.

And I agree. Though from what I have come to understand, the manner in which the inquiry is being handled is according to the House rules, in this situation of as you say ''this magnitude'' it would be wiser to hold them in a public venue.I'm all for getting it out in the open.

a reply to: network dude

There have been two Presidents (Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson) impeached thus far both arguably based on political rather than criminal/ethical grounds; neither was convicted and removed in the Senate.

Nixon resigned before the Articles of Impeachment were voted on by the full House.

Technically speaking, there's no requirement for a House Resolution to begin impeachment, and Committees can take such matters up as they choose. Here's a good summary prepared by the Library of Congress: Impeachment and Removal - CRS

Aside from that, of course Trump's impeachment is political. Will it be justifiable in the court of public opinion?

We'll see. I'm sure that Republicans and particularly Trump supporters will never accept it.

a reply to: seagull

One of the gravest dangers in blind party loyalty is how easily people can be manipulated by it, into accepting things they should know are wrong.

Damn right this will now be done to the next Democrat President. It's entirely possible Trump could be impeached in the House, but at what cost in the future.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Gaetz is not on the Intelligence Committee. Nor are any of the other 30 members. It's a publicity stunt.

Schiff merely suspended the meeting and left the room until the agitators desisted.

The House rules allow the Committee's to hold closed door meetings.

Do I detect an air of desperation on the part of Trump devotees?

The intelligence committee shouldn't be handling this in the first place. This is the very first time in history.

Do I sense an air of desperation in the never Trumpers?

This is a classic sign and symptom of Acute vs Chronic TDS: ICD-10-CM F22.
They need court ordered hospitalization.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: seagull

One of the gravest dangers in blind party loyalty is how easily people can be manipulated by it, into accepting things they should know are wrong.

Damn right this will now be done to the next Democrat President. It's entirely possible Trump could be impeached in the House, but at what cost in the future.

A great point!

I mean, if Democrats do this to Trump, whats to stop Republicans from doing something equally odious like refusing to hold a confirmation on a duly nominated SC justice who was nominated by a Democratic president so that they could run out the clock till a Republican president was in power to nominate a hard-line conservative!?

Truly a slippery slope indeed.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

There is some small merit in Schiff's declaration that the secrecy is due to security concerns for the witnesses.

Here's my question: why hasn't Devin Nunes gone berserk? He's the Ranking Member on the Committee, and not known for being shy in defense of the President. He's actually argued for closed meetings on a few occasions, while of course, damning Democrats on Fox for the things he's done in the past.

a reply to: Blaine91555

President Trump has been saying no president should be treated they way he has been treated.


I do not see many on the left or democrats saying this will be bad for THEIR future.

why is that exactly??

are they short sighted, or stupid??

Democrats claim to be the most educated, it seems to be an oxymoron stance

who is the Ox and who is the Moron is yet to be seen clearly.

a reply to: Wayfarer

That's crazy talk. Republicans would never govern in bad faith like that.

a reply to: thedigirati

My guess is they know they will never have another dem in the whitehouse.

a reply to: thedigirati

President Trump has been saying no president should be treated they way he has been treated.


I do not see many on the left or democrats saying this will be bad for THEIR future.

Because it won't be. Unlike you guys we don't want our crooked politicians to be protected.

Thinking otherwise is nothing but pure projection.

originally posted by: Tearman
Republicans are present at all of these meetings, they are in no way shut out. Those crashers all belong in jail, for such an lawless stunt. And you guys are all completely deluded if you think this is okay for any reason. You're driving all sane people (if there ever were any) away from this site.

Dude, ATS political threads are one of the last great bastions of unbreakable Trump support. I can't go anywhere else on the internet for debate with such die-hard Trump supporters. Is it telling of the political winds? Probably, but its important I think for you and I to appreciate the opportunity for us to 'swim in the madness' so to speak.

Understanding being the first element to compassion and whatnot.