Do you think Trump will pardon Schiff?

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
How are the Democrats allowed to do these things behind closed doors and exclude the other half of the House?
 

SailorGirl

Well-Known Member
How are the Democrats allowed to do these things behind closed doors and exclude the other half of the House?
Some Republicans are allowed to attend and question. Some of the more notables are Gym Jordon, Mark Meadows, Chip Roy, Clay Higgins, Devin Nunes, and Joe Wilson.

I was able to find a few write ups on it but I'd have to pay to read them. Did find this which mentions Jordon: https://q13fox.com/2019/10/23/republicans-storm-impeachment-inquiry-deposition/

From the article::

"Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the Oversight Committee who has been in all of the depositions so far, said the Republican disruption was justified because "it's finally reached a boiling point where members just said they are so frustrated at the idea that they can't be a part of this and see what's going on."
 
Last edited:
There are 45 Republican members of the three House Committes conducting the Impeachment Inquiry plus Republican staff who along with Democrat Staff members who do most of the questioning.
 

baxter

Active Member
Number one, they are doing it behind closed doors, the more important issues here is there are people in the US that actually believe this crap!!!
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Some Republicans are allowed to attend and question. Some of the more notables are Gym Jordon, Mark Meadows, Chip Roy, Clay Higgins, Devin Nunes, and Joe Wilson.

I was able to find a few write ups on it but I'd have to pay to read them. Did find this which mentions Jordon: https://q13fox.com/2019/10/23/republicans-storm-impeachment-inquiry-deposition/

From the article::

"Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the Oversight Committee who has been in all of the depositions so far, said the Republican disruption was justified because "it's finally reached a boiling point where members just said they are so frustrated at the idea that they can't be a part of this and see what's going on."
I read the constitution to say that impeachment is a function of the House, not selective committees of the House. It would seem that all representatives should be welcomed in such proceedings.
 

WingsOfGold

Well-Known Member
If I were Emperor I'd put Shitt on the mat with Jim Jordon. Jordan may give up some weight and size but I'd bet he would wipe the mat with him.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I read the constitution to say that impeachment is a function of the House, not selective committees of the House. It would seem that all representatives should be welcomed in such proceedings.
Even more why the HELL is HPSCI doing this?
 

SailorGirl

Well-Known Member
Even more why the HELL is HPSCI doing this?
I don't know - maybe because it's not impeachment yet, only an investigation into impeachment? I know a few Democrats and at least one Republican have stated that they are waiting to see the results of the probe before they decide to vote for or against impeachment.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Even more why the HELL is HPSCI doing this?
I suspect this (i.e., HPSCI) is tied to this:
It's interesting that the Dems are holding these "interviews" in the SCIF.
Since it's the HPSCI then there must be intel involved.* And if intel is involved, then it makes using a SCIF seem legit. And using the SCIF makes it sound like there's some serious classified stuff going on. And "serious classified stuff going on" means it must be important. And "important" means it must be bad for Trump. And "bad for Trump" means...

Everybody, join in and all together sing that catchy tune all the Dems kids are singing:
I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T-!

*A variation on the whole 2016-2018 Russian Collusion play.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
I read the constitution to say that impeachment is a function of the House, not selective committees of the House. It would seem that all representatives should be welcomed in such proceedings.
Whewie...you definitely are a member of the ignorati alright.

Just to point out the stunningly obvious:

This is an impeachment inquiry. We are not yet at the impeachment stage.

This is what the Constitution says:
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section4 Article 1 Section 2 Clause 5

That is all it says. What you "seem" to think it says it incredibly irrelevant...especially given that this is an inquiry...not yet an actual impeachment proceeding.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.
I wonder if any of you morons know where that passage originated?

No guesses???

Report of the Select Committee onthe Events Surrounding the 2012Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

Click on IV. Compliance with Congressional Investigations

Then just scroll down to page 11...3rd paragraph.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
This is an impeachment inquiry. We are not yet at the impeachment stage.

This is what the Constitution says: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section4 Article 1 Section 2 Clause 5
True. That's all it says.

Curious that you make no mention of precedents established as a result of previous Presidential or Federal judge impeachments...? Does precedent have a "say"? Fine if you say no. But for an institution that seems to value tradition and precedent this is a remarkable departure.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I wonder if any of you morons know where that passage originated?

No guesses???

Report of the Select Committee onthe Events Surrounding the 2012Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

Click on IV. Compliance with Congressional Investigations

Then just scroll down to page 11...3rd paragraph.
Just to point out the stunningly obvious: Benghazi dealt directly with an Intelligence issue, which made those proceedings (in the Intelligence Committee) appropriate. Please explain the Intelligence element(s) regarding impeachment inquiry. And please justify why this shouldn't be handled in the Oversight Committee.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Then just scroll down to page 11...3rd paragraph.
Nice snip. But you highlighted the wrong portion. The operative reasoning centers on this:
Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.
How does this statement apply to the hearings currently being conducted? The answer: it doesn't.

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Top