Do you think Trump will pardon Schiff?

[This_person]

https://twitter.com/wissmel/status/1187013631445291008

Good for them, they’re fighting back. Now the Senate needs to support them and say they wouldn’t go along with the sham. If they’re not going to follow the Constitution and due process, the Senate should refuse to even entertain anything that comes from the House.

 

[vraiblonde]

How are the Democrats allowed to do these things behind closed doors and exclude the other half of the House?

 

[PrchJrkr]

Because nobody has the kahunas to put their foot down and put a stop to it.

 

[stgislander]

It's interesting that the Dems are holding these "interviews" in the SCIF.

 

[somdwatch]

All they are trying to do, is bring dirt to the press. Nothing will ever come of any of it. It is just a smear.

 

[luthersomd]

How are the Democrats allowed to do these things behind closed doors and exclude the other half of the House?

 

[luthersomd]

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.

 

[GURPS]

 

[baxter]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Yooper]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

 

[This_person]

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

It is? What are the crimes they are investigating to write the articles of impeachment?

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.

Well, all I saw in your link to the constitution (first time for ya?) was that it is up to the House to impeach, not the Speaker or select committees.

But, you say here it is "not yet an actual impeachment proceeding", but in the previous part of your quote above it says, "this is an impeachment inquiry." Which is it? It is an "impeachment inquiry", or "not an actual impeachment proceeding"? Do you even know?