Republicans storm SCIF in violation of the rules

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nearly 50 Republicans are already allowed to participate in the closed hearings, they are given equal time to ask questions and have access to staffers.
Once the fact gathering phase is completed and key witnesses are on record they will release transcripts of the closed hearings, hold public hearings and vote. One reason the hearings are closed currently is to make it harder for witnesses to coordinate testimony.
Today’s stunt felt a little bit like witness intimidation to me. I hope ms Cooper was not shaken by mob like atmosphere in what is supposed to be a highly secure area

There was a full house vote on opening an inquiry re: Clinton and Nixon.

Yes, because there had already been thorough confidential investigations by the Department of Justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nearly 50 Republicans are already allowed to participate in the closed hearings, they are given equal time to ask questions and have access to staffers.
Once the fact gathering phase is completed and key witnesses are on record they will release transcripts of the closed hearings, hold public hearings and vote. One reason the hearings are closed currently is to make it harder for witnesses to coordinate testimony.
Today’s stunt felt a little bit like witness intimidation to me. I hope ms Cooper was not shaken by mob like atmosphere in what is supposed to be a highly secure area

There was a full house vote on opening an inquiry re: Clinton and Nixon.

Yes, because there is already been thorough confidential investigations by the department of justice.

So what you are claiming is since Barr is ‘corrupt’ the Dems have no choice but to hold super secret meetings without the whole house involved? HAHAHAHAHHAAA.

Why did Schiff’s staffer go to the Ukraine and talk to the some of these witnesses. You realize the original whistleblower can’t testify because of this, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in an official impeachment inquiry so the rules kick in and these things won't happen.

No vote is required. Nancy already announced the beginning of impeachment inquiry om 9/24: https://www.c-span.org/video/?464684-1/speaker-pelosi-announces-formal-impeachment-inquiry-president-trump

The is no law and nothing in the Constitution that requires a vote. We are in the midst of the inquiry.

A formal inquiry does indeed require a vote.

The Constitution does not require that.

This is a formal inquiry. We'll get public hearings soon, and then we'll hear all the horrible details.

It is tradition. Not voting means that the Dems have something to hide.

Tradition? For both Nixon and Clinton, there were special counsel reports that had all of the information - artifacts, letters, depositions etc, bundled into a report. the current House is compiling that information now, since there is no special counsel and Barr didn't seek to recuse himself, despite the obvious conflicts. As such, they aren't in a position to "vote" on anything yet. if the facts of the depositions warrant it, then there will be a vote to formally open proceedings, at which point, there will be open hearings and evidence presented to support any articles of impeachment.


So no, at this juncture, it would be premature to vote on anything and thus your statement is fraught with fallacies.

There was a full house vote in both Clinton and Nixon’s case.

Yes, because there had already been thorough confidential investigations by the Department of Justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nearly 50 Republicans are already allowed to participate in the closed hearings, they are given equal time to ask questions and have access to staffers.
Once the fact gathering phase is completed and key witnesses are on record they will release transcripts of the closed hearings, hold public hearings and vote. One reason the hearings are closed currently is to make it harder for witnesses to coordinate testimony.
Today’s stunt felt a little bit like witness intimidation to me. I hope ms Cooper was not shaken by mob like atmosphere in what is supposed to be a highly secure area

There was a full house vote on opening an inquiry re: Clinton and Nixon.

Yes, because there is already been thorough confidential investigations by the department of justice.

So what you are claiming is since Barr is ‘corrupt’ the Dems have no choice but to hold super secret meetings without the whole house involved? HAHAHAHAHHAAA.

Why did Schiff’s staffer go to the Ukraine and talk to the some of these witnesses. You realize the original whistleblower can’t testify because of this, right?

Why do you think that Barr didn’t open an investigation once he got two different criminal referrals from two different inspectors general?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nearly 50 Republicans are already allowed to participate in the closed hearings, they are given equal time to ask questions and have access to staffers.
Once the fact gathering phase is completed and key witnesses are on record they will release transcripts of the closed hearings, hold public hearings and vote. One reason the hearings are closed currently is to make it harder for witnesses to coordinate testimony.
Today’s stunt felt a little bit like witness intimidation to me. I hope ms Cooper was not shaken by mob like atmosphere in what is supposed to be a highly secure area

There was a full house vote on opening an inquiry re: Clinton and Nixon.

Yes, because there is already been thorough confidential investigations by the department of justice.

So what you are claiming is since Barr is ‘corrupt’ the Dems have no choice but to hold super secret meetings without the whole house involved? HAHAHAHAHHAAA.

Why did Schiff’s staffer go to the Ukraine and talk to the some of these witnesses. You realize the original whistleblower can’t testify because of this, right?

Obviously Schiff's staffer told Taylor exactly what to say and what to write in his contemporaneous notes.

He has a time machine.

[Anonymous]

Bringing this back to the stunt, because it’s not a thread about the impeachment in general:

House chairman asks sergeant at arms to 'take action' after Republicans bring electronics to secure hearing

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/467179-house-chairman-asks-sergeant-at-arms-to-take-action-after-republicans-bring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in an official impeachment inquiry so the rules kick in and these things won't happen.

No vote is required. Nancy already announced the beginning of impeachment inquiry om 9/24: https://www.c-span.org/video/?464684-1/speaker-pelosi-announces-formal-impeachment-inquiry-president-trump

The is no law and nothing in the Constitution that requires a vote. We are in the midst of the inquiry.

A formal inquiry does indeed require a vote.

The Constitution does not require that.

This is a formal inquiry. We'll get public hearings soon, and then we'll hear all the horrible details.

It is tradition. Not voting means that the Dems have something to hide.

They couldn't hide anything even if they wanted. First, all the information is in the Executive Branch. Trump could release any documents that.would exonerate him ( as he did with the "perfect" transcript). He could also schedule a press conference with any witness who could.help him. If there were any, we'd know by now.

Second, all the hearings have Republicans in the room. They know what was said so they already have any testimony that might help Trump's case. They can leak such information at any time (A Congressperson can't be prosecuted for anything they say in the House chamber).

Third, the Senate trial will be 100% in public. The Democrats will have to show the transcript or call the witnesses in. They will be cross-examined in public by Trump's lawyers. Any information that wouod help Trump will come out.

Fourth, the central figure appears to be Giuliani. He was the message bearer, the one with direct.access to Trump. He could clear it all up by answering the subpoena or relasing his own statement. But suddenly, he has nothing to say. What he did say before clamming up didn't help himself or Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bringing this back to the stunt, because it’s not a thread about the impeachment in general:

House chairman asks sergeant at arms to 'take action' after Republicans bring electronics to secure hearing

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/467179-house-chairman-asks-sergeant-at-arms-to-take-action-after-republicans-bring

[Anonymous]

The Republicans only went in to plant a bug, imo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bringing this back to the stunt, because it’s not a thread about the impeachment in general:

House chairman asks sergeant at arms to 'take action' after Republicans bring electronics to secure hearing

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/467179-house-chairman-asks-sergeant-at-arms-to-take-action-after-republicans-bring

"Secure hearing" my ass.
There is no reason to have these hearings in a SCIF. Unless you are Adam Schiff and want them to appear to be full of classified information, which they aren't.

I think it's hilarious.
Glad the Republicans are trying to bring some sunlight to a very secretive and unfair process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a list of the not so bright congressscritters who took part in this invasion?

Gaetz announced the Representatives who would enter the SCIF: Steve Scalise, Jim Jordan, Mark Walker, Andy Biggs, Lee Zeldin, Mo Brooks, Mark Meadows, Kevin Hern, Paul Gosar, Steve Watkins, Debbie Lesko, Russ Fulcher, Buddy Carter, Steve King, Bill Johnson, Fred Keller, Brian Babin, Ken Buck, Michael Waltz, Ralph Norman, Louie Gohmert, Mark Green, Carol Miller, Vicky Hartzler, Alex Mooney, Jeff Duncan, Drew Ferguson, Gary Palmer, Jody Hice, Duncan Hunter, Ross Spano, Bradley Byrne, David Rouzer, Markwayne Mullin, Randy Weber, Pete Olson, Ron Wright, Scott Perry, Greg Murphy, and Ben Cline.

Jordan and Meadows and Lesko are on committees that should have allowed them entrance. Where did you get this?

Jordan and Meadows are on the Oversight Committee and Lesko is on the Judiciary. I'm not looking up all the others. But this cannot be an accurate list since some of those people were allowed in.

Gohmert is also on the Judiciary!

And Gosar and Hice are also on Oversight. Cline, Biggs and Geatz are on the Judiciary.

AGAIN, Judiciary is not one of the committees involved in the depositions - it’s Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight. As posted upthread, some of these guys participated in the stunt for their audience of one even though they DO have access to the process, further proving that this is a dumb stunt.

I had my response box open and was looking up the committees while typing that so didn't see until after the fact. But for the record so everyone on this thread knows. These are the Republicans who are currently witnessing and able to question witnesses in these 'secret' depositions:

House Foreign Affairs R's:
Michael McCaul, Texas, Ranking Member
Chris Smith, New Jersey
Steve Chabot, Ohio
Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Ted Yoho, Florida
Adam Kinzinger, Illinois
Lee Zeldin, New York
Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin
Ann Wagner, Missouri, Vice Ranking Member
Brian Mast, Florida
Francis Rooney, Florida
Brian Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
John Curtis, Utah
Ken Buck, Colorado
Ron Wright, Texas
Guy Reschenthaler, Pennsylvania
Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Greg Pence, Indiana
Steve Watkins, Kansas
Michael Guest, Mississippi

House Intelligence R's:
Devin Nunes, California, Ranking Member
Mike Conaway, Texas
Mike Turner, Ohio
Brad Wenstrup, Ohio
Chris Stewart, Utah
Rick Crawford, Arkansas
Elise Stefanik, New York
Will Hurd, Texas
John Ratcliffe, Texas

House Oversight R's:
Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Jody Hice, Georgia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
James Comer, Kentucky
Michael Cloud, Texas
Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Chip Roy, Texas
Carol Miller, West Virginia
Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Greg Steube, Florida
Fred Keller, Pennsylvania

Updated list of the dumb stuntmen today. An asterisk means they actually have access to the hearings and still participated in the dumb stunt.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the list.

Just read an article discussing how many repubs who "stormed" already had access. Another Trump stunt.
https://www.axios.com/house-republicans-scif-impeachment-inquiry-67cf94d5-b2be-4420-ab4c-0582eb1369ef.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bringing this back to the stunt, because it’s not a thread about the impeachment in general:

House chairman asks sergeant at arms to 'take action' after Republicans bring electronics to secure hearing

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/467179-house-chairman-asks-sergeant-at-arms-to-take-action-after-republicans-bring

"Secure hearing" my ass.
There is no reason to have these hearings in a SCIF. Unless you are Adam Schiff and want them to appear to be full of classified information, which they aren't.

I think it's hilarious.
Glad the Republicans are trying to bring some sunlight to a very secretive and unfair process.

I'm sure Zelensky thinks Trump and Giuliani are hilarious too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in an official impeachment inquiry so the rules kick in and these things won't happen.

No vote is required. Nancy already announced the beginning of impeachment inquiry om 9/24: https://www.c-span.org/video/?464684-1/speaker-pelosi-announces-formal-impeachment-inquiry-president-trump

The is no law and nothing in the Constitution that requires a vote. We are in the midst of the inquiry.

A formal inquiry does indeed require a vote.

The Constitution does not require that.

This is a formal inquiry. We'll get public hearings soon, and then we'll hear all the horrible details.

It is tradition. Not voting means that the Dems have something to hide.

Any proof of this statement? Please link it. Otherwise, it is just a statement with zero proof or meaning.

History is on my side. Nixon and Clinton cases there was a full house vote re: inquiry

"Twice" doesn't equal tradition. And even if it did, tradition is not a law or a rule. House rules permit closed-session investigation. Also, the Intelligence Committee usually has closed sessions when classified information could be revealed. Nunes held closed sessions not so long ago. Dod you forget?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans only went in to plant a bug, imo

Why would they need to do this? There are 50+ GOP members and attorneys present for all of the proceedings.