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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:You all realize Rep. Pence, the VP's brother, is on the panel for these depositions, right? Anything the VP and President need to know, he will tell them.

The rest of this is for show.

Unbelievable! TIL

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.

What? What could they be hiding. There will be a vote at the end of the day on whether to refer to impeach. And then the Senate will have to vote. The vote will happen. If the vote never happens then no impeachment.

If you have nothing to hide about the way you conduct your investigation, you would take the traditional vote.

I’d start with Schiff staffers going to Ukraine in August.

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.

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

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.

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.

If you’re going to talk about “tradition,” let’s talk about how “traditionally” there’s an investigation by DOJ instead of by the House. That’s how the Nixon and Clinton investigations proceeded. If you want to do things “traditionally,” your corrupt Attorney General should have investigated this when he received at least two different criminal referrals from at least two different Trump-appointed Inspectors General. But he didn’t, so here we are and the House has to undertake the investigation.

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

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.

No, that's not what it means. It means that this is how the House is proceeding for now.

I agree that this impeachment process is following tradition. Soon enough, The Donald will resign. Just like the president who he has modeled himself after.

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.

What? What could they be hiding. There will be a vote at the end of the day on whether to refer to impeach. And then the Senate will have to vote. The vote will happen. If the vote never happens then no impeachment.

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.