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.

But you know if the US Supreme Court hears an appeal by Trumpkins regarding the impeachment process, the Republican majority in the Court will find something to the effect that the U.S. Constitution guarantees everyone at least some basic level of due process and a fair hearing, or some bullshit like that.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But didn't Ratcliffe destroy Taylor anyways? So why would they have to do this?

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.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:Don't they realize republicans are on the committee? Or are they just a bunch of grandstanding pr grubbers? I will bet on the second.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know if they will scan the room for electronics after this breach? They could have knowingly or unknowingly planted a device.

A few hours were spent sweeping the room for devices after they left.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:He made a recording and tweeted it out, from the SCIF

https://twitter.com/RepAlexMooney/status/1187063885372841989

:wow:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:
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 releasing his own statement. But suddenly, he has nothing to say. What he did say before clamming up didn't help himself or Trump.

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.