Anonymous
10/25/2019 00:55
Subject: Republicans storm SCIF in violation of the rules
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[i]Outspoken California Rep. Darrell Issa was escorted out of a House deposition on Benghazi on Tuesday after he tried to crash the closed-door panel on Capitol Hill, NBC News reported. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, had no qualms about kicking Issa out of the meeting. Issa previously conducted an investigation into the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, but he is not a member of the congressional committee — and after Gowdy confronted him, Issa stormed off. "I'm a prosecutor, we always follow the rules," Gowdy later told NBC News. "[Issa] is not a [Benghazi] committee member and non-committee members are not allowed in the room during the deposition. Those are the rules and we have to follow them, no exceptions made."[i/]
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Rep-Darrell-Issa-Escorted-Out-of-Benghazi-Panel-307739641.html
Thanks for finding this! Also to remind everyone, the rules they are following now were instituted by that partisan Democrat, Paul Ryan!
Yes! The expectation is that it is all okay for the GOP to implement such rules when the Republicans are in the majority, but when the Dems follow the rules created by the GOP, who are now in the minority, they and all their supporters scream foul. No pun intended, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Do the rules include sending your staff member to a foreign nation to talk to the witnesses prior to them coming forward? How about not disclosing you met with a whistleblower a month prior to them coming forward?
They don't PRECLUDE that. There are no rules! This is, once again, NOT A COURT OF LAW.
I am unclear what about meeting with the whistleblower, who is not coming under investigation, has to do with anything.
Even in the far more rigorously regulated criminal justice system cops meet with witnesses long before charges are filed or even investigations are opened.
Of course you are unclear. Because you have NO clue that Schiff met with these people AND you don’t want to believe anything was schemed up during those meetings. As I said, it was about the Grandkids. I’m sure of it
I have to give credit to the posters here who respond to you wingnuts with infinite patience. But personally, I just can’t anymore. Your stupidity, ignorance, and paranoia are destroying our country.
Anonymous
10/25/2019 00:23
Subject: Re:Republicans storm SCIF in violation of the rules
Plus we have two committees conducting this investigation, right? Secondly, at whatever time articles of impeachment are recommended to the full House those debates will be public, right?
There are three: Oversight, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs. All three together form about a quarter of the entire House.
Secondly, at whatever time articles of impeachment are recommended to the full House those debates will be public, right?
Right. I can’t imagine why the Republicans are eager for that to happen, but yes it will happen.
Anonymous
10/25/2019 00:18
Subject: Re:Republicans storm SCIF in violation of the rules
Heck, I kinda like it. Politics is rambunctious at times and this is one of those times.
I've tried finding the rule book, and have come upon various governmental sources as well as the Cornell legal database, but am not able to figure out or find whatever it was that was signed by John Boehner. Nonetheless, government documents indicate that "normally" an impeachment investigation is referred to the Judiciary Committee by way of a House resolution, but I have found no place where it says this MUST occur. Plus we have two committees conducting this investigation, right? Secondly, at whatever time articles of impeachment are recommended to the full House those debates will be public, right?
Regardless, if it is being alleged by Republicans that the process being undertaken is a Constitutional violation or otherwise unlawful, I would invite them to provide citation of the specific provision(s) being violated. I fully recognize that four years from now (or even 16 months from now!) the shoe could be on the other foot, but for now I'll live with that. As far as I know, the minority does not have the power to take the House to court, so they'll have to figure it out on their own.
And again, at some point this process will indeed become public.
I've tried finding the rule book, and have come upon various governmental sources as well as the Cornell legal database, but am not able to figure out or find whatever it was that was signed by John Boehner. Nonetheless, government documents indicate that "normally" an impeachment investigation is referred to the Judiciary Committee by way of a House resolution, but I have found no place where it says this MUST occur. Plus we have two committees conducting this investigation, right? Secondly, at whatever time articles of impeachment are recommended to the full House those debates will be public, right?
Regardless, if it is being alleged by Republicans that the process being undertaken is a Constitutional violation or otherwise unlawful, I would invite them to provide citation of the specific provision(s) being violated. I fully recognize that four years from now (or even 16 months from now!) the shoe could be on the other foot, but for now I'll live with that. As far as I know, the minority does not have the power to take the House to court, so they'll have to figure it out on their own.
And again, at some point this process will indeed become public.
Anonymous
10/24/2019 22:57
Subject: Re:Republicans storm SCIF in violation of the rules
RepubliKarens:
Anonymous
10/24/2019 20:57
Subject: Re:Republicans storm SCIF in violation of the rules
Ha!Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous
10/24/2019 17:27
Subject: Re:Republicans storm SCIF in violation of the rules
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:quote]
I think they thought it was a tv show trial. Maybe like Law and Order: POTUS.
Doink doink.
I would totally watch a 'ripped from the headlines' L&O about this. They could really do it up right. And without too much fictionalization, it could even make an SVU episode!
AnonymousAnonymousAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[i]Outspoken California Rep. Darrell Issa was escorted out of a House deposition on Benghazi on Tuesday after he tried to crash the closed-door panel on Capitol Hill, NBC News reported. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, had no qualms about kicking Issa out of the meeting. Issa previously conducted an investigation into the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, but he is not a member of the congressional committee — and after Gowdy confronted him, Issa stormed off. "I'm a prosecutor, we always follow the rules," Gowdy later told NBC News. "[Issa] is not a [Benghazi] committee member and non-committee members are not allowed in the room during the deposition. Those are the rules and we have to follow them, no exceptions made."[i/]
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Rep-Darrell-Issa-Escorted-Out-of-Benghazi-Panel-307739641.html
Thanks for finding this! Also to remind everyone, the rules they are following now were instituted by that partisan Democrat, Paul Ryan!
Yes! The expectation is that it is all okay for the GOP to implement such rules when the Republicans are in the majority, but when the Dems follow the rules created by the GOP, who are now in the minority, they and all their supporters scream foul. No pun intended, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Do the rules include sending your staff member to a foreign nation to talk to the witnesses prior to them coming forward? How about not disclosing you met with a whistleblower a month prior to them coming forward?
They don't PRECLUDE that. There are no rules! This is, once again, NOT A COURT OF LAW.
I am unclear what about meeting with the whistleblower, who is not coming under investigation, has to do with anything.
Even in the far more rigorously regulated criminal justice system cops meet with witnesses long before charges are filed or even investigations are opened.
Of course you are unclear. Because you have NO clue that Schiff met with these people AND you don’t want to believe anything was schemed up during those meetings. As I said, it was about the Grandkids. I’m sure of it
Let's ask Giuliani, shall we? In a public hearing or private.AnonymousAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[i]Outspoken California Rep. Darrell Issa was escorted out of a House deposition on Benghazi on Tuesday after he tried to crash the closed-door panel on Capitol Hill, NBC News reported. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, had no qualms about kicking Issa out of the meeting. Issa previously conducted an investigation into the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, but he is not a member of the congressional committee — and after Gowdy confronted him, Issa stormed off. "I'm a prosecutor, we always follow the rules," Gowdy later told NBC News. "[Issa] is not a [Benghazi] committee member and non-committee members are not allowed in the room during the deposition. Those are the rules and we have to follow them, no exceptions made."[i/]
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Rep-Darrell-Issa-Escorted-Out-of-Benghazi-Panel-307739641.html
Thanks for finding this! Also to remind everyone, the rules they are following now were instituted by that partisan Democrat, Paul Ryan!
Yes! The expectation is that it is all okay for the GOP to implement such rules when the Republicans are in the majority, but when the Dems follow the rules created by the GOP, who are now in the minority, they and all their supporters scream foul. No pun intended, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Do the rules include sending your staff member to a foreign nation to talk to the witnesses prior to them coming forward? How about not disclosing you met with a whistleblower a month prior to them coming forward?
They don't PRECLUDE that. There are no rules! This is, once again, NOT A COURT OF LAW.
I am unclear what about meeting with the whistleblower, who is not coming under investigation, has to do with anything.
Even in the far more rigorously regulated criminal justice system cops meet with witnesses long before charges are filed or even investigations are opened.
Of course you are unclear. Because you have NO clue that Schiff met with these people AND you don’t want to believe anything was schemed up during those meetings. As I said, it was about the Grandkids. I’m sure of it
What is extremely clear is that you have very little understanding about the processes and procedures you are talking about.AnonymousAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[i]Outspoken California Rep. Darrell Issa was escorted out of a House deposition on Benghazi on Tuesday after he tried to crash the closed-door panel on Capitol Hill, NBC News reported. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, had no qualms about kicking Issa out of the meeting. Issa previously conducted an investigation into the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, but he is not a member of the congressional committee — and after Gowdy confronted him, Issa stormed off. "I'm a prosecutor, we always follow the rules," Gowdy later told NBC News. "[Issa] is not a [Benghazi] committee member and non-committee members are not allowed in the room during the deposition. Those are the rules and we have to follow them, no exceptions made."[i/]
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Rep-Darrell-Issa-Escorted-Out-of-Benghazi-Panel-307739641.html
Thanks for finding this! Also to remind everyone, the rules they are following now were instituted by that partisan Democrat, Paul Ryan!
Yes! The expectation is that it is all okay for the GOP to implement such rules when the Republicans are in the majority, but when the Dems follow the rules created by the GOP, who are now in the minority, they and all their supporters scream foul. No pun intended, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Do the rules include sending your staff member to a foreign nation to talk to the witnesses prior to them coming forward? How about not disclosing you met with a whistleblower a month prior to them coming forward?
They don't PRECLUDE that. There are no rules! This is, once again, NOT A COURT OF LAW.
I am unclear what about meeting with the whistleblower, who is not coming under investigation, has to do with anything.
Even in the far more rigorously regulated criminal justice system cops meet with witnesses long before charges are filed or even investigations are opened.
Of course you are unclear. Because you have NO clue that Schiff met with these people AND you don’t want to believe anything was schemed up during those meetings. As I said, it was about the Grandkids. I’m sure of it
You don’t know that Schiff met up with anyone either.AnonymousAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:[i]Outspoken California Rep. Darrell Issa was escorted out of a House deposition on Benghazi on Tuesday after he tried to crash the closed-door panel on Capitol Hill, NBC News reported. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, had no qualms about kicking Issa out of the meeting. Issa previously conducted an investigation into the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, but he is not a member of the congressional committee — and after Gowdy confronted him, Issa stormed off. "I'm a prosecutor, we always follow the rules," Gowdy later told NBC News. "[Issa] is not a [Benghazi] committee member and non-committee members are not allowed in the room during the deposition. Those are the rules and we have to follow them, no exceptions made."[i/]
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Rep-Darrell-Issa-Escorted-Out-of-Benghazi-Panel-307739641.html
Thanks for finding this! Also to remind everyone, the rules they are following now were instituted by that partisan Democrat, Paul Ryan!
Yes! The expectation is that it is all okay for the GOP to implement such rules when the Republicans are in the majority, but when the Dems follow the rules created by the GOP, who are now in the minority, they and all their supporters scream foul. No pun intended, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Do the rules include sending your staff member to a foreign nation to talk to the witnesses prior to them coming forward? How about not disclosing you met with a whistleblower a month prior to them coming forward?
They don't PRECLUDE that. There are no rules! This is, once again, NOT A COURT OF LAW.
I am unclear what about meeting with the whistleblower, who is not coming under investigation, has to do with anything.
Even in the far more rigorously regulated criminal justice system cops meet with witnesses long before charges are filed or even investigations are opened.
Of course you are unclear. Because you have NO clue that Schiff met with these people AND you don’t want to believe anything was schemed up during those meetings. As I said, it was about the Grandkids. I’m sure of itAnonymoushttps://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1187391400356253708
For the magats who essentially keep s#it posting stupidity in here, please see what your president’s boss thinks of him and our country. OP.AnonymousAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Schiff is not a cop. You know that, right?
It’s pretty suspicious when Schiff was so intimately involved with the initial whistleblower and some of the other witnesses, and then takes the proceedings into secret, without holding a traditional vote. They must’ve been talking about the grandchildren or something
1) Schiff himself never met with the Whistleblower. Someone from his staff told him how to file a formal complaint, which they did. What does that have to do with the admitted facts to date by the President and his Chief of staff?
2) The proceedings are secret from the American public, but not from 40+ GOP members of the committees and the GOP Committee attorneys - including 13 of the aggrieved congressmen from yesterdays protest.
3) They don't need to have a traditional vote for the stage of the investigation they are in now. The vote would happen after a report is issued, like it did with Ken Starr submitted his report in 1998. Maybe ask why the DOJ didn't open proceedings when it was informed of the potential crimes?
4) Maybe also ask why the Administration isn't being forthcoming with documents and witnesses. I mean, if they did nothing wrong, then they would want to get this cleared up as quickly as possible, right?
5) Stop watching Fox.
Thank you PP. I'm just out of patience with these people.AnonymousAnonymous wrote:Reading through this is exhausting.
So what is Schiff personally met with the whistleblower? So what if he massaged his/her back during the meeting? So what if Schiff WROTE the gd whistleblower report while he was massaging backs?
The report has been verified by all the evidence and testimony that has come out since then! Why are you so hung up on the process and care not about the substance? The REPORT has BEEN VERIFIED.
And, Republicans violated national security when THEY BROUGHT THEIR CELL PHONES INSIDE A SCIFAnonymousAnonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Given the fact that Schiff is horribly compromised, he should recuse or be told to step down. You agree, right?
Schiff is not compromised. Even if everything you wrote were true, it still wouldn’t make him compromised.
eh.. .Trumpsters are projecting. That's plainly obvious.