Democrats using Intel Committee to keep impeachment facts hidden from the public, says WSJ's Kim Str

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,586
7,102
✟606,326.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Democrats using Intel Committee to keep impeachment facts hidden from the public, says WSJ's Kim Strassel

Congressional Democrats are skirting the past precedent of using the Judiciary Committee to impeach the president, and are instead relying on the House Intelligence Committee to shroud their work in darkness and keep vital facts hidden from the public, said Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel.

"I think the reason they are doing it through House Intelligence is so that they can keep everything secret, keep this whistleblower identity secret and the nature of some of the claims," she claimed Sunday on "The Journal Editorial Report."

"But that’s not very encouraging to the public," Strassel continued. "I think the other thing they’re doing is not holding a formal vote to have an impeachment inquiry and setting out the rules -- they’ve been denying Republicans the right to take part in some of this. These are all at variance with what past probes have done."


Strassel also said Democrats have obstructed the White House from participating in the impeachment process and have completely ignored past precedent and normal decorum.

"The House is not following the usual procedures, not allowing the White House to take part in things like asking witnesses questions or cross-examining them or calling them," she said.

"Since impeachment is a political tool, the goal of it is to convince the public that you are doing things in a fair and just manner, and they’re certainly not, because they’re not abiding by any of the past courtesies or standards that impeachment probes use."
 

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Democrats using Intel Committee to keep impeachment facts hidden from the public, says WSJ's Kim Strassel

Congressional Democrats are skirting the past precedent of using the Judiciary Committee to impeach the president, and are instead relying on the House Intelligence Committee to shroud their work in darkness and keep vital facts hidden from the public, said Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel.

"I think the reason they are doing it through House Intelligence is so that they can keep everything secret, keep this whistleblower identity secret and the nature of some of the claims," she claimed Sunday on "The Journal Editorial Report."

"But that’s not very encouraging to the public," Strassel continued. "I think the other thing they’re doing is not holding a formal vote to have an impeachment inquiry and setting out the rules -- they’ve been denying Republicans the right to take part in some of this. These are all at variance with what past probes have done."


Strassel also said Democrats have obstructed the White House from participating in the impeachment process and have completely ignored past precedent and normal decorum.

"The House is not following the usual procedures, not allowing the White House to take part in things like asking witnesses questions or cross-examining them or calling them," she said.

"Since impeachment is a political tool, the goal of it is to convince the public that you are doing things in a fair and just manner, and they’re certainly not, because they’re not abiding by any of the past courtesies or standards that impeachment probes use."

"shroud in darkness". lol

Wait...they are keeping the whistleblowers identity secret? How dare they do exactly what they are required to do. The Horror!

Is This Kim Strassel person looking to write tween gothic fantasy like twilight? is there a reason I should care about Kim Strassels opinion on this more, than, say, the Easter Bunny's?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Since impeachment is a political tool, the goal of it is to convince the public that you are doing things in a fair and just manner, and they’re certainly not, because they’re not abiding by any of the past courtesies or standards that impeachment probes use."

They are dealing with a very unpredictable president, someone who thinks it is quite acceptable to slander and malign the whistleblower he knows nothing about, knowing full well there are a lot of crazies out their who take his accusations of treason, his conflation of himself and his own personal interest with the constitution and so on, seriously. Anyone dealing with Trump has to proceed with additional caution. Given that Trump has rollled roughshod over the expected courtesies and standards of normal behaviour while in office, he can't hardly complain if people are wary in dealing with him, and the conflation in this quote between 'fair and just' and 'past courtesies' is rather misleading. There isn't an unbreakable link between one and the other, or any link, at all.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
They are dealing with a very unpredictable president ...
... in other words, he's not playing by their rules.Yes. That's true. Trump is not playing as Democrats think he should.

Not that it matters much. If Democrats had any real evidence against Trump, they'd wouldn't have to go under cover to do their dirty deed. They'd have impeached him already ... if they had any real evidence. But, as we all are seeing, they don't. Instead, they just keep hoping they can manufacture something, maybe convince enough people that Trump=bad so maybe they'll have a chance in the 2020 election.

Democrats, instead of impeachment, should take this time to rebuild their party ... retire their old tired members and let the new young socialists mold the party as they know it should be. Then we could have a good election discussion in 2024 about the merits of socialism ... because socialism loves open and free discussion, right?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: abysmul
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
"But that’s not very encouraging to the public," Strassel continued. "I think the other thing they’re doing is not holding a formal vote to have an impeachment inquiry and setting out the rules -- they’ve been denying Republicans the right to take part in some of this. These are all at variance with what past probes have done."
Here's another ignorant clown who doesn't seem to understand that the House can't hold a formal vote while it is not in session.
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,586
7,102
✟606,326.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Here's another ignorant clown who doesn't seem to understand that the House can't hold a formal vote while it is not in session.
They have had plenty of time to hold a vote of the whole house so the question is: Why haven't they?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: NightHawkeye
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,586
7,102
✟606,326.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
"shroud in darkness". lol

Wait...they are keeping the whistleblowers identity secret? How dare they do exactly what they are required to do. The Horror!

Is This Kim Strassel person looking to write tween gothic fantasy like twilight? is there a reason I should care about Kim Strassels opinion on this more, than, say, the Easter Bunny's?
They are dealing with a very unpredictable president, someone who thinks it is quite acceptable to slander and malign the whistleblower he knows nothing about, knowing full well there are a lot of crazies out their who take his accusations of treason, his conflation of himself and his own personal interest with the constitution and so on, seriously. Anyone dealing with Trump has to proceed with additional caution. Given that Trump has rollled roughshod over the expected courtesies and standards of normal behaviour while in office, he can't hardly complain if people are wary in dealing with him, and the conflation in this quote between 'fair and just' and 'past courtesies' is rather misleading. There isn't an unbreakable link between one and the other, or any link, at all.
Couldn't care less about the so called 'whistleblower'. The real question is why are they holding an 'impeachment query' through the intelligence committee and not the judiciary committee where it should be and historically has been? The author makes a good point of being able to shroud the inquisition (IMO) in secrecy as opposed to the more open forum of the judiciary committee.
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Couldn't care less about the so called 'whistleblower'. The real question is why are they holding an 'impeachment query' through the intelligence committee and not the judiciary committee where it should be and historically has been? The author makes a good point of being able to shroud the inquisition (IMO) in secrecy as opposed to the more open forum of the judiciary committee.

Nobody that uses the word "shroud" is making a good point. It's funny though:

On the left, we have 2 Ukrainian colleagues of the president's personal attorney arrested on campaign finance violations, and even have pictures of the 2 of them being chummy with Trump

On the right, we have some journo whinging about house procedure.

Classic stuff.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
They have had plenty of time to hold a vote of the whole house so the question is: Why haven't they?
The House rose on the 27th of last month, two days after the transcript was released. Two days wasn't enough time. Why don't you wait until the House reconvenes before you start complaining about it?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Tom 1
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Couldn't care less about the so called 'whistleblower'. The real question is why are they holding an 'impeachment query' through the intelligence committee and not the judiciary committee where it should be and historically has been? The author makes a good point of being able to shroud the inquisition (IMO) in secrecy as opposed to the more open forum of the judiciary committee.
Because the impeachment inquiry has not yet begun. First you complain that there was not yet a House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry, now you are complaining that the nonexistent impeachment inquiry is being held in the wrong committee. I wish you would make up your mind what it is you wanted.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GreatLakes4Ever

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2019
3,436
4,859
38
Midwest
✟261,907.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Engaged
The House rose on the 27th of last month, two days after the transcript was released. Two days wasn't enough time. Why don't you wait until the House reconvenes before you start complaining about it?

Because it’s all about try to derail trump’s impeachment based on a technicality. If the vote happens does anyone think it will change anything by the people on the Right?

They have had plenty of time to hold a vote of the whole house so the question is: Why haven't they?

Can I trust that if Pelosi calls for a full House vote and it succeeds that Trump will full comply?

Can I trust you that you will complain about Trump if he fails to?
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
under cover

At some point you will have to realise that ideas like the one expressed here simply don’t match reality. Making some comparisons into different ways in which you react to similar stories about people you support and people you don’t could be genuinely helpful. Try comparing actual accounts of the differences between the actions of the different people involved, rather than basing your ideas on meaningless slogans and insinuations.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
the so called 'whistleblower'.

What do you mean ‘so-called’? If you think the whistle blower is a fiction or a ‘deep state agent’ of some sort without a legitimate issue please provide your evidence. You could also explain why Trump’s staff put the actual transcript of the call on immediate lockdown, invoking the highest level of classification for a routine call? Why have details been edited out of the relevant parts of the ‘rough transcript’ that was released? The list gets longer but those would be a starting point.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
in other words, he's not playing by their rules.

What rules are you referring to, and in what specific ways does spending most of his time watching tv, using his position as prez for personal gain and trying to smear anyone he doesn’t like break those rules?
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Couldn't care less about the so called 'whistleblower'. The real question is why are they holding an 'impeachment query' through the intelligence committee and not the judiciary committee where it should be and historically has been? The author makes a good point of being able to shroud the inquisition (IMO) in secrecy as opposed to the more open forum of the judiciary committee.

One reason may be that the number of impeachable offences and related evidence keeps multiplying. They are playing a kind of reverse whack-a-mole, maybe things will become clearer once it is all drawn up into something approaching a coherent whole that has some resistance to Trump’s continual whataboutism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The House rose on the 27th of last month, two days after the transcript was released. Two days wasn't enough time. Why don't you wait until the House reconvenes before you start complaining about it?

It wasn't enough time? Two days ? Explain why the House is incapable of taking a vote in two days. And also explain why if the House is considering impeachment at all that staying to consider voting on it ought not take precedent over the members getting time off?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 28, 2015
14,586
7,102
✟606,326.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Because the impeachment inquiry has not yet begun.
According to the Democrats it has.....
The House rose on the 27th of last month, two days after the transcript was released. Two days wasn't enough time. Why don't you wait until the House reconvenes before you start complaining about it?
If they were that serious about impeachment, Pelosi would not have adjourned the House. After all, it is not like they have to go home and campaign.
What do you mean ‘so-called’? If you think the whistle blower is a fiction or a ‘deep state agent’ of some sort without a legitimate issue please provide your evidence. You could also explain why Trump’s staff put the actual transcript of the call on immediate lockdown, invoking the highest level of classification for a routine call? Why have details been edited out of the relevant parts of the ‘rough transcript’ that was released? The list gets longer but those would be a starting point.
If the so called 'whistleblower' really had serious evidence of wrong doing the Democrats would have had him testify by now. They just like the dog and pony show they have going.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If the so called 'whistleblower' really had serious evidence of wrong doing the Democrats would have had him testify by now.

I don’t get this idea at all. What is the relevance of what you or I think this or that other person ‘would have done’ if some thing you don’t believe was the case? I don’t see how that is an argument.
Trump in any case relies on the slow pace at which the wheels of the law turn, it’s been one of his main tactics in dealing with fraud cases, the other being the liberal use of hush money when the alternatives start getting too close for comfort. The steady pace of impeachment will provide Trump with plenty of opportunity to smear his opponents, as clearly demonstrated to date he has no need to be truthful about anything, all he needs is a handful of nicknames and slogans.
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What do you mean ‘so-called’? If you think the whistle blower is a fiction or a ‘deep state agent’ of some sort without a legitimate issue please provide your evidence. You could also explain why Trump’s staff put the actual transcript of the call on immediate lockdown, invoking the highest level of classification for a routine call? Why have details been edited out of the relevant parts of the ‘rough transcript’ that was released? The list gets longer but those would be a starting point.

The person or person's that filed a whistle blower complaint surely exist but there is a question as to whether the whistle they claim to be blowing is a real one or not. As the transcript of the call is available it seems that the whistleblower's testimony would be superfluous, irrelevant or , like Schiff's attempt at "parody", humorously incorrect.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: civilwarbuff
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums