Why did Republicans force their way into Impeachment Hearing?

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) said:

I had to stop reading at the first line because it is false. It is not an impeachment hearing. If anything, it is an investigation on possible quid pro quo to determine it a crime actually occurred. There can be no impeachment if their is no crime. Again, it is not an impeachment hearing. Congress has to first vote for an impeachment for there to be impeachment hearings.

Click to expand...

You keep claiming that but perhaps you could show me where that requirement is in the Constitution, or even in US law? As I mentioned before, the Nixon Impeachment was sent to committee -- the same way Trumps is being handled -- for several months. It was only after they had completed the majority of the investigation that they had a vote, and then they had a week of open hearings (6ish months after it started).

Clinton the House did not investigate, they used Ken Starr's report on Whitewater, which is why there was no "investigation" before the vote -- they didn't do any investigation themselves.

But, I'll tell you what, show me the House Rule (not just precedent, but a published House rule) that requires a vote before starting any impeachment investigation.

Pommer said:

And…?

Click to expand...

Someone didn’t know the new rules on posting videos.

Kenny'sID said:

Right as rain..why?

Click to expand...

You seemed confused.

You are now telling me that's not what this whole thread is about...that the Dems weren't supposed to crash the hearing, and there is no rule against doing so??

Are YOU feeling alright?

Click to expand...

You still seem to have your Democrats and Republicans mixed up.

TLK Valentine said:

You seemed confused.

As do you

You still seem to have your Democrats and Republicans mixed up.

Click to expand...

Let me try this...what party barged into the hearing when they weren't supposed too?

Mountainmanbob said:

Click to expand...

Here's why Republicans think that Private, behind closed doors, interviews are better, more productive, etc. than public hearings.

I give you Trey Gowdy on the Benghazi investigation.... starting at 4:10

Kenny'sID said:

Let me try this...what party barged into the hearing when they weren't supposed too?

Click to expand...

Members of the Republican party did that.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

rjs330 said:

I don't really care about the secrecy. It's all going to come out eventually. And don't we get a lot of leaks now? It's funny how they gave this super secret meeting and ten minutes after it's over we find out about some stuff. What I think is goofy is in today's political climate people don't realize the Dems do the same thing that the Republicans are doing if the roles were reversed.

Click to expand...

I think more and more of us do realize that. In my state alone 1/3 of the registered voters are registered unaffiliated. Neither party is, imo anyway, worthy of devotion to them alone.

Hank77 said:

Here's why Republicans think that Private, behind closed doors, interviews are better, more productive, etc. than public hearings.

I give you Trey Gowdy on the Benghazi investigation.... starting at 4:10

Click to expand...

He makes a great point, a major reason to keep the testimony private is to eliminate the grandstanding that both sides like to do when cameras are present.

Mountainmanbob said:

Maybe we learned something since then?
Hopefully?
M-Bob

Click to expand...

It worked well for the Nixon investigation.

Generally, basic fact-finding in "wrongdoing investigations" (can't say "criminal" in this context) are held behind closed doors. If the investigation turns out to be non-actionable, there is no reason to release any personal or confidential information that might have been uncovered.

Let's say you were being investigated for fraud or embezzlement. The investigation will go into your personal life, your travel history, your bank accounts, your investments. But then, say, they find no evidence of any wrongdoing. Do you want them to have disclosed everything they uncovered about your life to he public?

Of course not.

So people need to stop nattering about this being kept behind closed doors until if or when they decide to hold a vote on impeachment. Then they should make public whatever information they have that is pertinent to the impeachment question.

The non-scandal over Ukraine will pass soon enough, but the proceedings we are discussing surely cannot be called either transparent or credible, everything else aside.

After years of Democrats griping that something or other is not transparent...or balanced...it should not come as a complete shock that their hypocrisy has been noticed by people both inside and outside of Congress.

Hank77 said:

Here's why Republicans think that Private, behind closed doors, interviews are better, more productive, etc. than public hearings.

I give you Trey Gowdy on the Benghazi investigation.... starting at 4:10

Click to expand...

Also, Trey Gowdy in the final Benghazi Report stated, "The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

"Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed inter-view and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints."

He did a great job of explaining why these hearings are not public, and limited to the members of the committees invited.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) said:

I think the bigger question is why the Democrats are keeping the Republicans out? @cow451 ,I think the answer is that the Democrats are desperate.

Click to expand...

Keeping WHO out...???

They’ve got 48 members of their own in the hearings...!

Good grief..

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) said:

Because these secret hearings are unprecedented and likened to a Soviet style secret courts used to destroy political opponent. Not that the Democrats really cared about democracy. The point is that for both Nixon and Clinton, there was a vote for an inquiry. Furthermore, everything was open to the public.

Click to expand...

Rubbish!

These hearings are frequently held behind closed doors...both sides of politics has operated them this way.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) said:

I think the bigger question is why the Democrats are keeping the Republicans out? @cow451 ,I think the answer is that the Democrats are desperate.

Click to expand...

ummmm you mean the guys that stormed in that already were part of the precedings and had access?

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) said:

First, to be clear, this is not an impeachment hearing. I wouldn't even call it a legitimate impeachment inquiry because Nancy Pelosi never brought an inquiry to vote. If anything, this is just a democrat political stunt to have yet another investigation looming over Trump right before the election. Why Nancy never put inquiry to a vote? Because she knows it wouldn't pass. Then again, this stunt was never about actually impeaching the president and everything about trying to drive down Trump's polling numbers.

Click to expand...

because they don't have to have a vote, asking for them to do something they arn't required to do shows lack of understnading on this subject :>

Mountainmanbob said:

I guess they forgot already?
We are the ones that support that.
Voters hopefully will remember?
M-Bob

Click to expand...

Your supporting a guy esentially black mailing a foreign leader and yousay you support the constitution love your guy's so called moral supriority.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) said:

I had to stop reading at the first line because it is false. It is not an impeachment hearing. If anything, it is an investigation on possible quid pro quo to determine it a crime actually occurred. There can be no impeachment if their is no crime. Again, it is not an impeachment hearing. Congress has to first vote for an impeachment for there to be impeachment hearings.

Click to expand...

where did you hear such a blatant lie? No crime has to be commited to impeach, the bar is far lower then that, they just have to find the president has done things unbecoming of his office.

Mountainmanbob said:

We need to stick with the true news.
Said foreign leader
said, " that did not happen".

So who made that story up?
Might not help them in 2020.

M-Bob

Click to expand...

Said foreign leader is still in a position of being blackmailed. If he displeased Trump and Trump pulled US support, Ukraine would be lost to Russia.