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

[Jonaitis]

There is just too much intel to be arrogating the drain, no one knows why. That's why I keep those things on file for privacy.

 

[wing2000]

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

Do you realize how long it took the GOP to hold an impeachment vote for Bill Clinton?

 

[wing2000]

Once more:

Why?

The judiciary committee is the proper place for an impeachment inquiry since if articles of impeachment are drafted the research and background will be familiar to the ones who write the articles since they will have already heard the testimony and viewed the evidence.

Who is to say the findings of the Intelligence committee will not be sent to the Judiciary committee eventually? It's been 2 weeks...and golly, I realize this is 2019, but some processes still take weeks, or gasps, even months to complete.

 

[Hank77]

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?

It might. Here's what Tip O'Neill said during the Nixon impeachment process.

Morally, Drinan had a good case. But politically, he damn near blew it. For if Drinan's resolution had come up for a vote at the time he filed it, it would have been overwhelmingly defeated – by something like 400 to 20. After that, with most of the members already on record as having voted once against impeachment, it would have been extremely difficult to get them to change their minds later on.[6]
Impeachment process against Richard Nixon - Wikipedia

 

[wing2000]

Impeachment of Bill Clinton (preceded by five years of Whitewater investigation by Kenneth Starr - initiated in January 1994, by AG Janet Reno). Important distinction - No independent counsel has been assigned to investigate the President's dealings with Ukraine - the Congressional committees presumably will need more time to investigate.....

January 16, 1998
Janet Reno, the US Attorney General, approves the Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr's request for an expansion of the inquiry to include the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.

September 9, 1998
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr releases his report to Congress. It has 11 possible grounds for impeachment. The House votes to make the 445-page report public.

October 5, 1998
The House Judiciary Committee votes to launch a congressional impeachment inquiry against President Clinton.

December 1, 1998
The House of Representatives judiciary committee widens the scope of its inquiry to include the election campaign fundraising issue. The Republicans use their majority on the committee to subpoena senior law enforcement officers, including the FBI director Louis Freeh, to broadening the impeachment inquiry into a dispute over President Clinton's campaign fundraising.

December 11, 1998
The House Judiciary Committee approves three articles of impeachment on a 21-16 party line vote, passing them to the full House of Representatives. The three articles accuse Clinton of lying to a grand jury, committing perjury by denying he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and obstructing justice. Clinton declares himself "profoundly sorry" and willing to accept censure.

December 12, 1998
The committee approves a fourth article of impeachment on a party-line vote, accusing Clinton of abusing power in a direct parallel to Watergate-era language.

December 17, 1998
A last-minute stay of execution is offered to President Clinton as the Congress vote is postponed until the latest Gulf crisis is resolved and US military action against Iraq ends.

December 19, 1998
President Clinton is impeached as the Republican controlled House approves two of the four proposed articles of impeachment by narrow partisan majorities: 228-206 and 221-212. Mr Clinton is sent for trial in the Senate.

Clinton impeachment timeline

 

[civilwarbuff]

Does the Judiciary Committee ever meet behind closed doors when they are investigating something or someone?
Yup, they do, shrouding their work in darkness.

Yup, they do. But the Judiciary Committee has far less reason to do so than the Intelligence Committee and such secrecy would be much harder to justify.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Irrelevant. I don't agree that Democrats would rush to have this person testify and that not doing so is evidence of nefarious purpose.

Actually not only are they not 'rushing' they are doing a 180.....Schiff Changes Course: 'We Don't Need the Whistleblower' to Testify Before Congress
I am beginning to wonder if Schiff is a secret GOP mole whose sole purpose is to make the Democrats look foolish; even if he isn't he is still doing a great job of it!

 

[civilwarbuff]

Do you realize how long it took the GOP to hold an impeachment vote for Bill Clinton?

Irrelevant.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Who is to say the findings of the Intelligence committee will not be sent to the Judiciary committee eventually? It's been 2 weeks...and golly, I realize this is 2019, but some processes still take weeks, or gasps, even months to complete.

They have had 2.5 years to investigate this president.....as the old commercial says: "WHERE'S THE BEEF?"

 

[Belk]

Actually not only are they not 'rushing' they are doing a 180.....Schiff Changes Course: 'We Don't Need the Whistleblower' to Testify Before Congress
I am beginning to wonder if Schiff is a secret GOP mole whose sole purpose is to make the Democrats look foolish; even if he isn't he is still doing a great job of it!

Still not seeing evidence of a nefarious plot.

 

[wing2000]

They have had 2.5 years to investigate this president.....as the old commercial says: "WHERE'S THE BEEF?"

"They" .....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Still not seeing evidence of a nefarious plot.

'nefarious plot'.....where did I say that?...

 

[civilwarbuff]

"They" .....

Yup, 'they'.....

 

[Belk]

'nefarious plot'.....where did I say that?...

The part where you claimed the whistle blower had no evidence.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The part where you claimed the whistle blower had no evidence.

I do not see the words 'nefarious plot' anywhere in that sentence.....

 

[Hank77]

Yup, they do. But the Judiciary Committee has far less reason to do so than the Intelligence Committee and such secrecy would be much harder to justify.

Explain please.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Explain please.

The IC frequently deals in classified material and deals with national security issues. The JC deals largely with judicial issues and appointments and conducts most of its business in open hearings. Didn't think I really needed to explain that.....sheesh.

 

[Belk]

I do not see the words 'nefarious plot' anywhere in that sentence.....

Guess it is a good thing I didn't use quotes as if I attributed the phrase to you then.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Guess it is a good thing I didn't use quotes as if I attributed the phrase to you then.

Yes, guess it is......LOL

 

[Hank77]

The IC frequently deals in classified material and deals with national security issues. The JC deals largely with judicial issues and appointments and conducts most of its business in open hearings. Didn't think I really needed to explain that.....sheesh.

In this case the whistleblower is a person in the intelligence community which deals with classified material and national security, not someone from the DoJ.