Why did Republicans force their way into Impeachment Hearing?

[Kenny'sID]

There were already Republicans in there.

I know.

All that gang did was disrupt a hearing,

I know, ad I'm saying, under the circumstances, that's fine with me.

intimate a witness

You mean intimidate them enough to make sure they tell the truth? I know that's all that would concern me if I were in the witnesses shoes.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yep, 13 people from a party who have tried time and time again to bring the president down and each time failed miserably.

Unrepresented, Outrageous action by Republicans that call for the Unrepresented, Outrageous reaction of getting in there to see for themselves and making the point, enough is enough.

I like it.

Except that the Republicans are represented... you just aren't allowed to acknowledge that.

Why not?

 

[Speedwell]

I know.



I know, ad I'm saying, under the circumstances, that's fine with me.



You mean intimidate them enough to make sure they tell the truth? I know that's all that would concern me if I were in the witnesses shoes.

That, and you have this lurid fantasy that the Democrats are going to be able to impeach the President without anything seeing the light of day.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know.

You're welcome.

I know, ad I'm saying, under the circumstances, that's fine with me.

How much do you know about the circumstances, as opposed to being told?

You mean intimidate them enough to make sure they tell the truth? I know that's all that would concern me if I were in the witnesses shoes.

Clearly you're not familiar with Donald's minions... but since you'd be "human scum" (his own words) if you ever dared speak against him, you might want to take a look at what you're up against.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Except that the Republicans are represented... you just aren't allowed to acknowledge that.

Why not?

Why am I not allowed to acknowledged that? A am and I did.

My 2 posts back made my point completely. We broke the rules and, due to the circumstances, I have no problem with that. I have to wonder if the republicans have ever broken the rules?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why am I not allowed to acknowledged that? A am and I did.

My 2 posts back made my point completely. We broke the rules and, due to the circumstances, I have no problem with that.

Because rules don't apply to you?

I have to wonder if the republicans have ever broken the rules?

Read the thread.

 

[Kenny'sID]

How much do you know about the circumstances, as opposed to being told?

Enough to know the Republicans have done this time and time again, and everyone needs to be aware of what kind of stink they are up to now.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because rules don't apply to you?



Read the thread.

More common nonsensical comments that really aren't worth replying to, and I wonder why my question of the republicans ever breaking any rules wasn't touched upon. Of course they have and this is likely petty by comparison. i think it would serve you well to stop using that and get over it, before someon comes up with a list of worse rules that were broken, meaning this is a ridiculous argument, you havn't got a thing that can't be countered.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Except I can’t remember democrats forcing there way in to the numerous secret hearings into Benghazi, or during the Clinton impeachment hearings. Your statement is clearly and deliberately bearing false witness, may I suggest you retract.

Democrats didn't force there way into the impeachment hearing because:
A. It wasnt secret.

B. There was a house vote.

C. Republicans had nothing to hide.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Enough to know the Republicans have done this time and time again, and everyone needs to be aware of what kind of stink they are up to now.

I couldn't agree more about the Republicans... up to and (especially) including their Great Leader.

 

[TLK Valentine]

More common nonsensical comments that really aren't worth replying to, and I wonder why my question of the republicans ever breaking any rules wasn't touched upon. Of course they have and this is likely petty by comparison. i think it would serve you well to stop using that and get over it, before someon comes up with a list of worse rules that were broken, meaning this is a ridiculous argument, you havn't got a thing that can't be countered.

Why would I counter an argument I happen to agree with?

Or are you getting "Republicans" and "Democrats" mixed up?

 

[Kenny'sID]

That, and you have this lurid fantasy that the Democrats are going to be able to impeach the President without anything seeing the light of day.

Irrelevant. Please, let's not do the "throw whatever nonsense we can at them". It's too much like the subject here, a non issue.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Actually, it is an impeachment hearing. There is no requirement to bring it to a vote -- no vote was taken on the Nixon impeachment hearings until months after the investigations began.



What election? The Presidential election isn't until next year and the Democrats state they want Impeachment proceedings concluded before the end of the year. Even if they aren't finished, it is highly unlikely that the House will still be working on impeachment a year from now -- before the election.



And this would be false. There appears to be little doubt that the House will be impeaching the President. The question now is if enough Republicans will find their conscience and vote to convict in the Senate.



Yes, with Nixon there was a vote several months after the impeachment investigation started in the House, being done in closed session by committee. Further, it is odd that the rules that the committee are following are the same rules (closed hearings and all) that Republicans created during the Obama administration, to investigate his administration. It is odd that Republicans are whinging so much because they are now the minority party having to abide by the rules they created -- and if they are "Soviet style secret courts," they are that way only because Republicans made them that way.

As for Clinton, they got the information from the Ken Starr's investigation -- the House did not have their own impeachment investigation, so there was no vote before the investigation started.

Further, investigations are largely always secret. If the police are investigating a crime, they do not invite the press, or the suspects lawyers along to watch them investigate. In fact, law enforcement (as a general rule) typically won't answer questions about investigations. As others have pointed out, when Clinton was being investigated by the Republican House, those hearings were secret.

Now, when they start working on articles of impeachment and call witnesses in support, or to defend the President against, those articles -- those will be open hearings.

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.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Except I can’t remember democrats forcing there way in to the numerous secret hearings into Benghazi, or during the Clinton impeachment hearings. Your statement is clearly and deliberately bearing false witness, may I suggest you retract.

No kidding.

The Republicans sure did all that they could to hide the results of the Mueller investigation. Barr tried it all. There were restrictions on Mueller. The White House is not cooperating in any way.

And Trey Gowdy sure made it clear that no one but committee members were allowed in his closed door meetings on Benghazi.

Dems were not childish enough to force their way into a SCIF, leave a bunch of empty pizza boxes and risk national security by recording in the SCIF with their cell phones!

Intelligence veterans say Republicans storming a secure congressional facility was a ‘thuggish’ and ‘offensive’ stunt that risked national security

One former CIA operative told Insider that cellphones were “essentially microphones for sophisticated intelligence services.” He described the episode as “offensive” and “thuggish” and said that anyone in the foreign policy or national security apparatus who engaged in similar behavior would have faced punishment......


“The Russians have been capturing literally every telephone call made in the United States for decades,” Carle added.

The SCIF is “designed to prevent electronic eavesdropping so members of Congress can receive highly classified information about how the nation collects information on its adversaries,” Mieke Eoyang, a former top House Intelligence Committee staffer, wrote in a tweet.

“Foreign adversaries are constantly trying to figure out what goes on inside those rooms to figure out what the US knows about them, to out US high-level sources in their governments, to know what the US government knows and use it against us,” she continued.
​

Way to help out the Russians, Republican Reps.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Or are you getting "Republicans" and "Democrats" mixed up?

Could be. hey, maybe you can use that against us, it's as good as this argument.

Why would I counter an argument I happen to agree with?

I think you may have misunderstood. Any broken rule by dems here can be countered with plenty from the Republicans. There are no angels here, making this a petty argument.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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.

Would it be kin to a deposition?

 

[cow451]

Most of that stuff is still illegal here in California?
M-Bob

It reflects my derision if your post.

 

[cow451]

Would it be kin to a deposition?

Think grand jury.

 

[rjs330]

Except I can’t remember democrats forcing there way in to the numerous secret hearings into Benghazi, or during the Clinton impeachment hearings. Your statement is clearly and deliberately bearing false witness, may I suggest you retract.

Perhaps because there were classified secret stuff there.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Perhaps because there were classified secret stuff there.

Well, then perhaps there's classified secret stuff in these secret hearings too?