Was Obama the subject of impeachment in those hearings? Was the result of an election in the balance in those hearings?
How many witnesses have Republicans called so far?
- Status
How many witnesses have Republicans called so far?
P
ProVobis
Guest
The only Facebook lie I know of is the endorsement of Trump by Pope Francis. I’ve put all that stuff on ignore since.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I believe the subject was brought up at one of the debates with Romney and Obama stated that he took full responsibility.
Fine. Was he the subject of impeachment at those hearings?JonNC:
I believe the subject was brought up at one of the debates with Romney and Obama stated that he took full responsibility.
D
dvdjs
Guest
What easily verifiable fact in my post do you think is in error?
I am happy to provide copious documentation.
D
dvdjs
Guest
There was no formal House resolution on impeachment, but the connection of the investigation to possible impeachment was raised by members of Congress
C
Cathoholic
Guest
@Jeanne_S . . .
Schiff has implied there will be no public hearing.
This suggests that if the Democrats want to push this to a floor vote without transparency they will.
Just this secret trial with selective democrat leaks that sound favorable.
I had no idea Schiff was planning to allow
Republican cross-examination,
transparency of documentation,
public hearings, etc.
Wow!
Would you mind linking to Schiff saying anything like this Metis1 for my benefit?
After all.
If the public is being denied transparency
just because “this is still in the “deposition” stage”,
that suggests AFTER the “deposition stage”
comes full transparency.
At least to me in this context.
So I will await that link and see what Adam says.
Thanks in advance.
Metis1’s response?
How do you know that Metis1?
Schiff has implied there will be no public hearing.
This suggests that if the Democrats want to push this to a floor vote without transparency they will.
Just this secret trial with selective democrat leaks that sound favorable.
I had no idea Schiff was planning to allow
Republican cross-examination,
transparency of documentation,
public hearings, etc.
Wow!
Would you mind linking to Schiff saying anything like this Metis1 for my benefit?
After all.
If the public is being denied transparency
just because “this is still in the “deposition” stage”,
that suggests AFTER the “deposition stage”
comes full transparency.
At least to me in this context.
So I will await that link and see what Adam says.
Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Here again is
what the Republicans in the House
provided the country
when they impeached Bill Clinton.
(This below is an excellent collection of points by Sean Hannity!)
.
Contrast this to Adam Schiff’s SECRET TRIAL (or hearings or whatever Schiff wants to call it).
The secret trial sham is closer to a Soviet motif than an American way.
Beware of these people.
what the Republicans in the House
provided the country
when they impeached Bill Clinton.
(This below is an excellent collection of points by Sean Hannity!)
.
Contrast this to Adam Schiff’s SECRET TRIAL (or hearings or whatever Schiff wants to call it).
The secret trial sham is closer to a Soviet motif than an American way.
Beware of these people.
Last edited:
You have a good point. There’s no formal House resolution here either. But the intention here, as a continuation of the other attempts, is specifically impeachment.
M
Maximus1
Guest
46 Republicans in the House have attended and questioned the witnesses.
That is 1/3 of the GOP caucus.
When the House conducts an investigation, there will be a public hearing.
I am trying to understand the objection
That is 1/3 of the GOP caucus.
When the House conducts an investigation, there will be a public hearing.
I am trying to understand the objection
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Maximus1 . . .
Please provide it.
And if they couldn’t have full transparency, would that bother you?
.
www.breitbart.com
I want to see a link so I can read that in context.
Please provide it.
And if they couldn’t have full transparency, would that bother you?
.
Report: Republicans on Intelligence Committee Can Review Transcripts -- with a Democrat Staffer Watching
Republicans on Intelligence can only read transcripts of depositions in the "impeachment inquiry" with a Democrat staffer watching them.
www.breitbart.com
M
Maximus1
Guest
There are three committed attending. That is the GOP compliment.
They are not permitting transcripts to leave the room. They don’t want furthur witnesses to see them or be prepped on them. The legal term is sequestration.
Once all taken, everyone will see them.
This procedure is standard. It is called," THE RULE" which is invoked by lawyers as a standard.
They are not permitting transcripts to leave the room. They don’t want furthur witnesses to see them or be prepped on them. The legal term is sequestration.
Once all taken, everyone will see them.
This procedure is standard. It is called," THE RULE" which is invoked by lawyers as a standard.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
Seems a federal judge disagrees:
R
Rhubarb
Guest
How can Adam Schiff preside over an impeachment trial? Adam Schiff is a member of the House. Impeachment is tried in the Senate.
These talking points and sound bites are at best ignorant, and at worst, dishonest. What the House is doing right now is taking depositions. It is not a hearing, or a trial. They are in the discovery phase. Subpoenas are due process, the only matters of due process at play here. And those (to my knowledge) have been legitimate. Otherwise they would’ve been quashed. Note I did not say ignored or denied. But -quashed-. That is a legal term. And if subpoenas HAVE been quashed, the White House would’ve advertised that as a victory. They haven’t, because, the subpoenas are legitimate.
Nobody is entitled to sit in on closed committee meetings, save members of said committee. If this moves out of depositions into hearings, then, things will be different. You do not have to agree with this, this is the letter of the law. The President doesn’t make the rules here on this matter. The President can howl and cry and throw fits all he wants, but, he has no authority (or knowledge it seems) over how the House conducts its business. And if he truly has done nothing wrong, then that will come to light. Whinging about the process does not indicate an innocent man. Especially when that process has been meticulously documented and followed.
These talking points and sound bites are at best ignorant, and at worst, dishonest. What the House is doing right now is taking depositions. It is not a hearing, or a trial. They are in the discovery phase. Subpoenas are due process, the only matters of due process at play here. And those (to my knowledge) have been legitimate. Otherwise they would’ve been quashed. Note I did not say ignored or denied. But -quashed-. That is a legal term. And if subpoenas HAVE been quashed, the White House would’ve advertised that as a victory. They haven’t, because, the subpoenas are legitimate.
Nobody is entitled to sit in on closed committee meetings, save members of said committee. If this moves out of depositions into hearings, then, things will be different. You do not have to agree with this, this is the letter of the law. The President doesn’t make the rules here on this matter. The President can howl and cry and throw fits all he wants, but, he has no authority (or knowledge it seems) over how the House conducts its business. And if he truly has done nothing wrong, then that will come to light. Whinging about the process does not indicate an innocent man. Especially when that process has been meticulously documented and followed.
Last edited:
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
While they are at it they might investigate Joe and Hunter Biden’s ties ti Romania Same as in the Ukraine
R
Rhubarb
Guest
While I am at it, everyone DOES realize that SIX COMMITTEES are investigating and holding depositions, right? It isn’t just Schiff’s Intelligence Committee. Schiff is only one of SIX COMMITTEE CHAIRS overseeing investigations.
Everything about how this argument is framed is meant to muddy the waters and distract from the facts. Be better than this.
Everything about how this argument is framed is meant to muddy the waters and distract from the facts. Be better than this.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
The facts are very bad. So the desperate storm the process.
Last edited:
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
Their stonewalling and attacks have hurt them, since judges do not look favorably on that kind of obstruction.
U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell:
U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Would you mind linking to what you said please?
Here it is again . . .
Here it is again . . .
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
JapaneseKappa.
WHO are you replying to??
I’ve never said what Schiff is doing is “illegal”.
I said it’s un-American.
Here it is again . . .
These guys are willing to tear the country apart for power. This is not good.
WHO are you replying to??
I’ve never said what Schiff is doing is “illegal”.
I said it’s un-American.
Here it is again . . .
The fact that a judge said this is irrelevant (to this thread. At least from me anyway).
These guys are willing to tear the country apart for power. This is not good.
Last edited:
- Status