Unamerican Secret Trial presided by Democrat Adam Schiff

[Jeanne_S]

Yes only after the Republicans had to force their way in and .Adam Schiff running out of the room like a scared rabbit.

 

[dvdjs]

Yes only after the Republicans had to force their way

What are you talking about? When did Republicans “force” their way in"?
Are you talking about the storming of the SCIF?
That SCIF was open to 48 Republican members of Congress - with no storming force.
Thirteen of the stormers themselves, were on the committees that had access to the witness interviews in the SCIF. Can you provide a link to any source at all that disputes these clear facts?

 

[Jeanne_S]

you’re the link expert go for it

 

[dvdjs]

you’re the link expert go for it

This is the sort of thing that pops up.
No idea where you might be hearing otherwise.

Republicans condemn Democrats' impeachment proceedings in resolution: The latest

Stay up-to-date with the latest on impeachment proceedings.

www.usatoday.com

Are Republicans really locked out of the investigation?​

Republicans are condemning the “sham” of an impeachment inquiry run by Democrats, but the fact is that dozens of House GOP lawmakers are currently able to sit in on the closed-door proceedings.

According to House rules, all members who are part of the three committees leading the investigation have access to depositions, including Democrats and Republicans. No other members of the House are allowed to participate, from either party.

 

[Cathoholic]

PaulInVa . . .

These hearings are in secret so that, like in a Grand Jury investigation, witnesses that may be called don’t know what other witnesses have said. But what does secret mean? Well, there are a good number of Republicans hearing testimony and answering questions. Do you think YOU should know?

The step after this is to call back witnesses with relevant information for public hearings. These will take a much shorter time, because the investigating is done and the witnesses will be asked pointed questions, distilled from hours of depositions.

Then WHY the selective leaks?

And remember Paul, the discussion transcripts have been released.

This whole secret hearing game,
is yet another “fishing expedition”
meant to manipulate the media (with their willing help),
try to manufacture something, anything, against Trump,
and all the while, insulate the democrats
from the kind of public-relations disaster
the whole phony Trump-Russian-Collusion narrative generated for them.

But with their TDS, they can’t help themselves. They know this is not a winner for the country or even themselves.

But to do harm to Trump, is more important. Even if it is based on bogus claims.

More leftist self-destruction and envy by these people as I see it.

And it’s a fishing expedition meant to be a media three-ring-circus, to distract from a REAL quid pro quo. The one with Hunter and Joe Biden and the Ukraine.

That’s what this is all about. And many people know it.

 

[PaulinVA]

This whole secret hearing game, is another “fishing expedition” meant to manipulate the media, and insulate the democrats from the kind of public-relations disaster the whole phony Trump-Russian-Colkusion narrative generated for them.

Sigh. If they are fishing, they are certainly catching a lot.

And it’s a fishing expedition meant to be a media three-ring-circus, to distract from a REAL quid pro quo. The one with Hunter and Joe Biden and the Ukraine.

Haha. Talking points. Distraction. Joe Biden.

That’s what this is all about. And many people know it.

Yes, I’m sure many people are saying this. Many people.

Do you have any facts?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Show me the man and I will find the crime.Its been relentless and as if the Steel Dossier didn’t clear that up then its blatantly obvious they are on a fishing expedition and also deflecting from the rot within their party that is being exposed.I for one am weary of all this bs. We who value our freedoms and the integrity of the voting process must stand up with President Trump!

 

[Cathoholic]

PaulInVA . . .

Sigh. If they are fishing, they are certainly catching a lot.

You know more than I then Congressman Paul.
(Mere rhetorical device. Not ID-ing PaulInVA here.)

You have obviously seen the transcripts (and more than the select leaked democrat tidbits that the rest of us non-Congressmen have seen).

 

[Cathoholic]

PaulInVA . . .

Do you have any facts?

That’s the whole point Paul.

NOBODY has any facts. (Except Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, and whoever they want to have them).

That in and of itself is a fact.

It’s fake Paul. Don’t fall for it (again).

 

[PaulinVA]

You know more than I then Congressman Paul.
(Mere rhetorical device. Not ID-ing PaulInVA here.)

I am not an elected Congress Person. I do not work on the Hill.

However, I do read. I do watch TV. So, I know that Trump admitted to several improper acts as pertains to Ukraine. He tweeted and said it. I know that Rudy admitted to several acts that could be considered problematic.

I know that several people have testified before the committees to coercion and other tactics as relates to the Ukrainians.

Is all this impeachable? I don’t know. We have to see the articles and the evidence. As I’ve said before, this is really serious.

So, I don’t understand why Trump supporters are trying to undermine the process if they think their guy did nothing wrong. If he didn’t do anything, maybe the House will decide not to impeach. Definitely there is a firewall in the Senate.

So, why all the complaining? I would think you would want this to the thorough and conclusive.

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . .

but private deposition before public testimony - a process that is totally unexceptional? I just want ot know if there is agreement on the fundamental, seemingly indisputable facts.

(Bold mine)

Would you mind linking dvdjs, to where the democrats say they plan on all this culminating in PUBLIC testimony.

I guess I was unaware that this plan was an indisputable fact.

I can find Schiff saying things like the “whistleblower” does not need to be revealed because the transcripts are now released . . .

(more secrecy and suggests lack of public cross-examination which may be important – “Just HOW did you KNOW this conversation took place and HOW did you know the content? And WHEN did you know it? And WHO told you? And to WHOM ELSE did you discuss ANY ASPECT of this with? What ELSE did they tell you. Do you have any SECRET RECORDINGS against our President or other Government officials?
HOW did you obtain THEM? How MANY investigative journalists or other news people of any sort have you TALKED to?”).

But I cannot find Schiff or anyone else in the democrat leadership saying this is heading toward public, open, tranparent hearings.

 

[Woodyl57]

I heard open hearings mid November. Heard it on this forum.

I hope that correct, but Let’s see because I really doubt it.

 

[Cathoholic]

PaulInVA . . .

I am not an elected Congress Person. I do not work on the Hill.

That’s WHY I explicitly identified what I said as a mere rhetorical device.

All I am saying here Paul is you do not know these facts (you seem to claim to know).

Not only do you and I NOT know . . . . You and I CAN’T know BECAUSE you and I are not a democrat “on the hill” in certain select committees.

That’s part of WHY they are keeping this in the dark. To purposefully keep people from knowing.

And the selective out-of-context democrat leaks to the press, is a mere disinformation campaign. It makes “knowing” even MORE difficult.

You know nothing from THOSE (select cherry-picked leaks) either. Nor do I.

That is the point.

With the sneaky Schiff secret hearings motif, nobody knows very much.

Meanwhile much of the press is still asleep on the Bidens-Ukraine quid pro quo.

 

[dvdjs]

Let’s see because I really doubt it.

Did you see this Dear Colleague letter from Schiff?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Woodyl57]

Save me the links and your examples. I agree I hope Trump complies with the findings. But don’t act like the other side is so compliant with accepting results. That was my point. Already have Schiff and Nadler crying political vendetta for durham going criminal probe and they haven’t seen anything from that yet.

I hope THEY accept the findings.

Remember when they asked Trump if he would accept the results of the election? Oh were they so appalled with his answer. Ha, tables turned and Clinton such an example of grace. Trump might be just as bad, who knows but boy was it nice to see their hypocrisy exposed.

 

[Cathoholic]

Making “interview transcripts public” is NOT the same as public testimony, public cross examination, public calling your own witnesses, etc.

You know that dvdjs.

Did Schiff underline that, or is that an addition from you (from Adobe Acrobat or whatever program)?

Would you mind linking to that Schiff document so I can see for myself please?

 

[dvdjs]

Save me the links and your examples.

Huh? Why would you not want actual information that is responsive to your questions and doubts?

The Dear colleague letter spells out just what is happening, why it being doe by the committee, and what the next steps are - public disclosure of the transcripts and public testimony:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Woodyl57]

I think we are talking about different things. I am talking about Trump and/or his opponents accepting findings. Sorry, I honestly can’t read the attachment on my phone.

I assume since we were discussing Trump accepting results it was about that.

 

[dvdjs]

think we are talking about different things.

I was responding to your remark about open hearings.

 

[Woodyl57]

OMG, I have to leave the conversation for a while, lol.

I just realized I responded this thinking I was on a different thread. I am quite sure you are confused right now. I am too.