a fox news judge released this little dandy........

[aubiefifty 16,761]

newsweek.com

Fox News judge says House impeachment inquiry "consistent with the rules" that "Republican majority" signed into law

By Jason Lemon On 10/24/19 at 9:29 AM EDT

4-5 minutes

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said Thursday that Republican complaints about the "secrecy" of closed-door impeachment hearings don't hold water because the process is "consistent with the rules" that a "Republican majority" signed into law.

Trump and his Republican supporters have repeatedly argued that the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry has been conducted improperly because the testimony of witnesses has been carried out in close-door hearings. On Wednesday morning, a group of GOP representatives, some of whom did not serve on the investigating committees, stormed one of those secure depositions, chanting "let us in." This delayed the hearing, but it eventually went forward in the afternoon with only the Democrats and Republicans serving on the relevant committees permitted to attend.

"As frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors...they are consistent with the rules," Napolitano, who previously served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge, explained during a segment of the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends.

"When were the rules written last?" the legal expert asked. "In January of 2015. And who signed them? John Boehner [the Republican speaker of the House]. And who enacted them? A Republican majority," he asserted.

Flanked by about two dozen House Republicans, Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) speaks during an October 23 press conference, during which he called for transparency in the impeachment inquiry. Alex Wong/Getty

"The rules say that this level of inquiry, this initial level of inquiry, can be done in secret," Napolitano said. He pointed out that he personally wishes he could view the testimony and that it was public, but he added that the impeachment investigation was thus far consistent with the ones conducted against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Nixon inevitably resigned to avoid impeachment, while Clinton was formally impeached by the House but not removed by the Senate.

"Eventually, there will be a public presentation of this, at which lawyers for the president can cross-examine these people and challenge them," Napolitano explained. "This is like presenting a case to a grand jury, which is never done in public."

Despite being a prominent contributor to Fox News, which is viewed by many as favorable to President Donald Trump and the Republicans, Napolitano has regularly criticized the president and his administration. He called Trump's actions toward Ukraine, which are at the center of the fast-moving impeachment inquiry, "arguably impeachable" at the end of September. The former judge has previously slammed the president for violating the Constitution and warned that Trump's "allusions to violence are palpably dangerous."

In an op-ed published by Fox News on Thursday, Napolitano said Trump had shown disregard for his oath of office and had disparaged the Constitution by recently calling a part of the founding document "phony." Trump used the word to describe the Constitution's emoluments clause after he backtracked from holding a G7 summit at his Doral, Florida, resort following significant backlash. Legal experts pointed out that the move would violate the constitutional clause, which forbids the president from taking gifts or payments from foreigners or foreign governments.

"Whatever Trump meant by phony, it constituted at least a disparagement of the Constitution he has sworn to uphold and at worst a threat to ignore clauses he can disparage," Napolitano wrote.

"This is most unusual and potentially dangerous, and it raises the question: Can the president lawfully enforce only the clauses of the Constitution with which he agrees and ignore those with which he disagrees? In a word: No," he concluded.

[aubiefifty 16,761]

12 Republicans who stormed closed-door impeachment proceedings already had permission to attend

Sinéad Baker 6 hours ago

4-5 minutes

Many of the House Republicans who on Wednesday stormed a closed-door hearing that was part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump would have been allowed to go inside if they wanted.

More than 30 Republicans forced their way into the hearing, delaying it for about five hours. They now face allegations of risking national security.

Twelve were already able to attend the hearing, as they sit on relevant committees, but they said they entered to protest its secrecy.

Longstanding rules say witnesses should be interviewed in a classified setting. House Democrats have said they will hold open hearings once their initial investigation is done.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Twelve House Republicans who stormed a closed-door impeachment hearing in protest on Wednesday already had permission to attend.

More than 30 House Republicans headed by Rep. Matt Gaetz forced their way into the hearing, delaying it for about five hours. They said in a press conference that they were protesting the secrecy of the hearing and would not leave until it was made public.

They did not address the allegations against President Donald Trump in the impeachment inquiry, which centers on his request to Ukraine's president to investigate Joe Biden, the former vice president and a 2020 Democratic challenger to Trump.

But as Business Insider's Kelly McLaughlin highlighted, there are longstanding rules that witnesses are supposed to be interviewed in a way that can stay classified.

Axios and BuzzFeed News reported that 12 of those Republicans were actually already able to attend the hearing because they sit on relevant committees, including the Oversight or Foreign Affairs committee:

Paul Gosar of Arizona

Mark Green of Tennessee

Jody Hice of Georgia

Jim Jordan of Ohio

Fred Keller of Pennsylvania

Carol Miller of West Virginia

Ralph Norman of South Carolina

Mark Meadows of North Carolina

Scott Perry of Pennsylvania

Steve Watkins of Kansas

Ron Wright of Texas

Lee Zeldin of New York

A representative for Keller told BuzzFeed News that he attended to protest "in solidarity with those members of Congress who are not allowed in the hearings, to review testimony, or read transcripts of this secret inquiry."

A representative for Rep. Ken Buck, who's on the Foreign Affairs Committee and was listed as a lawmaker who planned to attend, told BuzzFeed News that Buck did not attend but tweeted criticism of the closed testimony.

The Republicans entered the room, known as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, during the testimony of Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia.

Read more: Intelligence veterans say Republicans storming a secure congressional facility was a 'thuggish' and 'offensive' stunt that risked national security

Intelligence veterans who spoke with Business Insider's Sonam Sheth and Lauren Frias said the lawmakers could have jeopardized national security by entering a SCIF.

Rep. Matt Gaetz in February.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

A SCIF is "designed to prevent electronic eavesdropping" from foreign intelligence services, a former top House Intelligence Committee staffer said, and no electronic devices are allowed in. But witnesses told The Washington Post that several of the Republicans brought their phones.

Glenn Carle, a former CIA covert operative, told Business Insider that phones in such a context were "essentially microphones for sophisticated intelligence services."

Democrats have said they will open up public hearings in the coming weeks, after their initial investigation.

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

5 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

 

Read more: Intelligence veterans say Republicans storming a secure congressional facility was a 'thuggish' and 'offensive' stunt that risked national security

Do not need read more about the" basement" dog and pony show. Have a little experience involving a SCIF. No one "storms" the areas. Not even needed for what the "pencil neck" is doing.

[alexava 6,973]

6 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

12 Republicans who stormed closed-door impeachment proceedings already had permission to attend

Sinéad Baker 6 hours ago

4-5 minutes

Many of the House Republicans who on Wednesday stormed a closed-door hearing that was part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump would have been allowed to go inside if they wanted.

More than 30 Republicans forced their way into the hearing, delaying it for about five hours. They now face allegations of risking national security.

Twelve were already able to attend the hearing, as they sit on relevant committees, but they said they entered to protest its secrecy.

Longstanding rules say witnesses should be interviewed in a classified setting. House Democrats have said they will hold open hearings once their initial investigation is done.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Twelve House Republicans who stormed a closed-door impeachment hearing in protest on Wednesday already had permission to attend.

More than 30 House Republicans headed by Rep. Matt Gaetz forced their way into the hearing, delaying it for about five hours. They said in a press conference that they were protesting the secrecy of the hearing and would not leave until it was made public.

They did not address the allegations against President Donald Trump in the impeachment inquiry, which centers on his request to Ukraine's president to investigate Joe Biden, the former vice president and a 2020 Democratic challenger to Trump.

But as Business Insider's Kelly McLaughlin highlighted, there are longstanding rules that witnesses are supposed to be interviewed in a way that can stay classified.

Axios and BuzzFeed News reported that 12 of those Republicans were actually already able to attend the hearing because they sit on relevant committees, including the Oversight or Foreign Affairs committee:

Paul Gosar of Arizona

Mark Green of Tennessee

Jody Hice of Georgia

Jim Jordan of Ohio

Fred Keller of Pennsylvania

Carol Miller of West Virginia

Ralph Norman of South Carolina

Mark Meadows of North Carolina

Scott Perry of Pennsylvania

Steve Watkins of Kansas

Ron Wright of Texas

Lee Zeldin of New York

A representative for Keller told BuzzFeed News that he attended to protest "in solidarity with those members of Congress who are not allowed in the hearings, to review testimony, or read transcripts of this secret inquiry."

A representative for Rep. Ken Buck, who's on the Foreign Affairs Committee and was listed as a lawmaker who planned to attend, told BuzzFeed News that Buck did not attend but tweeted criticism of the closed testimony.

The Republicans entered the room, known as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, during the testimony of Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia.

Read more: Intelligence veterans say Republicans storming a secure congressional facility was a 'thuggish' and 'offensive' stunt that risked national security

Intelligence veterans who spoke with Business Insider's Sonam Sheth and Lauren Frias said the lawmakers could have jeopardized national security by entering a SCIF.

Rep. Matt Gaetz in February.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

A SCIF is "designed to prevent electronic eavesdropping" from foreign intelligence services, a former top House Intelligence Committee staffer said, and no electronic devices are allowed in. But witnesses told The Washington Post that several of the Republicans brought their phones.

Glenn Carle, a former CIA covert operative, told Business Insider that phones in such a context were "essentially microphones for sophisticated intelligence services."

Democrats have said they will open up public hearings in the coming weeks, after their initial investigation.

This is ridiculous.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Judge Napolitano is correct about the rules governing an "impeachment inquiry" being changed but the problem for you Dems is that the "investigation" being conducted by Rep. Adam Schiff is NOT an "impeachment inquiry".  The rules governing the Intelligence Committee "investigation" are the Rules of Deposition which are different.  The manner in which Schiff is conducting his "investigation" reflects such.

On 9/24/19 Nancy Pelosi announced the following: “Therefore, today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I’m directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”  The Speaker cannot confer upon herself the power to convene an impeachment inquiry when she states, "I'm directing".  ONLY the full House, as directed by the Constitution, may confer this power upon itself and this is accomplished by a vote of the Members of the House.  No such vote has been taken of the House Members, therefore, no "impeachment inquiry" officially exists.and no "impeachment inquiry" will exist until such a vote is determined.  There are no exceptions.

Under Deposition Rules, Rep. Schiff (Intelligence Committee Chairman) may conduct these secret depositions exactly as he has.  Under a REAL Impeachment Inquiry he would not have such powers because an Impeachment Inquiry is conducted by that Committee which governs impeachment which is the Judiciary Committee.  Under the Judiciary Committee in an Impeachment Inquiry there would not be secret depositions and the Minority party's rights would be enacted as well as those of the President.  Only by conducting this "investigation" under the auspices of the Intelligence Committee may Rep. Schiff deny those rights and by doing so keep the Republicans from having a voice.  Those House Members who would break from this rule would be under penalty of House Rules, consequently you do not hear any public dissent regarding direct testimony.  Rep. Schiff has conducted his secret hearings in the SCIF to give the appearance that real secrets are being discussed, yet at the opening of each meeting convened he announces that no secret intelligence is being discussed.  He is required to make that distinction.

Speaker Pelosi may call her "investigation" an 'impeachment inquiry" until she is blue in the face but it isn't such.  She is placating those to the far left who are calling for impeachment with the hopes that maybe something will break in her favor, mainly bipartisan public opinion turning against President Trump which isn't happening.  It's a dangerous wire act that Speaker Pelosi is walking.  As this charade proceeds the public will see Speaker Pelosi's actions for what they are, a FAKE impeachment.  Once those who have pushed for this impeachment realize that this is not an actual impeachment there will be Hell to pay and once the public at large realize what Speaker Pelosi has done the chance for the Dems to hold the House will begin to disintegrate, rapidly.  The House will most likely return to the Republicans in 2020.

 

[AUDub 11,147]

39 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Judge Napolitano is correct about the rules governing an "impeachment inquiry" being changed but the problem for you Dems is that the "investigation" being conducted by Rep. Adam Schiff is NOT an "impeachment inquiry".  The rules governing the Intelligence Committee "investigation" are the Rules of Deposition which are different.  The manner in which Schiff is conducting his "investigation" reflects such.

On 9/24/19 Nancy Pelosi announced the following: “Therefore, today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I’m directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”  The Speaker cannot confer upon herself the power to convene an impeachment inquiry when she states, "I'm directing".  ONLY the full House, as directed by the Constitution, may confer this power upon itself and this is accomplished by a vote of the Members of the House.  No such vote has been taken of the House Members, therefore, no "impeachment inquiry" officially exists.and no "impeachment inquiry" will exist until such a vote is determined.  There are no exceptions.

Under Deposition Rules, Rep. Schiff (Intelligence Committee Chairman) may conduct these secret depositions exactly as he has.  Under a REAL Impeachment Inquiry he would not have such powers because an Impeachment Inquiry is conducted by that Committee which governs impeachment which is the Judiciary Committee.  Under the Judiciary Committee in an Impeachment Inquiry there would not be secret depositions and the Minority party's rights would be enacted as well as those of the President.  Only by conducting this "investigation" under the auspices of the Intelligence Committee may Rep. Schiff deny those rights and by doing so keep the Republicans from having a voice.  Those House Members who would break from this rule would be under penalty of House Rules, consequently you do not hear any public dissent regarding direct testimony.  Rep. Schiff has conducted his secret hearings in the SCIF to give the appearance that real secrets are being discussed, yet at the opening of each meeting convened he announces that no secret intelligence is being discussed.  He is required to make that distinction.

Speaker Pelosi may call her "investigation" an 'impeachment inquiry" until she is blue in the face but it isn't such.  She is placating those to the far left who are calling for impeachment with the hopes that maybe something will break in her favor, mainly bipartisan public opinion turning against President Trump which isn't happening.  It's a dangerous wire act that Speaker Pelosi is walking.  As this charade proceeds the public will see Speaker Pelosi's actions for what they are, a FAKE impeachment.  Once those who have pushed for this impeachment realize that this is not an actual impeachment there will be Hell to pay and once the public at large realize what Speaker Pelosi has done the chance for the Dems to hold the House will begin to disintegrate, rapidly.  The House will most likely return to the Republicans in 2020.

 

Holy legalese word salad, Batman! 

[DKW 86 7,419]

Well, THIS is THE most interesting thread here. no doubt. If ET is correct, Schiff and Pelosi better hope they find a smoking cannon. By election time next year, 12 months away, the public will be 1,000 miles past tired of promises of evidence we have been hearing from the Corp Dems since Nov of 2016. 

Question, evidence gathered by the Int Com, can it be used in Impeachment Hearings? Are there Rules of Evidence? Can any of these be real issues? 

Can the Int Com even share information with the Jud Com? Wouldnt that violate the Shared Information Directives?

 

[Elephant Tipper 430]

39 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Well, THIS is THE most interesting thread here. no doubt. If ET is correct, Schiff and Pelosi better hope they find a smoking cannon. By election time next year, 12 months away, the public will be 1,000 miles past tired of promises of evidence we have been hearing from the Corp Dems since Nov of 2016. 

Question, evidence gathered by the Int Com, can it be used in Impeachment Hearings? Are there Rules of Evidence? Can any of these be real issues? 

Can the Int Com even share information with the Jud Com? Wouldnt that violate the Shared Information Directives?

 

Here is the kicker DKW.  IF an impeachment by the House is successful, then the Senate will conduct the trial which would begin in 2020, an election year.  Senate Rules dictate that no Senator may campaign while an impeachment trial is underway.   Six Dem Senators are campaigning, Booker, Harris, Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, Bennett.  Campaign attrition will be a factor, but of those remaining active campaigners who will be willing to forgo up to a month's time of campaigning to participate in a Senate trial ?  There will be resistance to do so.  A conviction requires a super majority, 67.  45 Dems, 2 Independents, 53 Republicans.  How does that math configure a conviction ?  A long stretch at best.

This "impeachment inquiry" is doomed for failure.  By design ?  The "impeachment inquiry" is designed for the 2020 campaign, not a conviction.  Is this what Americans want the House to be pursuing with their tax dollars rather than solving problems ?  

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

9 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

This "impeachment inquiry" is doomed for failure.  By design ?  The "impeachment inquiry" is designed for the 2020 campaign, not a conviction.

So what do you think they have really been doing in the basement?

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Here is the kicker DKW.  IF an impeachment by the House is successful, then the Senate will conduct the trial which would begin in 2020, an election year.  Senate Rules dictate that no Senator may campaign while an impeachment trial is underway.   Six Dem Senators are campaigning, Booker, Harris, Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, Bennett.  Campaign attrition will be a factor, but of those remaining active campaigners who will be willing to forgo up to a month's time of campaigning to participate in a Senate trial ?  There will be resistance to do so.  A conviction requires a super majority, 67.  45 Dems, 2 Independents, 53 Republicans.  How does that math configure a conviction ?  A long stretch at best.

This "impeachment inquiry" is doomed for failure.  By design ?  The "impeachment inquiry" is designed for the 2020 campaign, not a conviction.  Is this what Americans want the House to be pursuing with their tax dollars rather than solving problems ?  

 

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

So what do you think they have really been doing in the basement?

Setting up the backdrop for a theatrical campaign that will surely mesmerize all their constituents...

Notice I didnt say win anything...
Notice I didnt say convict anyone...
Notice I didnt say sway anyone. 

Winning an election comes down to swaying voters. That's it. If the voters are tired of hearing you talk, then you wont sway a soul. 

Got a serious question. What if all we have in govt going forward is the Elected people and a Resistance? Lets say your favorite candidate wins, lets say Warren, my candidate du jour wins. She is inaugurated and immediately there is a highly coordinated media and social network cry to impeach her for whatever. She is accused of everything and eventually is fought to a standstill and nothing gets done anywhere. The Resistance against Warren is so strong and so loud and so vocal that nothing can truly overcome it.

Is that okay with Yall? That going forward we cant do anything anymore because we are partisanly divided that nothing can ever get done? Sometimes wishing for something so hard gets your face smacked with what you wished for...Karma is a cruel mistress with a wicked sense of humor. 

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

That going forward we cant do anything anymore because we are partisanly divided that nothing can ever get done?

Seems to be where we are and no candidates out now capable of bridging any division.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

4 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

So what do you think they have really been doing in the basement?

To quote DKW, "Setting up the backdrop for a theatrical campaign that will surely mesmerize all their constituents..."  BINGO !

Rep. Schiff is deposing witnesses as he has stated.  The problem with these witnesses is that the majority are 2nd, 3rd and even 4th hand, not primary, ie., they heard a rumor.  And their testimony is really moot because DJT released the transcript of his phone call to the public which undercut Schiff's efforts to discredit the President.  For the past 2+ years Schiff has promoted DJT being guilty of "colluuuuuusion" with the Russians and that he had evidence beyond a doubt, yet nothing ever materialized.  He's proved that he is willing to mislead the public with smoke and mirrors.  So what is Schiff doing in the SCIF ?  Apparently creating more smoke and mirrors to impugn the President's character.  To disprove this assertion he should make the testimony public so that Americans may decide for themselves, but until then Schiff is creating a narrative against DJT aimed at the 2020 re-election of DJT.   No secret info is being discussed so why shouldn't the testimony and cross examination be made public ?  My understanding is that Rep. John Radcliffe's cross examination of Charges d' Affaires Bill Taylor destroyed his assertions against DJT.  But this is behind closed doors.  Make the testimony public.

For those who would decry making public the testimony for situations like the "whistleblower" and protecting his/her identity, the protection of a whistleblower's identity is only temporary and the primary reason for such protection is against job reprisals.  The purpose of secrecy for the "whistleblower" before Schiff is without foundation.  Smoke and mirrors.  The whistleblower is supposedly under death threats.  I call bs.

When a hearing is concluded the Dems surface to give their version of how "devastating" the testimony was then the Republicans respond with a counter version.  Make the testimony public so that Americans may decide.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Got a serious question. What if all we have in govt going forward is the Elected people and a Resistance? Lets say your favorite candidate wins, lets say Warren, my candidate du jour wins. She is inaugurated and immediately there is a highly coordinated media and social network cry to impeach her for whatever. She is accused of everything and eventually is fought to a standstill and nothing gets done anywhere. The Resistance against Warren is so strong and so loud and so vocal that nothing can truly overcome it.

Is that okay with Yall? That going forward we cant do anything anymore because we are partisanly divided that nothing can ever get done? Sometimes wishing for something so hard gets your face smacked with what you wished for...Karma is a cruel mistress with a wicked sense of humor. 

I'm with you brother.  I'm a conservative and when Obama was elected I called him my President.  He was properly elected.  I disagreed with the majority of his policies to the Nth degree and believed that he was causing great economic harm to America, yet he was MY President.  I prayed earnestly for him that God would give him great wisdom and that he and his family would be well protected.  Perhaps his mind could be changed through dialogue.  If Warren were elected, then I would call her my President.  She would have earned it.  And, as with Obama, I would pray equally diligently for her.

This current effort of impeachment is because of political differences only.  No treason, no bribery, no misdemeanors, no high crimes, yet the push from the far Left is that DJT has committed every conceivable crime while President.  The current diatribe is that impeachment is a "political decision" (which I think is what you say you fear if Warren were elected).  No, it isn't.  That is dumbing down the purpose of impeachment and the very idea  of such was contradicted by Hamilton in Federalist 65.  Impeachment isn't a political decision because a grand jury is convened (the House) and a trial is conducted by the Senate and administered by the Chief Justice.  A verdict is rendered.  Impeachment is a real trial and the President would be facing real consequences but for what would the President be tried ?  Because Dems dislike his policies ?  A very poor choice and contrary to American values.

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

3 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

I'm with you brother.  I'm a conservative and when Obama was elected I called him my President.  He was properly elected.  I disagreed with the majority of his policies to the Nth degree and believed that he was causing great economic harm to America, yet he was MY President.  I prayed earnestly for him that God would give him great wisdom and that he and his family would be well protected.  Perhaps his mind could be changed through dialogue.  If Warren were elected, then I would call her my President.  She would have earned it.  And, as with Obama, I would pray equally diligently for her.

This current effort of impeachment is because of political differences only.  No treason, no bribery, no misdemeanors, no high crimes, yet the push from the far Left is that DJT has committed every conceivable crime while President.  The current diatribe is that impeachment is a "political decision" (which I think is what you say you fear if Warren were elected).  No, it isn't.  That is dumbing down the purpose of impeachment and the very idea  of such was contradicted by Hamilton in Federalist 65.  Impeachment isn't a political decision because a grand jury is convened (the House) and a trial is conducted by the Senate and administered by the Chief Justice.  A verdict is rendered.  Impeachment is a real trial and the President would be facing real consequences but for what would the President be tried ?  Because Dems dislike his policies ?  A very poor choice and contrary to American values.

My real fear is that you and I are talking just to ourselves. Some here are under the complete cloud think that:

"If I support or believe X, then X is good and anyone that doesnt support X is Evil and must be destroyed.
Everyone that disagrees with me is a Russian lovin Nazi!!!!!!!! All 23 different POVs they have are in reality ALL EVIL ALL THE TIME and only MINE is Good.
Therefore whatever crazy-wild-ass accusation I can dreamup can be hurled at them ad nauseum: EX Screaming "Russian lovin Nazi" at a uniform wearing member of our own Armed Forces sworn to give their life to defend our lives.

The really funny and nauseating thing here is that there is no talking with these people. They dont even like members of their own party that dont think exactly as they do. 

Back to my Warren example. |
The pendulum, IMHO started with a few of the RusHannity People when Clinton got elected. They hated Clinton such that nothing he could do would please them. 

When Bush43 won, OMG there are people that just a few weeks ago on Maher were PUBLICLY applauded for claiming that Bush43 stole the 2000 Election. Rational people know he won by a few chad in Palm Beach County but he did in fact win and it was decided in court, by SCOTUS using facts and evidence.

Then Obama won AND pissed everyone off.
1) The Clintonites were pissed because they had already put money down on homes in DC and were already writing the books they would sell to cash-out and become $Millionaires.
2) Bush43 and Hastert ran the economy into the toilet and then cost McCain the election...to an Educated Mulatto Choom-er...that was a community organizer.!!! Half the nation slow boiled and then the fool pissed everyone off by...actually being a sound minded President. THE NERVE OF SOME PEOPLE!

3) Then, in the Perfect Storm Part II, neither the Right nor the Left Wing of the Party of Money won in 2016. First the Republican Chosen Ones werent picked by the people who were soundly mad at Washington for many things, ACA being the leading example. And then this Beastly Educated Old Man that had been tested for decades and found to be...not a politician at all, came  and rocked the Democrat Party World so badly that they had to rewrite rules to insure he would lose. They changed Delegate Counting Rules, They changed Debate Times, They stacked the cards in their chosen ones favor....AND.....AND...THE CHOSEN ONE still barely made it. She took in more $$$ than the Federal Reserve could count, hired the Beloved-Celebrated Mook Mafia, Rested and Toasted her Laurels and wrote about it all on two completely un-secure email servers. She didnt answer the questions the way she should have. She acted like the Spoiled Princess that was demanding to be Crowned Queen, and pouted and whined and victimized herself about a 500X and 500 Days and 500 Ways aanndd together the happy coronation goers went off to....The Election. 

Her Birth-Righted Grab for the Coronation was used as the road map for The Election. She neglected her glorious blue wall she preened over, it was hers, by Birth-Right dont you know? She was not going to lose that. And those Deplorable People didnt even have addresses on Her Coronation Road. How were they going to influence her run to the Coronation,....I mean Election. So she and her cast of characters partied and preened and preened and they partied and told everyone how there was absolutely no chance she was going to lose her crown to The Worst Candidate to Ever Run for President!

But Witching hour stuck and the carriage she was riding in had indeed turned into a big old pumpkin, like all the bad nursery rhymes often do, but this time, in front of the whole world, and that pumpkin was all over her face about 10PM Central on Election Nite. The counters counted, but the numbers...THEY LIED. The Election was not a Coronation. Just like in 2008...she was once more tossed aside, this time not by a bright, educated, quick witted mulatto, but this time by a dim-witted, con artist, Cheeto. 

So the pendulum swung back with all the force that could be found. 

I just hope we can find a way to get back to the old way, you know when we actually voted for the best person running. Hopeless old fool that I am....

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

This isn't second hand info. This is straight from the horse's mouth: 

 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

6 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Rep. Schiff is deposing witnesses as he has stated.  The problem with these witnesses is that the majority are 2nd, 3rd and even 4th hand, not primary, ie., they heard a rumor

I understand what Schiff claims to be doing  Question is what are they really doing? Your opinion ET. Playing cards, watching Hallmark or what?

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

I understand what Schiff claims to be doing  Question is what are they really doing? Your opinion ET. Playing cards, watching Hallmark or what?

Salty, I don't have a clue.  The Intelligence Committee is extremely secretive even without Schiff being Chairman.  Probably less than 20% of their hearings are open in any one year and they haven't had an open hearing since 5/01/19.   Schiff strikes me more of a Hallmark guy than poker.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

This isn't second hand info. This is straight from the horse's mouth: 

 

 

Congressman Jason Chaffetz has stated that the rules were changed by Speaker Pelosi in January, 2019..

[AUDub 11,147]

On 10/25/2019 at 10:12 PM, Elephant Tipper said:

Congressman Jason Chaffetz has stated that the rules were changed by Speaker Pelosi in January, 2019..

You're both missing Napolitano's point. The original reason there was a "rule" that impeachment required a full House vote is because without a full House vote they'd have no authority to subpoena the relevant documents and witnesses. In 15' Rs voted to vest that authority in the heads of committee.

This kind of stuff was apparently fine WRT Benghazi and F&F. Y'all trying to make process debate out this?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

6 minutes ago, AUDub said:

You're both missing Napolitano's point. The original reason there was a "rule" that impeachment required a full House vote is because without a full House vote they'd have no authority to subpoena the relevant documents and witnesses. In 15' Rs voted to vest that authority in the head of the committee.

This kind of stuff was apparently fine WRT Benghazi and F&F. Y'all trying to make process debate out this?

You make it a process debate when the case facts don't support any other position.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

9 hours ago, AUDub said:

You're both missing Napolitano's point. The original reason there was a "rule" that impeachment required a full House vote is because without a full House vote they'd have no authority to subpoena the relevant documents and witnesses. In 15' Rs voted to vest that authority in the heads of committee.

This kind of stuff was apparently fine WRT Benghazi and F&F. Y'all trying to make process debate out this?

You're misunderstanding the conversation AUDub.  First, impeachment is not a "rule".  "Rules" are those guidelines of administering legislative action/duties and are revised and established by each new Congress.  The new Congress is not required to follow the rules of the previous Congress, although most rules remain in place.  Speaker Pelosi changed the Rules of the Committees which has directly affected how the Minority Party may participate.  She has grossly limited/restricted the abilities of the Minority Party, including the President and his representation in the faux "impeachment inquiry".  I'll come back to this in a moment to describe how this is being implemented by the Majority Party.......which is being unfairly and deceptively done.

Second, Impeachment is a process established by the Constitution, not the Congress.   The Constitution itself, not Speaker Pelosi, explicitly describes how the Impeachment process starts, which is with a vote of ALL of the Members of the House, yet Speaker Pelosi has stated that she has started an "impeachment inquiry".  Hogwash, because she doesn't have that power, only the full House by vote does.  Once the House votes, then the whole House establishes the rules for the Impeachment Process.

The distinction between these terms is vitally important because Speaker Pelosi and other Representatives are playing with semantics in hopes that they may build momentum against the President before you, the public, understand what is happening and by then they hope that resentment against them won't be as strong.  These are the actions of a banana republic, not the United States of America.  What she is doing is un-American.  Full transparency and representation is a must, which IS American.

Okay, so for the practical application of how these semantic games erode the Impeachment process and the rights of the Minority Party.  I'll mention two instances that I have seen in interviews with Dems who are actively engaged in deceiving the public.  The first instance is with Rep. Dan Kildee (MI).  See the link below.  In two different interviews, one print and one television, he stated that there is "no rule requiring an impeachment vote".  Well, he is correct in one sense but also he is wrong because he is misleading the viewers/readers.  He is correct in that there is "no rule requiring an impeachment vote" which is because the Congress, as I stated above, does not make the rule about the impeachment vote, the Constitution does.  How he is misleading the public by his statement is that he is implying that the Speaker may institute "impeachment inquiry" rules at her discretion.  She cannot do that, PERIOD.  The Constitution does not give the Speaker that power.  Only a vote by the House Members gives the whole House itself that power. 

[EDIT]: In the other interview of Rep. Kildee (sorry, no video) he stated that there is no "precedent" for an "impeachment inquiry".  No precedent ?  He is outright deceptive.  With both Nixon and Clinton the House voted to begin the Impeachment process (the impeachment process includes/starts with the inquiry...see my post below re: House Resolution 803).  There has been plenty of precedent for how the impeachment inquiry/process starts.  Again, this is about semantics and what the Dems can slide by the public.  

The second instance was in a television interview with a female Dem Representative.  Forgot her name but not the bilge she stated.  She was asked about the rules changes made by Speaker Pelosi and don't the changes prevent the President from having legal representation in these Committee meetings, which it does.  The Representative's response was "that the President already has representation by those Republicans on the Committees" (paraphrase...but very close).  This is wrong, very wrong.  The President in these instances always, as any American citizen, has due process rights of legal representation, yet the Dems are denying this key right of the President because of Speaker Pelosi's rules changes for this Congress.  No Congressman represents the President, only his duly-appointed legal counsel does.

To protect those Dems in Trump districts in the 2020 election, Speaker Pelosi is doing whatever she can to prevent a vote on Impeachment, even if it means removing the due process rights of the President and also misleading the public. If a judge in a court proceeding told you that you could not have a lawyer to represent you but you may have someone from your family do so, then would that be fair ?  NO, and neither is it for the President.  She and Rep. Schiff should both be censured and removed from office for these actions.  Their actions are highly unethical. 

Rep. Dan Kildee's interview:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rep-kildee-no-rule-requiring-impeachment-inquiry-vote/vi-AAIxbv7

[Elephant Tipper 430]

On 10/25/2019 at 7:56 PM, SaltyTiger said:

I understand what Schiff claims to be doing  Question is what are they really doing? Your opinion ET. Playing cards, watching Hallmark or what?

Rep. Nunes stated that Schiff's Intelligence Committee is only about impeachment and that the Intel Committee has not had a briefing in over a month.  In over a month !

[Elephant Tipper 430]

House Resolution 803, 1974-  "Resolution providing appropriate power to the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct an investigation of whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States."

https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-resolution/803

This House vote is what gave the House itself the ability to initiate the Impeachment process (inquiry) against Nixon.  The Impeachment Inquiry was not started by Speaker Albert as Speaker Pelosi is doing.  The Impeachment Inquiry is the first phase of the Impeachment process.  The two are not separate but co-exist as parts of the one process of Impeachment.  Speaker Pelosi is attempting to make a distinction between the two when no such distinction exists in order to circumvent having the House vote (which would make the Dems vulnerable in the 2020 election).  They are part and parcel the SAME.  A proper comparison would be the function of a grand jury.  A grand jury convenes to discover whether a trial should be held, or not.  This grand jury is a part of the trial process, just as an Impeachment Inquiry is to the Impeachment Process.  The two are integral to one another.

[homersapien 11,366]

There's nothing wrong with the process.  As Dub and Brad said, all of this Republican BS about the process simply reflects a lack of a rational defense based on the facts.

And it shouldn't be a surprise.  It's not like Trump has changed from what he always was.

In fact, this is less about Trump than it is about them - Republicans who continue to support Trump - facts, principles and integrity be damned. 

Republicans are uncomfortable defending Trump? Good. They should be.

Last week, a group of House Republicans demonstrated their undying fealty to President Trump by staging one of their most clownish stunts yet, an invasion of a secure room where the Intelligence Committee, including members of both parties, was preparing to hear testimony from a Pentagon official.

But over in the Senate, feelings are quite a bit different, as The Post’s Robert Costa and Philip Rucker report:

Those theatrics belie the deepening unease many Republicans now say they feel — particularly those in the Senate who are dreading having to weigh their conscience against their political calculations in deciding whether to convict or acquit Trump should the Democratic-controlled House impeach the president.

In hushed conversations over the past week, GOP senators lamented that the fast-expanding probe is fraying their party, which remains completely in Trump’s grip. They voiced exasperation at the expectation that they defend the president against the troublesome picture that has been painted, with neither convincing arguments from the White House nor confidence that something worse won’t soon be discovered.

“It feels like a horror movie,” said one veteran Republican senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly describe the consensus.

They’re exasperated, are they? Well, what did they expect?

If in 2016 you had told them that the Trump presidency would be characterized by shocking amounts of corruption and misbehavior, in which the president not only was exactly as vulgar, juvenile and divisive as he showed himself to be but also flagrantly betrayed his office and the interests of the United States to pursue his own political advantage, would any of them have said, “Oh no, I can’t imagine that would happen”?

Had you told them that Trump would be impeached and they’d have to sit in judgment of his indefensible misdeeds, would they have said such a turn of events would be impossible? Had you told them that the central piece of evidence driving that impeachment would be Trump’s own words on a transcript — after we all heard Trump on tape bragging about his ability to sexually assault women with impunity — would they have shaken their heads and said that there was no way it would ever come to that?

Yet somehow they convinced themselves it wouldn’t. They made a bet that they could get through four years with their own reputations intact, not to mention whatever they call their morality. Trump might be colorful and unorthodox, but the majesty of the presidency and the solid institutions of our great system would tame him, they told themselves.

More importantly, they decided that Trump’s takeover of their party was so complete that they had no choice: They could stand on principle and risk their careers in Congress, or they could take whatever shred of conscience they had, light it on fire, then get down on their knees and present the ashes to Trump as a symbol of their obeisance.

With just a couple of exceptions, they chose the latter course. Even those who ran against Trump in the ugly 2016 primaries have bowed down to him. “You know how you make America great again?” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham in 2015. “Tell Donald Trump to go to hell.” Now Graham is one of Trump’s most enthusiastic advocates.

It was no less obvious then than it is now. There are two kinds of people around Trump: Those who were drawn to him precisely because he is so corrupt (some of whom are currently in prison), and those who deluded themselves into thinking they could join his cause without themselves being corrupted.

Most of the Republican senators are in the latter category. But they should not escape judgment because they shook their heads in sorrow a few times. Every tyrant in history has been surrounded by people like them, who convinced themselves that their moral compromises were worthwhile because of the good they thought they could do by holding on to their own power.

So yes, they’ll now have to suffer some discomfort while more evidence of impeachable acts emerges on an almost daily basis. They’ll have to duck reporters asking for comment on the latest shocking development. They’ll have to struggle to justify the unjustifiable, with little help from a White House full of knaves and fools.

And we know how this will end. A few Republican senators — perhaps one or two, or even a couple more — may vote to convict Trump on charges of which he is obviously guilty. But the overwhelming majority will not. Too fearful of the wrath of Trump supporters and the condemnation of the sycophants and hate-mongers of right-wing media, they will meekly assent.

They will raise their hands and proclaim that it was fine for the president to strong-arm a foreign government into digging up dirt on a political opponent as the price of getting desperately needed military aid. They will say that they have no real objection to the fact that he allowed his buffoonish and possibly criminal “personal lawyer” to manipulate American foreign policy. They will say that nothing else he has done — the naked obstruction of justice, the shameless use of his office for personal profit — warrants removal, even if their friend Mike Pence would become president in his place.

They will say all that because they are cowards, and as for “having to weigh their conscience against their political calculations,” that’s not a problem. If you’re never able to muster the strength to act on your conscience, do you even have one?

Trump’s reckoning is theirs, too. It was inevitable, and they deserve to pay every ounce of the price.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/28/republicans-are-uncomfortable-defending-trump-good-they-should-be/

[homersapien 11,366]