GOP Leader Drops BOMB on Schiff – Points to Committee Rule that Must Allow Republicans Day to Call W

Mycroft said:

Perhaps we'll get to see open testimony from people who failed to pass the closed hearing audition. Perhaps we'll get to see open testimony from others? Ciaramella? Hunter or Joe? Hell, maybe even testimony from Schiffty, himself?

Click to expand...

Casper said:

Wishin ain't gettin.

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

Perhaps we'll get to see open testimony from people who failed to pass the closed hearing audition. Perhaps we'll get to see open testimony from others? Ciaramella? Hunter or Joe? Hell, maybe even testimony from Schiffty, himself?

Click to expand...

humbolt said:

Damn straight. Who wants to hear from Republican witnesses? The case for collusion, er, obstruction, ah, quid pro quo, no, bribery, wait, extortion is clear. It's a slam dunk.

Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:

When you can show one single shred of wrong doing by Hunter or Joe Biden and how it relates to Trump's crimes then you can subpoena them. A Trump tweet doesn't count as evidence. You're just trying to distract because you can't defend Trump on substance.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

poor humbolt, I see the impeachment hearings are so devastating that you've resorted to actually being specific. Usually you flit about threads offering nothing but insults and silly deflections. Republcans are calling witnesses. Volker and Morrison were on the republicans witness list

As Tim Morrison and Kurt Volker recount their concerns about the parallel track of diplomacy in Ukraine meant to surface dirt on the Bidens, it’s worth remembering they are the witnesses Republicans — not Democrats — wanted to hear from in the impeachment inquiry.

Morrison and Volker are the witnesses Republicans requested

Rep. Devin Nunes again railed against the impeachment inquiry — calling it “a farce”— and the Democrats leading the process. He complained that the public hearings were not a fact-finding missions but instead designed to “showcase” witnesses chosen by the Democrats.
He failed to mention, however, that the witnesses about to be interviewed were requested by the minority party, according to the committee chairman.

Nunes slams witness choice before GOP-chosen witness testimon

Yea humbolt, this is bad. they were "his" witnesses.

At one point, Nunes said Volker and Morrison were "your witnesses" while addressing Democrats.

Impeachment hearing updates: Vindman, Volker, Morrison testimony - Business Insider

Click to expand...

humbolt said:

Damn straight. Who wants to hear from Republican witnesses? The case for collusion, er, obstruction, ah, quid pro quo, no, bribery, wait, extortion is clear. It's a slam dunk.

Click to expand...

Casper said:

I would be fine hearing from Republican on the charfes presented to the Senate, so long as it is on topic. Wonder if trump will allow his staff to testify then.

Click to expand...

humbolt said:

And as usual Vern, you're about as clear as those allegations I mentioned. This is about due process, and that's not strictly a legal term. It's a principle of fairness and justice that has evolved, unlike democrats, who haven't - except for Hill, who was against Ukrainian aid before she was for it. She evolved. She gets a star on her forehead. It'll probably fall off, but hey, nobody can say she didn't get one. You'll have to prove you even have a forehead before anyone considers a star for you. It's not looking good, Vern. Not looking good.

Realize, Vern, that if the House votes to impeach, all the witnesses Schiff obstructed will give testimony in the Senate. But you'll need to check with Pelosi first, before any vote, and see what else she has in her marsupial pouch, besides Nadler, a spare set of choppers, and some dental adhesive.

Click to expand...

vesper said:

Good move by Republicans to get it on the record. It can be used politically of showing an unfair process that the Republicans were denied witnesses especially those that pointed to Democrats working with Ukrainians for dirt on the Trump campaign like Nellie Ohr and DNC operative Chalupa that they requested as witnesses.

Click to expand...

vesper said:

Good move by Republicans to get it on the record. It can be used politically of showing an unfair process that the Republicans were denied witnesses especially those that pointed to Democrats working with Ukrainians for dirt on the Trump campaign like Nellie Ohr and DNC operative Chalupa that they requested as witnesses.

Click to expand...

The investigation conducted by these investigative
committees has focused on three interrelated lines of inquiry
regarding the President's conduct:

1. Did the President request that a foreign leader
and government initiate investigations to benefit the
President's personal political interests in the United
States, including an investigation related to the
President's political rival and potential opponent in
the 2020 U.S. presidential election?

2. Did the President--directly or through agents--
seek to use the power of the Office of the President
and other instruments of the federal government in
other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and
government of Ukraine to advance the President's
personal political interests, including by leveraging
an Oval Office meeting desired by the President of
Ukraine or by withholding U.S. military assistance to
Ukraine?

3. Did the President and his Administration seek to
obstruct, suppress or cover up information to conceal
from the Congress and the American people evidence
about the President's actions and conduct?

Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:

:lamo The Dems "forgot" to strike this rule? That's a right wing nutter's way of saying they never tried but you want to feel like a victim. This entire process has been run according to Republican set rules they implemented under Obama.

Second, sure, call your unrelated witnesses, then maybe they can tell Congress to go **** itself because according to Republicans Congress should have no power and that subpoenas mean nothing.

Why is it you hate our Constitution and our country and believe that the President can commit as many crimes as he wants with no oversight or consequences? Why do you hate America?

Click to expand...

Doc91478 said:

~~~~~~
On the contrary, it the Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat Left that continues to hate and attempt to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This Star Chamber fiasco run by Adam Schitf is the crux of the problem. I'm sure that the witnesses called by the GOP will be more effective than the hearsay witnesses produced by the Left.
Where's the link supporting your allegation ("This entire process has been run according to Republican set rules they implemented under Obama.")
It's you that hates America.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

wow Humbolt, that’s a wordy response. You are clearly out of your comfort zone. But we already knew that. anyhoo, in spite of the quantity of your words, you didn’t say anything. I’ve shown your “who wants to hear from republican witnesses” post was false. And I clearly showed that Republicans are getting to call witnesses. And of course their testimony blew up in their faces.

But I see you posted more “specific” statements with “Hill was against it before she was for it”. Your conservative masters appreciate your obedience but your specious “claim” has nothing to do with her testimony and this is key: We were not discussing Hill. We were discussing your false claim about “mean ole dems” that I clearly showed was false. The takeaway from your latest post is you know your first post was false and you know how damaging her testimony was to your cult. Hence your obedient deflecting and flailing.

Click to expand...

humbolt said:

Vern, you're outta your depth, which admittedly doesn't require much. The GOP can't call any witnesses without Schiff's approval. That bears as much relation to due process as a stuffed animal does to an airplane. But, democrats treat principles like a ship's ballast, to be trown overboard in shallow water, where you and they prefer to travel.

Click to expand...

The investigation conducted by these investigative
committees has focused on three interrelated lines of inquiry
regarding the President's conduct:

1. Did the President request that a foreign leader
and government initiate investigations to benefit the
President's personal political interests in the United
States, including an investigation related to the
President's political rival and potential opponent in
the 2020 U.S. presidential election?

2. Did the President--directly or through agents--
seek to use the power of the Office of the President
and other instruments of the federal government in
other ways to apply pressure on the head of state and
government of Ukraine to advance the President's
personal political interests, including by leveraging
an Oval Office meeting desired by the President of
Ukraine or by withholding U.S. military assistance to
Ukraine?

3. Did the President and his Administration seek to
obstruct, suppress or cover up information to conceal
from the Congress and the American people evidence
about the President's actions and conduct?

Click to expand...

humbolt said:

That's great, assuming an impeachment actually happens. Trump may exercise executive privilege at his discretion regarding the witnesses in question, so that will likely remain unsettled for now.

Click to expand...

Unitedwestand13 said:

The rules were set when the house enacted house resolution 660 which provided the beginning of the inquiry.

And accompying that resolution was a report laying out the rules of the inquiry.



H. Rept. 116-266 - DIRECTING CERTAIN COMMITTEES TO CONTINUE THEIR ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS AS PART OF THE EXISTING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INQUIRY INTO WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO IMPEACH DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES | Congress.gov | Library of Congress


Those three lines of inquiry serve the primary focus of the investigation and the witnesses had to be able to provide testimony that was relevant to those three lines of inquiry.

Click to expand...

Casper said:

Thinking it will happen, but being that Pelosi was never happy to set an investigation into impeachment in the first place she could very well say that the evidence in not conclusive enough and kill off moving it to the Senate. We shall see.

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

Perhaps we'll get to see open testimony from people who failed to pass the closed hearing audition. Perhaps we'll get to see open testimony from others? Ciaramella? Hunter or Joe? Hell, maybe even testimony from Schiffty, himself?

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

Perhaps we'll get to see open testimony from people who failed to pass the closed hearing audition. Perhaps we'll get to see open testimony from others? Ciaramella? Hunter or Joe? Hell, maybe even testimony from Schiffty, himself?

Click to expand...