To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question

You have no idea whether they are getting hearsay...direct evidence,,, or a mixture of both...because they are not releasing that information. In fact many of the witnesses were directly involved in the actions that occurred in Ukraine so one would assume that evidence is "direct"

You really ought to be more careful about the claims you make.

You've been proven wrong numerous times in just the last few minutes

 

Only two presidents have been impeached. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

Get your most basic facts straight.

 

Actually we do know what is hearsay or direct evidence. It was phone call, so unless it was the speaker themselves, its hearsay. Not hard to understand...

 

Awww...look at you nit picking.

Yes Nixon avoided certain Impeachment by resigning

That means that Trump would be only the THIRD President ever Impeached.

THAT really is an accomplishment

 

Oh there's the problem. You are woefully uninformed.

"It" is about a lot more than just the phone call. There were months of conversations between the likes of Sondolm and others...backed up by text messages and FIRST HAND testimony

There. Try not to make that "mistake" again

 

Who are you talking to?

 

Dispondent Post 78

 

My "imaginary rule" comes from the House Manual, 116th congress:

RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Open meetings and hearings

(g)(1) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, by a standing committee or subcommittee thereof (other than the Committee on Ethics or its subcommittees) shall be open to the public, including to radio, television, and still photography coverage, except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be in executive session because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the House.

(2)(A) Each hearing conducted by a committee or subcommittee (other than the Committee on Ethics or its subcommittees) shall be open to the public, including to radio, television, and still photography coverage, except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and the same procedures specified in this subparagraph for closing hearings to the public.

(C) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance at a hearing of a committee or subcommittee (other than the Committee on Ethics or its subcommittees) unless the House by majority vote authorizes a particular committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.

 

Surely you joke. Schiffty et al are consciously and proudly orchestrating freak shows and a circus.

 

Nothing outside of the House Manual for the 116th that I know of. See post #83.

 

Abuse of power

 

It's apparently good for leftists to hold one sided hearings with no cross examination, then leak, edited, handpicked statements to the leftist press.

 

There you have it.

Trey Gowdy's defense of private hearings by Congressional committees to prevent them being turned into "freak shows" and "circuses" is reflected in the 2015 rules passed under Speaker Boehner's leadership of a Republican-run Congress.

Of course, those who are hysterical over what depositions may expose wish to turn the orderly process into a "freak show" and/or a "circus." Nevertheless, the bipartisan examination of witness testimony will proceed according to the rules.

When the substance being exposed is damning, try to indict the procedure by which it is elicited.

The desperate ploy has failed.

 

That's the hyper-partisan poopdoodle calculated to smear the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Such a typical desperate ad hominem diversion will not distract from the revelations that will be made public when the depositions are completed.

Of course, some are hysterical over the facts that will be exposed, but they cannot avoid them.

 

Yes what the Dems are doing could be described as an abuse of power.

 

Your fixation with the "leftists" that fester in your noggin notwithstanding, the orderly depositions are being conducted with all witnesses subject to questioning by both Republican and Democratic members of the committees and their designated counsels, all members with equal capacity to "leak" whatever they may think serves their agenda.

 

Then why aren't they just made public after a vote? What's the excuse there?

 

The impeachment inquiry is complying with the rules enacted by Speaker Boehner's Republican-controlled House in 2015, heeding Republican Trey Gowdy's endorsement of private hearings to avoid their being turned into circuses and freak shows.

All testimony is being subjected to scrutiny and questioning by members of both parties, and will be further assessed after the deposition phase is complete and the process advances to the public stage.

 

You should look before you leap. Judge Nappy is flat out wrong. According to Boehner himself the only related rule he signed off on in 2015 was to allow chairmen alone to issue subpoenas. Besides the 2015 rules do not apply. The current house manual is for the 116th congress effective 2018. So you are about zero for five at the plate.

 

Ranking member???? That's zero for six.

 

I understand your need to declare your superior legal expertise to that of Fox's senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano. Perhaps, you have already submitted your resumé.

The substantive testimony now being elicited by the legal process that avoids Trey Gowdy's concern for such a hearing in a public venue becoming a "circus" or a "freak show" (as some would clearly wish) is being presented before members of both parties and their appointed counsels.

If you need to accuse all the Republican committee members participating of being complicit in an illegal undertaking, that is what you will do.

Such feeble attempts to distract attention from the revelations of expert witnesses - who transcended efforts by powerful parties with an agenda to silence them - are amusing but, in the end, the truth will out.

 

You are very upset that reliable witness after reliable witness is reportedly spilling the beans in a venue characterized by order and decorum, aren't you?

 

To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question

No it is isn't. The question is when to impeach. The sooner the better.

 

No, but I'll take what Boehner says he did over what Nappy says Boehner did every time. Although it is possible that my legal expertise does exceed Judge Nappy's

 

No, but I am less than impressed with unreliable witnesses testifying to hearsay / third party information -- stuff they never would be allowed to do in a court of law. But I was really commenting how odd it was that you call the chairman of a committee a ranking member.