Flagrant Violation of House Rules, Pelosi Bans Crenshaw from Seeing Schiff's Secret Transcripts

Do you deny that there are ~50 Republicans in the House who are permitted to show up to these interviews and ask questions?

 

Why only 50? Are only 50 Trump-hating Democrats allowed to show up?

 

Yes.

 

And those Republicans enjoy the same latitude as the Democrats; introducing evidence, calling witnesses, etc?

 

Everything is by the rules. Republicans are given as much time to question witnesses as Democrats are. They cannot, however, issue subpoenas. For some reason, Boehner changed that rule during one of the numerous Benghazi hearings.

By the way, there is nothing untoward about witnessing these testimonies behind closed doors in a secure room.

 

Nice dodge.

You didn't answer my questions.

Can they call witnesses and introduce evidence?

 

Yes, they can call witnesses. They cannot subpoena witnesses (because Boehner changed that rule). If they have evidence, they can certainly introduce it. If, for instance, they needed a classified document from the state department, they would have to request a subpoena from the committee chair. No requests have been made.

 

it is a matter of opinion about where to start the clock, and so we will not be issuing a Pinocchio rating. But it’s clear that not every impeachment process unfolds in the same way. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that the House first vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry before information on possible offenses is collected.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...is-impeachment-process-compare-nixon-clinton/

 

And the very fact that they cannot issue subpeonas is what makes this process so lopsided. The Democrats have tied the hands of the Republicans.

This will end up costing the Democrats more dearly than they could ever have imagined...

 

They will be able to do that once the issue reaches the senate.
If y’all didn’t want the democrats to have any power — maybe you shouldn’t have lost the house...

Any evidence to back this up or just your opinion?

 

In the interest of fairness, the Republicans should be allowed to do it now. That would be fair.

But Democrats don't enjoy even a passing relationship with "fairness"...

That's my opinion. But I stand by that opinion and will revel in the bloodletting the Democrats suffer as a result of their nonsense...

 

No. They have the ability and timeline for asking as many questions as they prefer of the witnesses called by the majority. That list obviously is severely restricted by the order from trump that all his employees keep their mouth shut.

 

By following house rules as set by Republicans?
How is that not fair?

Time will tell, polling is indicating otherwise — but I understand many discredit polls since they are uncomfortable and were off 1% in 2016.

 

I'm glad they've been ordered to not cooperate. That'd be like leading lambs into a wolf's den.

The Republicans should be allowed to issue subpoenas. The fact that they can't proves how absolutely unfair this process is...

 

they know they their argument is bogus, but when the facts are not on their side... they argue the process... which sadly for them was created by republicans when they controlled the house

but yes, Republicans and Democrats are on these committees - they seem to forget that too

what is going to be funny is when it moves to the next stage of public testomy and they whine about it being public

 

Yea...a wolf's den filled with 50 Republicans who want to protect Donald trump.

"Most transparent administration" orders all of his employees to keep their mouth shut.

Who do you want to be subpoenaed that would be relevant to whether Trump abused his power and then tried to hide that abuse?

 

Majority party generally have more latitude in these matters. It’s always been that way.

 

So you support the unfairness here?

Good to know...

 

So they should refuse to honor subpoenas but be granted subpoena power.....Sounds fair...lol

 

It likely is unfair. But, it was just as unfair when Boehner prevented democrats from issuing subpoenas during the Benghazi hearings. It's what republicans wanted and what they got.

The OP's original premise that there were flagrant violations of house rules is completely and utterly false. Time and time again the falsehoods generated by right wing media sources are debunked. Time and time again you go back to these same sources for the next outrageous meme. I'm tired of the lies and am happy that they're not being generated by the left.

 

Did you join just to cry about how the idiot scumbag is being picked on?

 

I support the rules of the House of Representatives.

 

Permit me to suggest that you probably shouldn't worry about why I joined. If my presence here, and my opinions, bother you, that's your problem, not mine. As such, I really don't care that you wonder why I joined.

The fact of the matter is that there's a process which, if followed, would allow Republicans to issue subpoenas. But the Democrats don't want any part of that. That process has been used in each previous case of an impeachment inquiry.

In the cases of Johnson, Nixon and Clinton, all three times a formal vote was taken (there was a resolution in Johnson's case) on whether or not an impeachment inquiry should be launched. Why should this be different? There's precedent for holding a vote. Not holding a vote only shines a light on the monumental cowardice of the left. Pelosi knows that if she allows Republicans to issue subpoenas and introducing evidence, the proverbial crap will hit the fan.

Surely, there are Democrats who believe that this charade is nonsensical. Trump is not going to be removed by the Senate and they know it. But they understand that their constituents are sick and tired of their partisan nonsense, so they really don't want to have to go on record in support of something which, along with being a waste of time and money, is something which is a complete non-starter right out of the gate. By Pelosi refusing to hold a vote, she protects these little pinheads from standing up and accepting responsibility for what they believe and what they want to do.

Does anyone honestly believe Trump is going to be removed from office over this? Exactly how stoned would someone need to be to believe that?

 

Nixon took himself down via his own actions

Nixon resigned as he knew not resigning would hurt the party, Trump won't resign because he couldn't care less if it hurts his party - with Trump it's Trump first

 

A much more important Document than your piddley assed rule book is the constitution which simply says it's up to the House to conduct impeachment. There are no instructions as to how the House conducts this special impeachment process. But nothing in the Constitution says that normal parliamentary procedures are required. The massive fact that Trump by trying to block subpoenas and witnesses and in so doing defying the constitution seems of little concern to his followers But to you a rule book out weighs the constitution. And by the way Trump is the least trusted president in modern history a fact he will never get out from under. So you worry about a rulebook while most of us will worry about the undermining of the constitution, the rule of law, and the separation of powers all of which is shredding our democracy