1. We all know ahead of time who's testifying.
2. We know where they are testifying.
3. Each committee they are testifying to contains GOP representation, which is allotted time to ask questions.
And you're about to see why making these non-public is the right thing to do as it's starting to appear that Sondland perjured himself.
Go ask your buddy Trey Gowdy why these hearings are not open to the public.
And we know what happens when they are public. You get a disgusting circus like we saw with that toadie Lewandowski.
But keep crying, your tears taste delightful!
lol. "Its starting appear"??? lol. Based on what? Is this the same source that told you there was Russian collusion? Is it based on your vast knowledge of what we DONT know was said in the secret hearing? By the way, even extensive testimony by others (assuming it even exists) cannot prove "I dont remember" is purjury. Gimme a break. Why do think "I cannot recall" is the most common answer you will ever hear in proceedings of this sort? Much better to say you cant remember than to make an error of recall.
The public is not stupid. They can read the transcript. I call it secret because it is secret. Do you even know what a SCIF is? Apparently not. As for Gowdy's fear it will devolve into a circus. Too late--it already has. May as well let the public see.
(This post was last modified: 10-29-2019 01:29 PM by Attackcoog.)
Full text of the letter Pelosi sent to Democrats in Congress:
Quote:October 28, 2019
Dear Democratic Colleague,
For weeks, the President, his Counsel in the White House, and his allies in Congress have made the baseless claim that the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry "lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding." They argue that, because the House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist.
Of course, this argument has no merit. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Multiple past impeachments have gone forward without any authorizing resolutions. Just last week, a federal court confirmed that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be "an impermissible intrusion on the House's constitutional authority." More than 300 legal scholars have also refuted this argument, concluding that "the Constitution does not mandate the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins."
The Trump Administration has made up this argument -- apparently out of whole cloth -- in order to justify its unprecedented cover-up, withhold key documents from multiple federal agencies, prevent critical witnesses from cooperating, and defy duly authorized subpoenas.
This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment inquiry, including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records and testimony, and any other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation.
This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people, authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth due process rights for the President and his Counsel.
We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives.
1. We all know ahead of time who's testifying.
2. We know where they are testifying.
3. Each committee they are testifying to contains GOP representation, which is allotted time to ask questions.
And you're about to see why making these non-public is the right thing to do as it's starting to appear that Sondland perjured himself.
Go ask your buddy Trey Gowdy why these hearings are not open to the public.
And we know what happens when they are public. You get a disgusting circus like we saw with that toadie Lewandowski.
But keep crying, your tears taste delightful!
lol. "Its starting appear"??? lol. Based on what? Is this the same source that told you there was Russian collusion? Is it based on your vast knowledge of what we DONT know was said in the secret hearing? Gimme a break. The public is not stupid. They can read the transcript. I call it secret because it is secret. Do you even know what a SCIF is? Apparently not. As for Gowdy's fear it will devolve into a circus. Too late--it already has. May as well let the public see.
Perhaps you can cite a post where I said there was Russian Collusion?
Regarding Sondland and perjury Here's one article. There's plenty more on the Google machine.
Quote:Testimony from other witnesses has put the credibility of Trump’s most favorable witness into serious doubt as the White House struggles to define a response to the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry beyond simply refusing to cooperate with it.
Story Continued Below
Democrats have cited Sondland’s repeated memory lapses pertaining to central events surrounding Trump's pressure campaign to get Ukraine to investigate a political rival, Joe Biden.
They raised similar questions about Sondland’s truthfulness following the testimony last week of acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor, who said Sondland had conveyed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that the release of U.S. military assistance aid was predicated upon Zelensky publicly committing to the investigations Trump demanded.
But it was the opening statement made public late Monday by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Trump's top National Security Council adviser on Ukraine, that had Democrats questioning Sondland's testimony most pointedly.
Sondland testified that “neither Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill, nor anyone else in the NSC staff ever expressed any concerns to me about our efforts … or any concerns that we were acting improperly,” referring to former national security adviser John Bolton and former NSC senior Russia director Fiona Hill, who gave her own testimony last week.
Sondland added that if Bolton, Hill, “or any others harbored misgivings about the propriety of what we were doing, they never shared those misgivings with me, then or later.”
According to Vindman, that is not true. In his opening statement, Vindman wrote that he and Hill confronted Sondland on July 10 following a meeting with Ukraine's top national security official. And, according to both Hill and Vindman, Bolton abruptly ended a meeting with Ukraine’s top national security official, Oleksandr Danylyuk, because he was disturbed by Sondland’s comments.
1. We all know ahead of time who's testifying.
2. We know where they are testifying.
3. Each committee they are testifying to contains GOP representation, which is allotted time to ask questions.
And you're about to see why making these non-public is the right thing to do as it's starting to appear that Sondland perjured himself.
Do you distinguish “secret” from “non-public”? How?
1. We all know ahead of time who's testifying.
2. We know where they are testifying.
3. Each committee they are testifying to contains GOP representation, which is allotted time to ask questions.
And you're about to see why making these non-public is the right thing to do as it's starting to appear that Sondland perjured himself.
Do you distinguish “secret” from “non-public”? How?
(10-29-2019 01:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Regarding Sondland and perjury Here's one article. There's plenty more on the Google machine.
Quote:Testimony from other witnesses has put the credibility of Trump’s most favorable witness into serious doubt as the White House struggles to define a response to the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry beyond simply refusing to cooperate with it.
Story Continued Below
Democrats have cited Sondland’s repeated memory lapses pertaining to central events surrounding Trump's pressure campaign to get Ukraine to investigate a political rival, Joe Biden.
They raised similar questions about Sondland’s truthfulness following the testimony last week of acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor, who said Sondland had conveyed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that the release of U.S. military assistance aid was predicated upon Zelensky publicly committing to the investigations Trump demanded.
But it was the opening statement made public late Monday by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Trump's top National Security Council adviser on Ukraine, that had Democrats questioning Sondland's testimony most pointedly.
Sondland testified that “neither Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill, nor anyone else in the NSC staff ever expressed any concerns to me about our efforts … or any concerns that we were acting improperly,” referring to former national security adviser John Bolton and former NSC senior Russia director Fiona Hill, who gave her own testimony last week.
Sondland added that if Bolton, Hill, “or any others harbored misgivings about the propriety of what we were doing, they never shared those misgivings with me, then or later.”
According to Vindman, that is not true. In his opening statement, Vindman wrote that he and Hill confronted Sondland on July 10 following a meeting with Ukraine's top national security official. And, according to both Hill and Vindman, Bolton abruptly ended a meeting with Ukraine’s top national security official, Oleksandr Danylyuk, because he was disturbed by Sondland’s comments.
You didnt read the article did you? After making the case for purjury, it goes on to say it would be virtually impossible to prove that Sondland committed purjury......The parade of nothing burgers continues.
(This post was last modified: 10-29-2019 01:36 PM by Attackcoog.)
1. We all know ahead of time who's testifying.
2. We know where they are testifying.
3. Each committee they are testifying to contains GOP representation, which is allotted time to ask questions.
And you're about to see why making these non-public is the right thing to do as it's starting to appear that Sondland perjured himself.
Do you distinguish “secret” from “non-public”? How?
The operation to kill Baghdadi was secret.
So, it was “secret” and it was “non-public”, right? What I’m getting at is, what’s the difference?
(This post was last modified: 10-29-2019 01:34 PM by Native Georgian.)
1. We all know ahead of time who's testifying.
2. We know where they are testifying.
3. Each committee they are testifying to contains GOP representation, which is allotted time to ask questions.
And you're about to see why making these non-public is the right thing to do as it's starting to appear that Sondland perjured himself.
Do you distinguish “secret” from “non-public”? How?
The operation to kill Baghdadi was secret.
lol....so SCIF testimony is "public". Absolutely amazing what these wild eyed liberals can convince themselves of.
(This post was last modified: 10-29-2019 01:38 PM by Attackcoog.)
(10-29-2019 01:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Regarding Sondland and perjury Here's one article. There's plenty more on the Google machine.
Quote:Testimony from other witnesses has put the credibility of Trump’s most favorable witness into serious doubt as the White House struggles to define a response to the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry beyond simply refusing to cooperate with it.
Story Continued Below
Democrats have cited Sondland’s repeated memory lapses pertaining to central events surrounding Trump's pressure campaign to get Ukraine to investigate a political rival, Joe Biden.
They raised similar questions about Sondland’s truthfulness following the testimony last week of acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor, who said Sondland had conveyed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that the release of U.S. military assistance aid was predicated upon Zelensky publicly committing to the investigations Trump demanded.
But it was the opening statement made public late Monday by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Trump's top National Security Council adviser on Ukraine, that had Democrats questioning Sondland's testimony most pointedly.
Sondland testified that “neither Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill, nor anyone else in the NSC staff ever expressed any concerns to me about our efforts … or any concerns that we were acting improperly,” referring to former national security adviser John Bolton and former NSC senior Russia director Fiona Hill, who gave her own testimony last week.
Sondland added that if Bolton, Hill, “or any others harbored misgivings about the propriety of what we were doing, they never shared those misgivings with me, then or later.”
According to Vindman, that is not true. In his opening statement, Vindman wrote that he and Hill confronted Sondland on July 10 following a meeting with Ukraine's top national security official. And, according to both Hill and Vindman, Bolton abruptly ended a meeting with Ukraine’s top national security official, Oleksandr Danylyuk, because he was disturbed by Sondland’s comments.
You didnt read the article did you? After making the case for purjury, it goes on to say it would be virtually impossible to prove that Sondland committed purjury......The parade of nothing burgers continues.
Yes, read that. So what? Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean Sondland didn't knowingly lie.
1. We all know ahead of time who's testifying.
2. We know where they are testifying.
3. Each committee they are testifying to contains GOP representation, which is allotted time to ask questions.
And you're about to see why making these non-public is the right thing to do as it's starting to appear that Sondland perjured himself.
Do you distinguish “secret” from “non-public”? How?
The operation to kill Baghdadi was secret.
So, it was “secret” and it was “non-public”, right? What I’m getting at is, what’s the difference?
Secret means you don't know about it. We all know these hearings are happening. The GOP is acting like they have no clue what's happening with the impeachment inquiry when they're right there in the ******* hearings, participating, and asking questions.
1. We all know ahead of time who's testifying.
2. We know where they are testifying.
3. Each committee they are testifying to contains GOP representation, which is allotted time to ask questions.
And you're about to see why making these non-public is the right thing to do as it's starting to appear that Sondland perjured himself.
Do you distinguish “secret” from “non-public”? How?
The operation to kill Baghdadi was secret.
lol....so SCIF testimony is "public". Absolutely amazing what these wild eyed liberals can convince themselves of.
Knock it off, you know damned well what I meant. But what's actually more amazing, and sad, is you guys believing this nonsensical line from schmucks like Jim Jordan who are in the damned hearings they claim to know nothing about!
1. We all know ahead of time who's testifying.
2. We know where they are testifying.
3. Each committee they are testifying to contains GOP representation, which is allotted time to ask questions.
And you're about to see why making these non-public is the right thing to do as it's starting to appear that Sondland perjured himself.
Do you distinguish “secret” from “non-public”? How?
The operation to kill Baghdadi was secret.
So, it was “secret” and it was “non-public”, right? What I’m getting at is, what’s the difference?
Secret means you don't know about it. We all know these hearings are happening. The GOP is acting like they have no clue what's happening with the impeachment inquiry when they're right there in the ******* hearings, participating, and asking questions.
Wrong. Thats actually not the definition of secret, the definition is a piece of information that is not generally known or is not known by someone else and should not be told to others.
So while we might know that the hearings are happening, they are still a secret because we dont know whats happening behind doors. If you want to play semantics, we can definitely play semantics.
and no, the GOP is not participating and asking questions, its a democrat lead inquiry, so its actually the democrats that are participating and asking questions. Sure they might be a couple of republicans in the panel, but lets not get misguided here.
(This post was last modified: 10-29-2019 02:12 PM by UTSAMarineVet09.)
(10-29-2019 01:14 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote: Full text of the letter Pelosi sent to Democrats in Congress:
Quote:October 28, 2019
Dear Democratic Colleague,
For weeks, the President, his Counsel in the White House, and his allies in Congress have made the baseless claim that the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry "lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding." They argue that, because the House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist.
Of course, this argument has no merit. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Multiple past impeachments have gone forward without any authorizing resolutions. Just last week, a federal court confirmed that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be "an impermissible intrusion on the House's constitutional authority." More than 300 legal scholars have also refuted this argument, concluding that "the Constitution does not mandate the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins."
The Trump Administration has made up this argument -- apparently out of whole cloth -- in order to justify its unprecedented cover-up, withhold key documents from multiple federal agencies, prevent critical witnesses from cooperating, and defy duly authorized subpoenas.
This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment inquiry, including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records and testimony, and any other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation.
This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people, authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth due process rights for the President and his Counsel.
We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives.
Nobody is above the law.
best regards,
Nancy
lol.
Lot of word salad that said exactly zippity-do-dads.
"We are taking this vote to affirm that what we are currently doing in a secured SCIF when none of the information coming forth is even Confidential, much less Top Secret or other, is OK with us cause we found some other lawyers to agree with us. The fact this has never been done in this fashion in the previous 240 years or so, welllll, it's just that we're super-special.
That and the Durham and Barr reports are about to drop and we've been told they're going to be very, very ugly. We're still hoping to divert the gullibles further with yet another dog and pony show.
As we're soon to find out, unfortunately no one is above the law.
1. We all know ahead of time who's testifying.
2. We know where they are testifying.
3. Each committee they are testifying to contains GOP representation, which is allotted time to ask questions.
And you're about to see why making these non-public is the right thing to do as it's starting to appear that Sondland perjured himself.
Do you distinguish “secret” from “non-public”? How?
The operation to kill Baghdadi was secret.
lol....so SCIF testimony is "public". Absolutely amazing what these wild eyed liberals can convince themselves of.
Knock it off, you know damned well what I meant. But what's actually more amazing, and sad, is you guys believing this nonsensical line from schmucks like Jim Jordan who are in the damned hearings they claim to know nothing about!
This is not hard to understand---yet liberals who want to use secret hearings to smear the current president simply wont admit it.
If its not available to the public---its SECRET. Most normal Americans understand that simple truth----The wild eyed liberal pitch fork mob---not so much.
(This post was last modified: 10-29-2019 02:43 PM by Attackcoog.)
(10-29-2019 01:27 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: Do you distinguish “secret” from “non-public”? How?
The operation to kill Baghdadi was secret.
So, it was “secret” and it was “non-public”, right? What I’m getting at is, what’s the difference?
Secret means you don't know about it. We all know these hearings are happening. The GOP is acting like they have no clue what's happening with the impeachment inquiry when they're right there in the ******* hearings, participating, and asking questions.
Wrong. Thats actually not the definition of secret, the definition is a piece of information that is not generally known or is not known by someone else and should not be told to others.
So while we might know that the hearings are happening, they are still a secret because we dont know whats happening behind doors. If you want to play semantics, we can definitely play semantics.
and no, the GOP is not participating and asking questions, its a democrat lead inquiry, so its actually the democrats that are participating and asking questions. Sure they might be a couple of republicans in the panel, but lets not get misguided here.
And you don't need to know! In case you missed civics, we live in a representative republic. We elect people to act on our behalf, and we have elected officials of both parties participating in these hearings.
And if you honestly believe that the GOP is not asking questions in these hearings, you're a bigger fool than I thought. And if the GOP is not taking their allotted time to ask questions, they're even bigger fools than I thought!
Quote:(CNN)Democrats and Republicans got into a shouting match behind closed doors on Tuesday while interviewing a witness in the impeachment investigation, with Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to out the anonymous whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry, according to five sources from both parties.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff objected to a line of questioning from Republicans during the deposition of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council official in charge of Ukraine policy, charging that the GOP questions were part of an effort to out the whistleblower, sources said.
1. We all know ahead of time who's testifying.
2. We know where they are testifying.
3. Each committee they are testifying to contains GOP representation, which is allotted time to ask questions.
And you're about to see why making these non-public is the right thing to do as it's starting to appear that Sondland perjured himself.
Do you distinguish “secret” from “non-public”? How?
The operation to kill Baghdadi was secret.
Because your hero Adam Schiff can't keep his c*ck sucker shut and would've tipped off his buddy with ISIS, which was going to be a talking point for this week, but Trump beat them all.
(10-29-2019 01:27 PM)Native Georgian Wrote: Do you distinguish “secret” from “non-public”? How?
The operation to kill Baghdadi was secret.
lol....so SCIF testimony is "public". Absolutely amazing what these wild eyed liberals can convince themselves of.
Knock it off, you know damned well what I meant. But what's actually more amazing, and sad, is you guys believing this nonsensical line from schmucks like Jim Jordan who are in the damned hearings they claim to know nothing about!
This is not hard to understand---yet liberals who want to use secret hearing to smear the current president simply wont admit it.
If its not available to the public---its SECRET. Most normal Americans understand that simple truth----The wild eyed liberal pitch fork mob---not so much.
IT'S AVAILABLE TO ELECTED REPUBLICANS ACTING ON YOUR BEHALF. No, you don't get to see everything, nor should you.
(10-29-2019 01:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: The operation to kill Baghdadi was secret.
So, it was “secret” and it was “non-public”, right? What I’m getting at is, what’s the difference?
Secret means you don't know about it. We all know these hearings are happening. The GOP is acting like they have no clue what's happening with the impeachment inquiry when they're right there in the ******* hearings, participating, and asking questions.
Wrong. Thats actually not the definition of secret, the definition is a piece of information that is not generally known or is not known by someone else and should not be told to others.
So while we might know that the hearings are happening, they are still a secret because we dont know whats happening behind doors. If you want to play semantics, we can definitely play semantics.
and no, the GOP is not participating and asking questions, its a democrat lead inquiry, so its actually the democrats that are participating and asking questions. Sure they might be a couple of republicans in the panel, but lets not get misguided here.
And you don't need to know! In case you missed civics, we live in a representative republic. We elect people to act on our behalf, and we have elected officials of both parties participating in these hearings.
And if you honestly believe that the GOP is not asking questions in these hearings, you're a bigger fool than I thought. And if the GOP is not taking their allotted time to ask questions, they're even bigger fools than I thought!
Quote:(CNN)Democrats and Republicans got into a shouting match behind closed doors on Tuesday while interviewing a witness in the impeachment investigation, with Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to out the anonymous whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry, according to five sources from both parties.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff objected to a line of questioning from Republicans during the deposition of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council official in charge of Ukraine policy, charging that the GOP questions were part of an effort to out the whistleblower, sources said.
/
Nancy's upcoming vote...what is it exactly?
