Republican Lawmakers Interrupt Democrat-led Closed Door Impeachment Hearings
“What is Adam Schiff trying to hide?” — Rep. Steve Scalise
Wednesday, dozens of Republican Congressmen held a press conference before interrupting the closed-door impeachment hearings led by Rep. Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee.
The interruption prompted committee Democrats to walk out, Schiff included, and delayed the testimony of Defense Department official Laura Cooper who was scheduled to discuss delayed military aid to Ukraine, according to some reports.
Watch:
From The Washington Times:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat, said the sit-in has derailed Ms. Cooper’s testimony and it was unclear when it would start again. Ms. Cooper was not in the room at the time, she said.
Democratic lawmakers leaving the room said those that entered the room brought their cellphones, which is against the rules for a secured area.
“In short they have compromised the security of the room,” Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell said. “Many members, dozens of members brought in electronics. And they not only brought in their unauthorized device, they may have brought in the Russian and Chinese with electronics in a secure space.”
“They had no regard for the witness or making sure we can continue to hold the president accountable and ensure we can get to the bottom of this,” Ms. Wasserman Schultz said. “If they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to the substance of evidence, they have to argue process.”
One Republican, David Rouzer of North Carolina, defended his colleague’s actions.
“We have a right as members of Congress to know what is going in there. None of this is classified information whatsoever,” he said.
However, as the minority party, Republicans don’t have many options to force their hand.
“It’s really unfortunate that they [Democrats] have the votes and apparently they are not following any procedures, any precedents, any rules,” Ms. Lesko told The Washington Times.
“I’ll tell you what, if we are in the majority, I would not allow this kind of unfair process to go on,” she added.
A few Republican lawmakers still in the secured area said House Intelligence Chairman Adam B. Schiff threatened to file ethics complaints against them, though Mr. Swalwell later declined to comment on what those complaints might look it.
Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, one of those tweeting updates, clarified that the tweets were not coming from inside the secured room but are being passed along to staff to post.
For weeks Republicans have slammed the process as a “sham” that has shut the American people out of the process by keeping the meetings with witnesses behind closed doors. They’re repeatedly demanding Democrats need to hold a vote to authorize the investigation and accused those running the investigations of ushering out “cherry-picked” leaks.
They’ve decried what they see as a lack of due process for the president, arguing the identity of the whistleblower that first put forward the allegations should be revealed.
“House Democrats are bypassing constitutional norms and basic standards of due process with their impeachment obsession,” Rep. Mark Walker, North Carolina Republican, said. “The president is not above justice. But, as you know, neither is he below it.”
House Democrats have launched their own defense of the investigation, arguing it’s akin to the special prosecutor investigations that were a part of the Nixon and Clinton impeachment.
Rep. Val Demmings, Florida Democrat, told reporters Wednesday the Republican claims were unfounded.
From House Republicans:
Adam Schiff just SHUT DOWN his secret underground impeachment hearing after I led a group of Republicans into the room. Now he's threatening me with an Ethics complaint! I'm on the Armed Services Cmte but being blocked from the Dept. Asst. SecDef's testimony. This is a SHAM! pic.twitter.com/6qUMerxENC
— Archive: Rep. Bradley Byrne (@RepByrne) October 23, 2019
.@RepByrne: "This is a sham. They have no process. They have no rules. They’re doing everything behind closed doors…We need to call this out for what it is, and if we had to storm that room to make that point to the American public, then we had to do that." @mynbc15 #C2C pic.twitter.com/BzsBJZ3fQi
— C2C Sinclair (@SBGC2C) October 23, 2019
This week Democrats rejected a vote on the resolution I cosponsored to censure Rep. Schiff and refused to allow my colleagues into the room during hearings. Instead of hiding behind closed doors and leaking info, Members of Congress and the American people deserve transparency. https://t.co/ktzbYGbr0B
— Rep. Ron Estes (@RepRonEstes) October 23, 2019
As Members of Congress, we have the right to access information collected inside the chambers of Congress.
If this is an impeachment inquiry, then ALL Members of Congress, no matter what your party or committee assignment, need to be included. pic.twitter.com/vh8abM6vLP
— Rep. Vicky Hartzler (@RepHartzler) October 23, 2019
435 Members of the House.
Only one knows who the “whistleblower” is and who their sources are: @RepAdamSchiff.
Why?
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) October 23, 2019
Full remarks here:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
LET’S ROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s a good start.
The Big Ugly Begins…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/23/the-big-ugly-begins/
“Impeachment Backfiring:
GOP Polling Memo Shows Public Turning Against Democrat Efforts to Oust Trump
….even Democrat voters, are turning against the Democrat Party’s “impeachment inquiry” into President Donald Trump…”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/23/impeachment-backfiring-gop-polling-memo-shows-public-turning/
This whole Sham brought to America by the DemocRat,party lead by a sack of Schiff. It will end up costing the Commiecrats much too much and they blinded by their hate for the president can’t see it.
Matt Gaetz:
Why Did Representative Jackie Speier Make an Issue of My Race and Sex in Sneering That I’m a “White Man.” I Myself Don’t Casually Denigrate People as “White Woman” or “Minority Woman.” Is That How We’re All Rolling Now? — Ace of Spades
“The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Not Adam Schiff, not the Democratic members of the House, the whole House.
That’s not a valid argument. If and when an impeachment vote is held, it will be a vote of the whole house. In the meantime there is no legal reason why the Dems can’t hold this circus. Technically as a matter of law they’re in the right and the Reps are in the wrong. But politically they’re blowing it. Trump is playing this exactly right: don’t give this process a dignity that it doesn’t deserve. Let people see it for what it is and treat it with contempt.
It’s a perfectly valid argument. It is what the constitution says.
No, it is not a valid argument at all. It’s a completely dishonest argument. Of course only the full house can impeach someone. Nobody has ever suggested otherwise. If there is a vote on impeachment it will be held by the whole house. Nothing in the constitution or in any other law says or in any way implies that the whole house has the right to participate in any hearings or investigations that the majority chooses to conduct.
Your being dishonest as is your typical method.
The comment made, that you said was invalid is this one:
““The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Not Adam Schiff, not the Democratic members of the House, the whole House.”
That is valid. Your posturing about other things is just a cover for being flat out wrong.
Barry, you are a disgusting, dishonest, lying piece of excrement. You know very well that katasuburi’s argument was that the investigation somehow violates the constitution. And you know very well that that is not true.
Nobody has ever suggested that Adam Schiff or the D members of the House have the power of impeachment. Nobody. Therefore to suggest that they have usurped that power is invalid and deeply dishonest. You know all this very well, but you pretend otherwise because you are a liar down to your very bones. You lie for the sheer thrill of it.
Either you cannot read, believe you can mind read, or you are dishonest. I’m going with all three.
All your name calling doesn’t change the very clear comment:
“The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Not Adam Schiff, not the Democratic members of the House, the whole House.”
And for the record; Milhouse, you are a disgusting, dishonest, lying piece of excrement.
Indeed, and nobody disputes that or has ever suggested otherwise. And you know it. Therefore your pretense that they have is a deliberate, knowing lie. It’s a classic example of a strawman argument, which is invalid, and when done deliberately dishonest.
I always tell the truth. I am always honest, and my arguments are always on point. You never ever tell the truth, except occasionally by accident.
You’re only dishonest on days that end in Y.
The only comment made by katasuburi, which stands on it’s on:
““The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Not Adam Schiff, not the Democratic members of the House, the whole House.”
The reply by Milhouse:
“That’s not a valid argument.”
And now, Milhouse says:
“Indeed, and nobody disputes that or has ever suggested otherwise. ”
Your full of it. You produce the strawman. Your dishonest.
Katsaburi made a strawman argument, and you jumped in to join it. Katsaburi may perhaps have been mistaken, but you knew what you were doing. That makes you a stone cold liar.
It’s near impossible to separate your stupidity from your dishonesty.
You’re wrong. Stupid or dishonest, or both is my guess.
As simple statement that was valid. The only strawman created is all your huffing about nothing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-impeachment-resolution-against-trump-n1030791
One of three votes by the whole house on impeachment. All three have rejected it. Yet the Pelosi Schiff Impeachment Theater goes on. Almost as if the Democrat leadership wants to govern by decree from on high.
Since the House has voted on impeachment – and rejected an inquiry 3 times – what’s going on is illegitimate. Not to mention the top secret process excluding Republicans and the public.
The Dems are trying to build a case (smoke and mirrors) to write articles of impeachment, which I’m sure Pelosi will try to rush to a vote with minimal opportunity for Trump and Republicans to refute whatever Shiff and co. came up with. “We have to impeach him to find out what crimes are in the report” or some such, I’m sure.
It’s really time to start knee-capping those Dem thugs.
Yes. Legally they have the right to do exactly that. Politically it looks very bad for them, it stinks to high heaven, and so long as Trump and the Republicans continue to make the public aware of what is going on the public will not accept it.
No Justice, No Peace.
So the Republicans crash the double secret party of the cool kids, and the Pencil Necked Geek calls the party off and flees with the witness? All right! It’s high school all over again.
It certainly seems to be the Inquisition, only without the elements of torture and the musical numbers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnF1OtP2Svk
Everyone be sure to watch the entire 20 minutes of the
“DEMANDING TRANSPARENCY: Jim Jordan DEMANDS Impeachment Transparency Hearings” video that Kemberlee posted above.
If the left wasn’t pulling a star chamber the GOP wouldn’t have to do this.
It’s amazing how much of the GOP-e is Harrumph-Harrumphing at the best piece of Political Theater that republicans have pulled off in over 50 years.
And face it, EVERYTHING Congress does today is about political theater!!!
Where there’s a will, there’s always a way. Especially when rules have been suspended. It’s about time. This cannot possibly work out well for the Dems. It just makes Trump more and more popular.
Congressman Matt Gaetz Of Florida is the bomb
Of course the Left, particularly the WaPo will scream bloody murder over what the Democrats are doing here because, “Democracy dies in darkness.”
Trust me. They’ll start complaining any day now …
I remember the Watergate/Nixon hearings. They were slow, methodical, open, dignified and bipartisan. In the end the Senate was largely of one mind, and the country was on the same page.
House Democrats have launched their own defense of the investigation, arguing it’s akin to the special prosecutor investigations that were a part of the Nixon and Clinton impeachment.
——————————–
Except there is no prosecutor, no crime and no intelligence with the dems on this.
So apparently someone issued spines today? Where can I send money to buy them more?
Some republicans grew a pair. Let’s hope it’s catching, but I know it won’t.
They finally put on their big boy panties. There are a lot of pissed off voters out here and they can damned sure be replaced.
ACTION! Finally! These ‘Democrats’ are behaving like Soviet enemies. Treat them as such.
Remember when Democrats broke rules and did this:
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/democrats-stage-sit-in-on-house-floor-to-force-gun-vote-224656&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjnvfrcyLPlAhUJUK0KHUjHBo0QFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1mvH_B3zaxWSPNyQ84u-8O
The republicans should do this every day. Force dems to use capitol police to remove them.
Exactly. Technically the Dems are in the right this time, but the reality is that they’re behaving contemptibly and the public needs to be shown that, whether it complies with the law or not.
No. Next time the Rs are in the majority and the Ds are in the White House, play by their rules, and when they don’t like it tell them they’re estopped from complaining.
Reminder: Pre-Trump, these same Republicans would be curled up on the floor, begging not to get hit any more, while the Dems walked all over their spineless backs.
One point. The Dems were right at least on the issue of having cell phones in an SCIF. That’s a BIG no-no.
One point. The dems always lie.
Why believe what they have to say about cell phones?
I’ve heard one republican that was there say they gave their cells to aides.
Yes, Dems always lie. But so do you. Does that make you a Dem?
There is no one on the planet, currently, that has not told a lie. Then there are those like you, that lie multiple times then try to cover it with more lies. Lies upon lies.
You are one of the progs on this board. And you lie like they all do.
No, I’m not a democrat. I refuse to be a part of your party.
Says the congenital liar. You are a Democrat. Or a communist.
Your lying again. And it’s clear who the prog is. Every time. You almost never pass up a chance to take up for the left.
And you’re not very bright.
Anyone paying attention can see who’s the liar, not just here but always. You are so full of hatred and violence.
You’re not very bright.
And way out of your league.
True, but that wasn’t clear at the time I made the comment. OTOH, It’s STILL illegal whether they did or not, so I’m glad that they didn’t.
Txvet2, My point, never believe the democrats. Like Milhouse, they always lie. They did it here apparently.
I have a question on Parliamentary procedure. It might be a stupid one. But what’s to stop the Republican-controlled Senate from unilaterally holding an impeachment vote >Right Now< and then voting it down? Wouldn't that obviate any further inquiries on the House side? Wouldn't that make it clear that the process could go no further? Wouldn't that also drive the Democrats into a total tizzie that somehow Congressional procedures have been violated? What possible support could they attract to that assertion that wouldn't immediately be in conflict with their own actions?
No, they can’t do that. They can’t have a trial without an impeachment to try! If and when the house impeaches, the senate must hold a trial, chaired by the chief justice. Nothing says it has to last very long, though. They can give the house managers the same “courtesy” that the house majority is giving the minority and the president.
there is no “the senate must hold a trial” it states “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. ” in the constitution
Precisely. There is no requirement any trial be held. My dog can figure that out.
Your dog is an ignoramus. Which is OK, dogs aren’t expected to know very much. When a prosecutor obtains an indictment, the court cannot refuse to hear it. If and when there is an impeachment the Chief Justice will insist on a timely trial. If he doesn’t get an invitation within a reasonable time he will summon the senate himself and hold one.
Once that happens, the senate can immediately vote to dismiss the case — if there’s a majority that wants to do so. But I doubt there will be. So long as the majority wants to proceed with it, it will proceed to an inevitable acquittal. Remember, 1/3 of the senate is enough to acquit, but not to affect the trial in any other way.
You’re simply not as smart as my dog.
I don’t care what your silly opinion is. The constitution is very clear:
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
It does not say they shall try impeachments.
Now, given all your makeup of the law, point out in the constitution how “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:” gives the chief justice the right to “summon the senate and hold a trial”.
My dog is just average.
He presides at trials. Therefore he can summon the senate into session for a trial. QED.
Technically, yes he can summon the senate. He can summon my dog as well. Neither will pay the slightest attention.
IOW’s, you are full of it. There is no mechanism by which the Chief Justice can force the senate to hold a trial. There is nothing in the constitution that requires the senate to hold a trial. There is no US code that requires the senate to hold a trial. There is no senate rule that would obligate the senate to hold a trial.
For the purpose of the trial, he, not Pence, is the senate president. Therefore he can summon the senate to the trial.
No, he cannot force the senate to hold a trial. You’re just making shit up because you got caught lying about what the constitution says with respect to the senate.
Prove anything you say with words from the constitution or from US code.
Doesn’t exist. You know it, so you’re lying.
And no, the constitution does not make the chief justice the president of the senate. Only that he shall preside over a trial when the president has been impeached and the senate is trying him.
Wrong again. Lying or stupid?
You’re such a liar. For the purpose of the trial. You deliberately left those words out, in order to pretend I’d written something I never did. As you yourself quoted, when the president is being tried on an impeachment the chief justice is the president of the senate for that purpose. He’s not president when the senate adjourns the trial and moves on to other matters. Or have you forgotten what “president” means?
milhouse is obviously unaware that treason is normally something that is planned and carried out in secret
despite that, POTUS could shut this whole thing down with two words: due process
Due process?
Sounds nice but the Democrats are not interested in due process.
I’m also sure they can find a judge that will ignore the president due process claim because technically there is nothing official on impeachment happening in the House. Therefore the rules the House created to be used in official impeachment hearings don’t apply.
Right result, wrong reason. No judge could get involved in the first place. The House is not bound by its own rules; it can suspend them any time it likes, and conduct its business any way it likes, and no court has the power to even consider the matter. Courts have no authority over the internal workings of either house.
“Courts have no authority over the internal workings of either house.”
Wait> I thought you said the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court could force the senate to hold a trial?
Of course he can’t. Your first statement is the correct one. Hard to keep up with your nonsense.
For the purpose of the trial, he is the president of the senate.
No, he’s not. He simply presides over the trial. The constitution is quite clear. Try reading it.
Texansamurai has evidently never read the constitution.
Treason, by definition, cannot be carried out in secret. It requires two witnesses to an overt act. Also, the president is not a king, and acting against him — even assassinating him — is not treason.
And the target of an impeachment is not entitled to due process. There is absolutely no such requirement in the constitution. Due process is required only to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. So no, he cannot shut it down. What he can do is what he is doing — treating it with the contempt that it deserves, and exposing to the public what a disgraceful circus it is.
Ultimately, as “Traitor” George Washington proved, treason is defined by the winners.
In the USA treason is defined by the constitution, which you have evidently never read.
Talk about reading, it’s not your strong point.
Treason is always defined by those in power. They read and interpret as they see fit. Therefore the statement by SDN is correct.
The US constitution explicitly says otherwise.
What we are watching is what happens when there is no longer a free media that makes even a vague effort to tell both sides of news stories. This should clearly demonstrate the power of propaganda, even in America, and should emphasize the importance of many of those news providers on the internet who are not owned by the MSM. Even now we are treated to stories from the MSM not of how unfair these Soviet Union gulag style hearings are, but instead we hear of trivial issues such as Republicans not removing their cell phones prior to moving on the SCIF where the star chamber proceedings are being held in an effort to once again point out how the Republicans are the ones in the wrong.
>
What makes this so aggravating is how we in America were given an incredible gift of having a free press that could act as a watchdog to prevent events like this from happening. Instead, they are abusing this gift in an effort to use their propaganda machine in order to sway the election towards the Democrats.
“but instead we hear of trivial issues such as Republicans not removing their cell phones”
Which may very well be a lie.
Taking a cell phone into an SCIF isn’t trivial, it’s a crime. It’s also unlikely that they did so. My experience with SCIFs predates cell phones, but I remember large signs at the entry to the facility warning that recording devices were forbidden. And there were guards there to enforce it. I don’t know if there are such signs in the House, but I have no doubt that all concerned parties were aware that it was illegal.
Good lord. Two witnesses doesn’t mean that treason cannot be carried out in secret. It just means that two witnesses break the secrecy compact or were inadvertently a witness to the treasonous act. Getting caught hardy implies that it could never have been secret “by definition”.
Do you ever think before you write?
And this is relevant to the current topic how? What could any Democrat possibly be doing that might constitute treason? There are only two kinds of treason: Waging war against the USA; and an overt act of adherence to the USA’s enemies. Nothing else. There is no such thing as treason against the president, because he is not a king. Nor can any mere plot, even against the USA, be treason; it requires an overt act.
“And this is relevant to the current topic how?”
You made it relavent:
“Treason, by definition, cannot be carried out in secret.”
It’s BS of course, something you seem full of.
I have not accused anyone of treason. I do accuse you of stupid and dishonesty. Maybe you could summon the Chief Justice to help settle it.
You are here defending Texansamurai’s comment. Show how treason is relevant to this topic, or you fail.
Strawman. I responded to your incorrect statement.
Admit it was wrong.
It’s not a strawman, it’s the whole point. The only possible relevance of treason to this discussion is if the Dems on the investigation were possibly committing it. That is what you are stuck defending.
But at least now you admit to knowing what a strawman is. So how do you continue to defend katasuburi’s comment?
I never defended anyone’s comment. I condemned your ignorant and wrong assertion that treason could not be conducted in secret. Which is not only false but stupid.
You can’t respond to that because you are wrong. Instead of just admitting you are wrong, you try a bait and switch game.
Treason is routinely a secret affair until caught out.
Are any of the dems secretly working with a foreign government to try and impeach the president? Quite possible, quite likely IMO, but I cannot prove it. That would be TREASON.
Ouch. Brainiac missed it entirely.
No, it would not be treason. It would neither be waging war against the USA, nor adhering to the USA’s enemies. Acting against the president is not and cannot be treason, because the president is not a king. Treason can only be against the USA itself, not against whoever happens to be president.
Closed doors usually means unmade beds. As we’ve seen with the NYT news room, it also means bed bugs. So this is a health issue too.