Image 01 Image 03

Jordan, Stefanik Challenge Schiff at the Beginning of Impeachment Hearing

Jordan, Stefanik Challenge Schiff at the Beginning of Impeachment Hearing

“So we know, clearly, you are going to interrupt us throughout this hearing.”

Reps. Jim Jordan and Elise Stefanik quickly challenged House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff after Ranking Member Devin Nunes finished his opening remarks:

Stefanik: The point of order is, will the chairman continue to prohibit witnesses from answering Republican questions as you’ve done in closed hearings and as you did this week —

Schiff: [Bangs gavel] The gentlewoman will suspend.

Stefanik: When you interrupted our —

Schiff: That is not a proper point of order. The gentlewoman will suspend.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): Mr. Speaker — Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Schiff: The gentleman is not recognized.

Jordan: Chairman, I have a point of order.

Schiff: The gentleman is not recognized.

Jordan: I have a point of order, though.

Schiff: The gentleman is not recognized. I do want to respond, I allowed the —

Jordan: [Emphatically] A point of order.

Schiff: The gentleman is not recognized.

Jordan: About — there are four transcripts not have not been released —

Schiff: [Bangs gavel] The gentleman is not recognized.

Jordan: Holy cow.

Stefanik did not back down:

Stefanik: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Schiff: The gentlewoman is not recognized.

Stefanik: [Exasperated] So we know, clearly, you are going to interrupt us throughout this hearing.

Schiff: The gentlewoman — [Bangs gavel] — The gentlewoman is not recognized.

Stefanik did this because of Schiff’s actions on Wednesday. She tried to put the July 25 phone call between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump into evidence.

She pointed out that Schiff “mischaracterized the call” before, which he did. Schiff wanted to move away from that point by interrupting her and telling the committee Stefanik “will suspend.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


So, after 2020, Schiff gets impeached?

*crosses fingers*

    amatuerwrangler in reply to UnCivilServant. | November 15, 2019 at 1:21 pm

    I don’t think a member of Congress can be impeached, or recalled. They can be defeated at the next election, however.

    I vaguely recall discussing this with my father back in the ’50s when Adam Clayton Powell was being so obstinate in Congress. My issue was over how someone could be so abrasive and contrary in Congress. My father said that the people in that district had a right to be represented by whoever they wished, be he a jackass or not. History repeats, they say.

      UnCivilServant in reply to amatuerwrangler. | November 15, 2019 at 1:49 pm

      I have no honest belief that a safe seat politician will suffer any fallout from their shenannigans. I was, however, making a stab at levity.

        That was my understanding of the comment, but it doesn’t hurt to have the actual situation laid out for the folks in Rio Linda.

          Valerie in reply to Edward. | November 15, 2019 at 2:46 pm

          Schiff is from a safe district in California, and California is a one-party state. The people in his own district have to get rid of him. Further, all of the news media is misreporting. For them, this hearing is all about Trump’s misconduct.

          I wish it were different, but I don’t think he will have substantial opposition.

        Schiff’s seat is almost as safe as Mafia Princess Nancy’s. We can’t impeach anyone in the Legislative Branch, but we can always petition California to secede from the Union.

      It isn’t clear if a Congressman can be impeached.
      The case of William Blount in 1797-1798 was never settled. Basically, the House claimed it could impeach a Senator, and the Senate said it couldn’t.

        The text of the Constitution should settle the matter as to who could be impeached, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers [judges are included] of the United States.” But, as you note in the case of Blount, it wasn’t entirely clear, in these early years of the republic, if Members of Congress were included. An attempt on Blount was made, but ultimately failed because it was inconclusive.

        Since, it would appear that Congressional practice would say that Members cannot be impeachment. 1. The handful of impeachment cases [fewer than two dozen in 230 years which is way, way too few to my way of thinking] have involved officers of the United States. 2. In writing statutes, including their own rules (a set for the House; a set for the Senate), Congress has gotten into well-entrenched practice of distinguishing three classes, Members, officers, employees.

    Impeachment is far too good for that assclown.

    VaGentleman in reply to UnCivilServant. | November 16, 2019 at 5:47 am

    Wouldn’t it be a delicious irony if Schiff was primaried out from a liberal district for failure to deliver the impeachment he’s promised? Incompetence may do what integrity couldn’t.

And she is persisting. They’re going to regret this.

So Comrade Schiff is doing his ‘Comrade Beria’ imitation.

    fscarn in reply to Whitewall. | November 15, 2019 at 1:28 pm

    More like a Goering imitation.

    “When the chamber convened on August 30 [1932] the Centrists joined with the Nazis in electing Goering President of the Reichstag. For the first time, then, a National Socialist was in the chair when the Reichstag reconvened on September 12 [1932] to begin its working session. Goering made the most of his opportunity. [The then] Chancellor von Paper had obtained in advance from the President [Paul von Hindenburg] a decree for the dissolution of the chamber – the first time that the death warrant of the Reichstag had been signed before it met to transit business. But for this first working session [von Papen] neglected to bring it [the physical decree itself] along.”

    [A motion has made to suspend business for a half hour. During this delay Papen sent a messenger to retrieve the decree from his office.]

    “When the session reconvened Papen appeared with the familiar red dispatch case which, by tradition, carried the dissolution order he had so hastily retrieved. But when he requested the floor to read it, the President of the Reichstag [Goering] managed not to see him, though Papen, by now red-faced, was on his feet brandishing the paper for all in the assembly to see. All but Goering. His smiling face was turned the other way. He called for an immediate vote [on a pending motion to censure the government and its ministers which would include Chancellor Papen]. By now Papen’s countenance, according to eyewitnesses, had turned from red to white with anger. He strode up to the President’s rostrum and plunked the dissolution order on his desk. Goering took no notice of it and ordered the vote to proceed.”

    Shirer, Rise and Fall, pp 170-171.

    The motion passed. Only then did Goering “notice” the decree, ruling that it was now invalid because Papen’s signature was on it, and since the preceding vote had just censured the government’s ministers the decree was invalid.

    Today’s Ds know their Nazism.

      Edward in reply to fscarn. | November 15, 2019 at 2:36 pm

      Charlie Rangel chose that lesson to use in passing the Hughes Amendment (eliminating civilian sales of National Firearms Act full auto weapons not registered with ATF by a certain date). He called a voice vote, which the “Nays” clearly won, declared the “Ayes” had it, ignored those standing and calling for a record vote and banged the gavel down declaring it passed.

      German had two elections in 1932, one in July, one in November. In the July election the Nazis got the highest % they would ever get before the fateful day of 01/30/1933. Their 37% of the seats was well short of a majority. In the November election the percentage dropped to 33%.

      Following the event described Papen eventually delivered another dissolution order & call for new elections from Hindenburg to the Reichstag formed under the July election, explaining the necessity for the November election.

      The last multi-party German election came in March 5, 1933, several weeks after that fateful day of 01/30/1933. Hitler as the new Chancellor engineered matters to a standstill, telling Hindenburg that no government could be formed under the November election and that new elections would have to be called. In that election the Nazi Party got 44%, which despite the Brownshirts’ terror during the campaign, using state media now controlled by Hilter and Goebbels, still fell way short of the lusted-after majority.

      Time to pull the rabbit out of the hat,

      “Two weeks after the election, Hitler was able to pass an Enabling Act [with the new Reichstag] on 23 March with the support of all non-socialist parties, which effectively gave Hitler dictatorial powers. Within months, the Nazis banned all other parties and turned the Reichstag into a rubberstamp legislature comprising only Nazis and pro-Nazi guests.”

      from Wiki,

      Whitewall in reply to fscarn. | November 15, 2019 at 4:02 pm

      Excellent points in your response as well as those under yours!

As reports indicate, they shot their credibility and attention wad on Russia-gate.

I’m insulated, but one would think that people with other stuff to do are saying screw this circus, my 401k is doing well, my house isn’t underwater, and I’m tired of having been called a racist-transphobe for the past decade.

Dems will have to wait until a new crop of young dumb voters come of age to regain power.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Andy. | November 15, 2019 at 12:45 pm

    or just sabotage the economy as best they can and blame it on the right while praising Keynesian socialism and silencing the heretics.

The Friendly Grizzly | November 15, 2019 at 12:52 pm

I recall seeing films in school about tyranny like this. It was called communism.

I hope that the Senate adopts Adam Schiff’s hearing rules for the Senate Impeachment. Any objection by Senate Democrats during the trial will be met with the retort, “the member of congress is out of order according to the “Adam Schiff Rules” and will not be recognized!”

    inspectorudy in reply to Paul In Sweden. | November 15, 2019 at 3:34 pm

    Unfortunately, the Republicans have never learned that you have to use the same dirty tactics of your opponent. They will come out with some boy scout version of fairness from, Pierre Delecto, that says we must turn the other cheek. I have no faith in McConnell or his gang of lackeys, Cornyn, Blount, Thune and Brasso. Whatever the Chamber of Commerce wants they will deliver.

PELOSI: “If [Trump] has anything that shows [his] innocence, than he should make that known.”

Yet little schiff has not even allowed the transcript of the call into evidence?

Talk about being on two different pages–more like two different books.

    Edward in reply to gbm. | November 15, 2019 at 2:39 pm

    Well, anyone charged with any sort of malfeasance or actual criminal act should be required to prove his innocence. It’s just the right thing to do.

    Just in case – /s

    inspectorudy in reply to gbm. | November 15, 2019 at 3:35 pm

    To whom would he give it? Unless it was hand-delivered to the hearing while it was ongoing it would never see the light of day.

I keep thinking about the CA voter who says that Schiff, a pathological liar and sadist, represents me.

Reformed Trombonist | November 15, 2019 at 1:08 pm

Schiff brings neither competence nor charisma to his job. Wondering how he got it. Willingness to lie?

Paul In Sweden | November 15, 2019 at 1:24 pm

Himes is troubled by a POTUS’ absolute right to use his prerogative to dismiss for any reason whatsoever. Trump much to his fault kept far too many Obama appointees. What does Himes think about Clinton getting rid of almost all political appointees?

Schiff cannot be impeached but if the Republicans take control of the House he can be expelled. Only five times has it been done — three for waging war against the United States in the Civil War and two in the past 40 years for bribery convictions.

Democrats are at risk. Republicans have a good opportunity for training and proving their mettle. That said, after twelve trimesters, Trump is still President.

Paul In Sweden | November 15, 2019 at 2:35 pm

Hey Rep. Castro and disgraced fmr. amb Yovonovich is it also unusual for a sitting vice president to withhold critical military aid unless the Ukrainian Prosecutor that is investigating both the corrupt company that his son Hunter was on the board of directors & the various subversive George Soros companies that have been banned by other nations? And then brag about it multiple times?

Would those actions be considered criminal?

I want answers!

I wonder if Adam Schiff is over-compensating with his throne-like chair. Goodness knows his ego needs something that big by itself.

Comanche Voter | November 15, 2019 at 3:46 pm

While Schiff is maybe 6 feet tall (I haven’t checked but I’ve seen the little pencil necked geek in person on occasion) he has a real bad case of the short man/short membrum virile syndrome.

Calling him a petty little tyrant, not remotely moored to the truth, is an insult to other petty little tyrants everywhere.

Comanche Voter | November 15, 2019 at 3:48 pm

Come to think of it, I suppose all the girls in Schiff’s high school called him “Short round”. Word does get around among the female sex.

Who still thinks the Constitution will have anything to do with this? Who does not recognize an open coup? You think the Constitution will stop the bullets when they put you up against the wall?

I broke down and watched a bunch of it on CSPAN. She struck me as earnest, with some good points I suppose, but in the end not a lot more than opinion, innuendo, and supposition. Even she admitted that her replacement wouldn’t have been part of any scheme that she was implying.

Now the Ds are saying “bribery.” Holy shit, if there’s been any “bribery” connected to Ukraine, look no further than the Biden family. The guy’s kid gets tossed out of the Navy after they find a god damned crack pipe in his car, and winds up with a $50,000/month “job” for which he had no qualifications other than his last name.

Who in hell do they think they are kidding? Any Republican who falls for a word of it is insane.

And Schiff’s conduct? Beneath contempt, to put it mildly. I thought it’d be a joke, and my expectations were fulfilled.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | November 15, 2019 at 6:14 pm

Rut Roh!

“Representative Elise Stefanik brought to light interesting information today surrounding how the Obama administration was concerned about issues surrounding Vice-President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and his connection to a corrupt Ukraine company Burisma.

During questioning Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch admitted the Obama White House spent time briefing her on how to respond to congress if questions about Hunter Biden and Burisma were raised. This testimony highlights the concerns by the Obama administration about a clear issue with the Biden family and corrupt Ukraine interests.”

I forgot to mention something. I had two careers, one as a professional journalist (when that meant anythin) and the other in finance, where I started out with a money management outfit and was one of three people managing $1 billion in small-capitalization stocks.

In addition to that $50,000/MONTH “job” at Burisma in Ukraine, Biden’s kid gathered $1.5 billion in assets when he accompanied his dad on a trip to China. Kids, there are only two ways you get that kind of money to run. Either you are really good at what you do and have the numbers to prove it, or you have serious juice.

In a certain way, I have to admire the Ds. They remind me of the time I took a vacation to the U.K. and France, wore classic American Western wear, right down to the Wranglers and cowboy hat, and posed as a rancher. I told myself, “Hey, if you’re going to lie to people, tell big lies.”

But the most I got was a free glass of cognac in Paris, an invitation (which I politely declined) to travel to Ethiopia and teach modern American animal husbandry to their cattlemen, and a couple free pints in Scotland, although I’m not sure if the pints were for my hat and lies or whether it was my having insulted London and the English.

So the Ds are telling a whopper with respect to bribery. They actually seem to believe it, or maybe they’re doing what I did on vacation and managing to keep a straight face. I’d be happy to give ’em a glass of brandy and a couple pints for the performance, but not impeachment and removal.

For college wrestling aficionados, an Untoward Multiple Choice Question: How long would it take for Jim Jordan to jump two chairs and snap Adam’s turkey choice of neck

A. 1 s
B. .5 s
C. .75 s
D. nanoseconds are to coarse a measure