Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > Non Pool Related
Reload this Page Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz kicked out of impeachment inquiry hearing
Reply
Page 1 of 2 1 2
 
Share Thread Tools Rate Thread
Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz kicked out of impeachment inquiry hearing
Old
  (#1)
Rybord
AzB Silver Member
Rybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond reputeRybord has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,084
vCash: 1500
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wilmington, NC
   
Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz kicked out of impeachment inquiry hearing - 10-14-2019, 09:51 AM

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz kicked out of impeachment inquiry hearing

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep...nquiry-hearing

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., an ardent supporter of President Trump, got the boot on Monday when he tried to sit in on the testimony of a former top National Security Council expert on Russia who was appearing on Capitol Hill as part of the House impeachment inquiry into the president.

Gaetz, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, attempted to attend the testimony of Fiona Hill, a former deputy assistant to the president, but was told that because he was not a member of the House Intelligence Committee that he had to leave. The House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees are conducting the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

A frustrated Gaetz aired his disappointment to reporters after being told he was not allowed to sit in on the hearing, venting his anger over what he says are “selective leaks” by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and questioning why he was not allowed to be present during Hill’s testimony. Gaetz added that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was involved in the impeachment inquiry.

“It’s not like I’m on agriculture,” Gaetz said. “What are the Democrats so afraid of?”

Gaetz followed up his comments with a tweet calling the impeachment inquiry a kangaroo court and using one of Trump’s favorite nicknames for the intelligence committee chairman, “Shifty Schiff.”

"Judiciary Chairman [Jerry Nadler] claimed to have begun the impeachment inquiry weeks ago,” Gaetz tweeted. “Now, his own Judiciary members aren’t even allowed to participate in it. And yes - my constituents want me actively involved in stopping the #KangarooCourtCoup run by Shifty Schiff."

Other Republicans closely aligned with Trump continued on Monday to complain about Schiff and his handling of the impeachment inquiry – with Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, also lambasting the California Democrat for excluding some congressional Republicans from the testimonies and for leaking “cherry-picked” information from the closed-door hearings to the press.

“She was going to come voluntarily but he's going to subpoena her I believe so he can ask certain questions and again keep those secret except for the certain things that he wants to leak, the cherry-picked information to the American people,” Jordan said of Schiff before Hill’s testimony.

Lee Wolosky, Hill’s attorney, tweeted on Monday that the former deputy assistant to the president had received a congressional subpoena.

“The tragedy here and the crime here is that the American people don't get to see what's going on in these up in these sessions,” Jordan said.

Hill’s testimony comes ahead of a planned Thursday appearance by Gordon Sondland, Trump's hand-picked ambassador to the European Union, and follows the revelation of a cache of text messages from top envoys that provide a vivid account of their work acting as intermediaries around the time Trump urged Ukraine's new president, Volodymr Zelenskiy, to start investigations into a company linked to the family of a chief Democratic presidential rival, Joe Biden.

Sondland is set to tell lawmakers that he did understand the administration was offering Zelenskiy a White House visit in exchange for a public statement committing to investigations Trump wanted, according to the person, who demanded anonymity to discuss remarks not yet given.

But Sondland will say he did not know the company being talked about for an investigation, Burisma, was tied to Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, the person said. Sondland understood the discussions about combating corruption to be part of a much broader and publicized Trump administration push that was widely shared, the person said.

One witness who may not be called before Congress is the still anonymous government whistleblower who touched off the impeachment inquiry. Top Democrats say testimony and evidence coming in from other witnesses, and even the president himself, are backing up the whistleblower's account of what transpired during Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy.

Lawmakers have also grown deeply concerned about protecting the person from Trump's threats over the matter and may not wish to risk exposing the whistleblower's identity.

Schiff said Sunday, "We don't need the whistleblower, who wasn't on the call, to tell us what took place during the call. We have the best evidence of that." He added it "may not be necessary" to reveal the whistleblower's identity as the House gathers evidence.

"Our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected," Schiff said.
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#2)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 43,411
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sunshine State
   
10-14-2019, 10:56 AM

I guess the Rs will have to settle for 'only' having the actual R members of the intel committee, the government oversight committee, and the foreign affairs committee in attendance, instead.

I estimate that total count for the Rs is close to 50 on those three committees, and will include key PDJT loyalists Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes, who are the ranking R members on the oversight and intelligence committees, respectively.


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
j2pac
Marital Slow Learner.

j2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond repute
 
j2pac's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,823
vCash: 500
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Proud Buckeye!
   
10-14-2019, 09:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
I guess the Rs will have to settle for 'only' having the actual R members of the intel committee, the government oversight committee, and the foreign affairs committee in attendance, instead.

I estimate that total count for the Rs is close to 50 on those three committees, and will include key PDJT loyalists Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes, who are the ranking R members on the oversight and intelligence committees, respectively.
There should be one committee, and it shouldn't be Adam Schiff running it. He should recuse himself from the matter, as his anti-Trump bias is well documented.


"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire - "What you are shouts so loudly in my ears, I cannot hear what you say." - R.W. Emerson -

TOMAHAWK FERRULE MATERIAL - NO CLICK, JUST BANG.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
UGOTDA7
Ban pending.....
UGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond repute
 
UGOTDA7's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 22,554
vCash: 500
iTrader: 21 / 96%
Join Date: Jun 2004
   
10-14-2019, 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by j2pac View Post
There should be one committee, and it shouldn't be Adam Schiff running it. He should recuse himself from the matter, as his anti-Trump bias is well documented.
He's also a witness due to his prior involvement with the so called whistleblower (leaker). But he has no morals or integrity. It's funny how with something similar so much was made of Jeff Sessions recusing himself, yet it's damn near crickets with Schiff...I wonder why?
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 43,411
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sunshine State
   
10-14-2019, 10:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by UGOTDA7 View Post
He's also a witness due to his prior involvement with the so called whistleblower (leaker). But he has no morals or integrity. It's funny how with something similar so much was made of Jeff Sessions recusing himself, yet it's damn near crickets with Schiff...I wonder why?
You and jpac2 have some wacky ideas on this.

Every prosecutor who gets an indictment from a grand jury has decided the accused is guilty. That is not a problem, because it is the jury that decides guilt or innocence, not the prosecutor.

Sessions couldn't be involved in overseeing a criminal investigation of the campaign, because he was a senior member of that campaign. That was a cut and dried ethics matter, which he suggested could well be the case in his confirmation hearings, and then what his DOJ ethics expert advisers confirmed. He knew as much, as so he de facto recused himself before the formal recusal recommendation was made and he announced he was recusing himself.

In Chairman Schiff's case, there is no such ethical standard as you suggest applies. So why isn't he doing it? Does a prosecutor dealing with a witness prevent their later using that witness? What an absurd idea. They all deal with their future witnesses, and that does not make them material witnesses.

Now who really should raise that question is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He was an actual material witness (and even a participant in the Comey firing), and should have been recused.


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Last edited by Sofla; 10-14-2019 at 10:54 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
UGOTDA7
Ban pending.....
UGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond repute
 
UGOTDA7's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 22,554
vCash: 500
iTrader: 21 / 96%
Join Date: Jun 2004
   
10-14-2019, 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
You and jpac2 have some wacky ideas on this.

Every prosecutor who gets an indictment from a grand jury has decided the accused is guilty. That is not a problem, because it is the jury that decides guilt or innocence, not the prosecutor.

Sessions couldn't be involved in overseeing a criminal investigation of the campaign, because he was a senior member of that campaign. That was a cut and dried ethics matter, which he suggested could well be the case in his confirmation hearings, and then what his DOJ ethics expert advisers confirmed. He knew as much, as so he de facto recused himself before the formal recusal recommendation was made and he announced he was recusing himself.

In Chairman Schiff's case, there is no such ethical standard as you suggest applies. So why isn't he doing it? Does a prosecutor dealing with a witness prevent their later using that witness? What an absurd idea. They all deal with their future witnesses, and that does not make them material witnesses.

Now who really should raise that question is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He was an actual material witness (and even a participant in the Comey firing), and should have been recused.
There's nothing wacky about it at all. Schiff is a witness. He absolutely should not be running an investigation he is a witness in. And he didn't deal with a witness after the fact, he helped the testimony of the witness beforehand - he had a personal role and interest in it. What that role was exactly is subject to investigation, hence, he absolutely should not be the one in charge of investigating it. Get it? Do I need to type slower? Quit with the fugging retarded obfuscation...nobody is buying it. Sessions recused because he had a personal interest in the investigation. The same as Schiff here. This is Ethics 101. It's not confusing...to anybody with ethics, morals and integrity that is. You know, it's kind of like not having your kid personally benefit from countries you're shaping foreign policy on as VP...well actually, you don't seem to know that either.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
slop stroke
I drink, theyfore I ain't
slop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond repute
 
slop stroke's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,101
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2007
   
10-15-2019, 12:03 AM

I think Adam Schiff should come clean on what involvement he had with the whistle blower. I am really not at all concerned that Schiff has a bias, as that is the case with all 435 members. He absolutely wants very badly to find incriminating evidence against Trump and there is no denying that. That, however, is not to imply that Schiff should therefore be allowed to underhandedly prejudice a witness or slant a witnesses testimony, which his early clandestine involvement lends credibility to that claim.

Having said that, I don't think the republicans have much of a leg to stand on in this regard with the way they kept silent with the way Devin Nunes managed the Intelligence committee during the republicans run at the helm. This is just politics as normal as far as I can tell. It is a slimy business.


"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
UGOTDA7
Ban pending.....
UGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond reputeUGOTDA7 has a reputation beyond repute
 
UGOTDA7's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 22,554
vCash: 500
iTrader: 21 / 96%
Join Date: Jun 2004
   
10-15-2019, 12:35 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by slop stroke View Post
I think Adam Schiff should come clean on what involvement he had with the whistle blower. I am really not at all concerned that Schiff has a bias, as that is the case with all 435 members. He absolutely wants very badly to find incriminating evidence against Trump and there is no denying that. That, however, is not to imply that Schiff should therefore be allowed to underhandedly prejudice a witness or slant a witnesses testimony, which his early clandestine involvement lends credibility to that claim.

Having said that, I don't think the republicans have much of a leg to stand on in this regard with the way they kept silent with the way Devin Nunes managed the Intelligence committee during the republicans run at the helm. This is just politics as normal as far as I can tell. It is a slimy business.

Seriously...comparing Schiff to Nunes? You might have a point...if only it weren't for the fact that they were / are doing totally opposite things. Nunes was bringing things (democrat corruption) to the light of day and exposing it, Schiff is trying to hide things (democrat corruption) and burying it. Ok, so maybe they are both kind of the same...they both involve democrat corruption Lol.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
slop stroke
I drink, theyfore I ain't
slop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond repute
 
slop stroke's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,101
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2007
   
10-15-2019, 07:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by UGOTDA7 View Post
Seriously...comparing Schiff to Nunes? You might have a point...if only it weren't for the fact that they were / are doing totally opposite things. Nunes was bringing things (democrat corruption) to the light of day and exposing it, Schiff is trying to hide things (democrat corruption) and burying it. Ok, so maybe they are both kind of the same...they both involve democrat corruption Lol.
Lol - as if there is no corruption on the republican side. Nunes was bringing things not to the light of day, and not to committee members, but to the President, which could no doubt influence any potential witnesses. Both were sneaky about how they handled their investigations. I will wait and see the OIG report before I jump off the deep end, but I suspect both sides will claim victory.


"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
j2pac
Marital Slow Learner.

j2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond repute
 
j2pac's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,823
vCash: 500
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Proud Buckeye!
   
10-15-2019, 07:30 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
You and jpac2 have some wacky ideas on this.

Every prosecutor who gets an indictment from a grand jury has decided the accused is guilty. That is not a problem, because it is the jury that decides guilt or innocence, not the prosecutor.

Sessions couldn't be involved in overseeing a criminal investigation of the campaign, because he was a senior member of that campaign. That was a cut and dried ethics matter, which he suggested could well be the case in his confirmation hearings, and then what his DOJ ethics expert advisers confirmed. He knew as much, as so he de facto recused himself before the formal recusal recommendation was made and he announced he was recusing himself.

In Chairman Schiff's case, there is no such ethical standard as you suggest applies. So why isn't he doing it? Does a prosecutor dealing with a witness prevent their later using that witness? What an absurd idea. They all deal with their future witnesses, and that does not make them material witnesses.

Now who really should raise that question is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He was an actual material witness (and even a participant in the Comey firing), and should have been recused.
Since when was impartiality a "whacky idea?"


"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire - "What you are shouts so loudly in my ears, I cannot hear what you say." - R.W. Emerson -

TOMAHAWK FERRULE MATERIAL - NO CLICK, JUST BANG.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#11)
j2pac
Marital Slow Learner.

j2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond reputej2pac has a reputation beyond repute
 
j2pac's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 11,823
vCash: 500
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Proud Buckeye!
   
10-15-2019, 07:33 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by slop stroke View Post
I think Adam Schiff should come clean on what involvement he had with the whistle blower. I am really not at all concerned that Schiff has a bias, as that is the case with all 435 members. He absolutely wants very badly to find incriminating evidence against Trump and there is no denying that. That, however, is not to imply that Schiff should therefore be allowed to underhandedly prejudice a witness or slant a witnesses testimony, which his early clandestine involvement lends credibility to that claim.

Having said that, I don't think the republicans have much of a leg to stand on in this regard with the way they kept silent with the way Devin Nunes managed the Intelligence committee during the republicans run at the helm. This is just politics as normal as far as I can tell. It is a slimy business.
You're not concerned that Schiff has a bias? Did you actually see his "rendition" of the Trump/Zelensky conversation?


"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire - "What you are shouts so loudly in my ears, I cannot hear what you say." - R.W. Emerson -

TOMAHAWK FERRULE MATERIAL - NO CLICK, JUST BANG.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
slop stroke
I drink, theyfore I ain't
slop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond reputeslop stroke has a reputation beyond repute
 
slop stroke's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,101
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Feb 2007
   
10-15-2019, 08:20 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by j2pac View Post
You're not concerned that Schiff has a bias? Did you actually see his "rendition" of the Trump/Zelensky conversation?
In context, no. I think every politician has a bias. I don't think you could ever find a chairman, or Speaker who appoints said chairman who does not have a bias. Where Schiff fails, imo, is that he acts on his bias and not in good faith. But he is not alone in that respect. I think many on both sides operate with regard to political motives rather than principle. I also think most principled people avoid running for office because of the toll it would take on themselves and their family. So no I do not expect Schiff to work without bias, but I do expect him to behave in an ethical manner, which I think (not know) seems to be questionable at best.

BTW - I appreciate your thoughtful posts in the other threads on the happenings in Syria.


"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
Pangit
AzB Silver Member
Pangit has a reputation beyond reputePangit has a reputation beyond reputePangit has a reputation beyond reputePangit has a reputation beyond reputePangit has a reputation beyond reputePangit has a reputation beyond reputePangit has a reputation beyond reputePangit has a reputation beyond reputePangit has a reputation beyond reputePangit has a reputation beyond reputePangit has a reputation beyond repute
 
Pangit's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: B.B.
   
10-15-2019, 08:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rybord View Post
Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz kicked out of impeachment inquiry hearing

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep...nquiry-hearing

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., an ardent supporter of President Trump, got the boot on Monday when he tried to sit in on the testimony of a former top National Security Council expert on Russia who was appearing on Capitol Hill as part of the House impeachment inquiry into the president.

Gaetz, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, attempted to attend the testimony of Fiona Hill, a former deputy assistant to the president, but was told that because he was not a member of the House Intelligence Committee that he had to leave. The House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees are conducting the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

A frustrated Gaetz aired his disappointment to reporters after being told he was not allowed to sit in on the hearing, venting his anger over what he says are “selective leaks” by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and questioning why he was not allowed to be present during Hill’s testimony. Gaetz added that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was involved in the impeachment inquiry.

“It’s not like I’m on agriculture,” Gaetz said. “What are the Democrats so afraid of?”

Gaetz followed up his comments with a tweet calling the impeachment inquiry a kangaroo court and using one of Trump’s favorite nicknames for the intelligence committee chairman, “Shifty Schiff.”

"Judiciary Chairman [Jerry Nadler] claimed to have begun the impeachment inquiry weeks ago,” Gaetz tweeted. “Now, his own Judiciary members aren’t even allowed to participate in it. And yes - my constituents want me actively involved in stopping the #KangarooCourtCoup run by Shifty Schiff."

Other Republicans closely aligned with Trump continued on Monday to complain about Schiff and his handling of the impeachment inquiry – with Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, also lambasting the California Democrat for excluding some congressional Republicans from the testimonies and for leaking “cherry-picked” information from the closed-door hearings to the press.

“She was going to come voluntarily but he's going to subpoena her I believe so he can ask certain questions and again keep those secret except for the certain things that he wants to leak, the cherry-picked information to the American people,” Jordan said of Schiff before Hill’s testimony.

Lee Wolosky, Hill’s attorney, tweeted on Monday that the former deputy assistant to the president had received a congressional subpoena.

“The tragedy here and the crime here is that the American people don't get to see what's going on in these up in these sessions,” Jordan said.

Hill’s testimony comes ahead of a planned Thursday appearance by Gordon Sondland, Trump's hand-picked ambassador to the European Union, and follows the revelation of a cache of text messages from top envoys that provide a vivid account of their work acting as intermediaries around the time Trump urged Ukraine's new president, Volodymr Zelenskiy, to start investigations into a company linked to the family of a chief Democratic presidential rival, Joe Biden.

Sondland is set to tell lawmakers that he did understand the administration was offering Zelenskiy a White House visit in exchange for a public statement committing to investigations Trump wanted, according to the person, who demanded anonymity to discuss remarks not yet given.

But Sondland will say he did not know the company being talked about for an investigation, Burisma, was tied to Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, the person said. Sondland understood the discussions about combating corruption to be part of a much broader and publicized Trump administration push that was widely shared, the person said.

One witness who may not be called before Congress is the still anonymous government whistleblower who touched off the impeachment inquiry. Top Democrats say testimony and evidence coming in from other witnesses, and even the president himself, are backing up the whistleblower's account of what transpired during Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy.

Lawmakers have also grown deeply concerned about protecting the person from Trump's threats over the matter and may not wish to risk exposing the whistleblower's identity.

Schiff said Sunday, "We don't need the whistleblower, who wasn't on the call, to tell us what took place during the call. We have the best evidence of that." He added it "may not be necessary" to reveal the whistleblower's identity as the House gathers evidence.

"Our primary interest right now is making sure that that person is protected," Schiff said.
https://youtu.be/EzlnQ1rcAjI


  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
TexasShooter
AzB Silver Member
TexasShooter has a reputation beyond reputeTexasShooter has a reputation beyond reputeTexasShooter has a reputation beyond reputeTexasShooter has a reputation beyond reputeTexasShooter has a reputation beyond reputeTexasShooter has a reputation beyond reputeTexasShooter has a reputation beyond reputeTexasShooter has a reputation beyond reputeTexasShooter has a reputation beyond reputeTexasShooter has a reputation beyond reputeTexasShooter has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 270
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2019
   
10-15-2019, 08:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by j2pac View Post
You're not concerned that Schiff has a bias? Did you actually see his "rendition" of the Trump/Zelensky conversation?
Of course Schiff has a bias, he’s a politician. If you remove everyone with a bias, you’ll be left with an empty room. The Dems want to impeach Trump and the crazy old white guys don’t’. That’s the name of the game.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
Sofla
AzB Silver Member
Sofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond reputeSofla has a reputation beyond repute
 
Sofla's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 43,411
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sunshine State
   
10-15-2019, 09:51 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by UGOTDA7 View Post
There's nothing wacky about it at all. Schiff is a witness. He absolutely should not be running an investigation he is a witness in. And he didn't deal with a witness after the fact, he helped the testimony of the witness beforehand - he had a personal role and interest in it. What that role was exactly is subject to investigation, hence, he absolutely should not be the one in charge of investigating it. Get it? Do I need to type slower? Quit with the fugging retarded obfuscation...nobody is buying it. Sessions recused because he had a personal interest in the investigation. The same as Schiff here. This is Ethics 101. It's not confusing...to anybody with ethics, morals and integrity that is. You know, it's kind of like not having your kid personally benefit from countries you're shaping foreign policy on as VP...well actually, you don't seem to know that either.
All prosecutors are 'witnesses' of what the witnesses they use tell them. Whether the witness shows up on their own initiative, or if they are developed by invitations or subpoenas to testify to the grand jury. Every witness is interrogated. (Which did not happen in case of this WB and Schiff's staff, actually, by any report I have seen.)

Prosecutors may go so far as to get a cooperative witness to wear a wire and create audio evidence. (Ken Starr pressured Monica Lewinsky to do that, with President Clinton.)

I think you must already know this, so you resort to name calling.

In what respect is Schiff 'a witness' in a way the Inspector General isn't? Do you also suppose the IG must recuse himself from making any report, or doing the preliminary assessment, because they are some kind of 'witness' to the witness?

The prosecutors or those in their functional place are not material witnesses to the alleged crimes. They receive the reports of material witnesses, and even hearsay testimony can be used by grand juries for probable cause to issue warrants.

I have not seen any rw propaganda sites claiming Schiff should recuse because he is a witness. What I've seen are demands he recuse himself because of bias. But that doesn't work either, since prosecutors all come to believe their accused is guilty before they charge them.

Ironically, there is now talk that Sen. Ron Johnson needs to recuse himself from the 'jury' equivalent, because HE is a FACT witness. Not from random anonymous people on social media, but by several legal ethics in government experts quoted by name in Sen. Johnson's home state paper, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Quote:
Four ethics experts say Johnson — a member of a branch of government that exists, in part, to provide a check on the president — should have also alerted other senators, explored holding an oversight hearing or even told federal investigators.

One expert says he didn't see anything improper about Johnson's actions but all five contend Johnson should not have taken Trump at his word when he assured Johnson the allegation was false.

"Yes, clearly this should have been reported to the FBI," University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor David Canon said. "What did he expect the president to say? 'Ah, you are right, sorry. I shouldn’t have done that.'"

[...]

And his role in the matter may mean he should refrain from voting if Trump's removal from office comes before the Senate, two experts said. Johnson plays a central part in what happened because he asked Trump in August whether the aid and investigation were linked.

“You don't have somebody be a witness in a trial and then serve on the jury,” said Hui Chen, an attorney who has worked on compliance issues for the U.S. Department of Justice, Microsoft and Pfizer.

[...]

"I think it was a deep mistake for Senator Johnson to take the president at his word and not instead pursue other channels, including alerting his colleagues for congressional oversight purposes," said Ryan Goodman, a professor at New York University School of Law who served as special counsel to the U.S. Department of Defense under President Barack Obama.

“I think his missteps here have implicated himself, because he's become a fact witness in the case,” Goodman said of Johnson. “And I think as such the appropriate thing for him to do may be to recuse himself from the Senate trial.”


The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.

― Garry Kasparov

... the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.