republicans have no shame

[Deleted User 89]

such patriots

smfh

[DCHawk1]

Just curious. Why is it outrageous to want impeachment proceedings to be public?

[Shirley]

Just curious. Why is it outrageous to want impeachment proceedings to be public?

Sorry to see that someone has obviously hacked your account.

[Geezer]

The Republican members of the 3 committees are present for all the proceedings.

[Leawood]

Looking at that photo, I see they are joined by Iowa Representative King, the Republican standard bearer.

[Mjl]

Just curious. Why is it outrageous to want impeachment proceedings to be public?

Foreign ally involvement? Same reason Zelensky was upset about his words being released in that summary.

[DCHawk1]

Just curious. Why is it outrageous to want impeachment proceedings to be public?

Sorry to see that someone has obviously hacked your account.

Well argued.

Which tends to be how you approach things these days.

[DCHawk1]

The Republican members of the 3 committees are present for all the proceedings.

And?

[DCHawk1]

Just curious. Why is it outrageous to want impeachment proceedings to be public?

Foreign ally involvement? Same reason Zelensky was upset about his words being released in that summary.

I get that -- despite not being in control of my account.

Still, impeachment is an overtly political act, which is to say that those responsible for political decisions have a reasonable expectation of being fully informed -- and that includes the public, like it or not.

Right now, we have "impeachment theater," which is an unserious way to tackle a serious matter.

[Geezer]

At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.
First, the Congress investigates. ...
Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. ...
Third, the Senate tries the accused.

[Deleted User 89]

Just curious. Why is it outrageous to want impeachment proceedings to be public?

Foreign ally involvement? Same reason Zelensky was upset about his words being released in that summary.

I get that -- despite not being in control of my account.

Still, impeachment is an overtly political act, which is to say that those responsible for political decisions have a reasonable expectation of being fully informed -- and that includes the public, like it or not.

Right now, we have "impeachment theater," which is an unserious way to tackle a serious matter.

by that same notion, shouldn’t all connected be motivated to speak?

shouldn’t all relevant documents see the light of day?

i agree with you, that for the most part this should all be in public (classified stuff aside)...but i think that means that ALL of it needs to be made public, including the roles played by pompeo et al., and any relevant correspondences

[DCHawk1]

At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.
First, the Congress investigates. ...
Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. ...
Third, the Senate tries the accused.

And?

[DCHawk1]

Foreign ally involvement? Same reason Zelensky was upset about his words being released in that summary.

I get that -- despite not being in control of my account.

Still, impeachment is an overtly political act, which is to say that those responsible for political decisions have a reasonable expectation of being fully informed -- and that includes the public, like it or not.

Right now, we have "impeachment theater," which is an unserious way to tackle a serious matter.

by that same notion, shouldn’t all connected be motivated to speak?

shouldn’t all relevant documents see the light of day?

i agree with you, that for the most part this should all be in public (classified stuff aside)...but i think that means that ALL of it needs to be made public, including the roles played by pompeo et al., and any relevant correspondences

I don't disagree. I think everyone should talk and do so publicly.

[Shirley]

Just curious. Why is it outrageous to want impeachment proceedings to be public?

Sorry to see that someone has obviously hacked your account.

Well argued.

Which tends to be how you approach things these days.

Gosh, that's so burn!

Were the Nixon and Clinton impeachment investigations "public"? No.

Why was Hillary Clinton's ~ 10 hours of testimony before Trey Gowdy's Select Committee on Benghazi nearly the only "public" hearing?

"At a time that it will not jeopardize investigative equities, we will make the interview transcripts public, subject to any necessary redactions for classified or sensitive information," Schiff wrote.

"We also anticipate that at an appropriate point in the investigation, we will be taking witness testimony in public, so that the full Congress and the American people can hear their testimony firsthand," he added.

Schiff argued that it was important for the interviews to be conducted privately so that witnesses cannot coordinate testimony.

"It is of paramount importance to ensure that witnesses cannot coordinate their testimony with one another to match their description of events, or potentially conceal the truth," he wrote. "I am particularly sensitive to that issue given that during the Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russia’s election interference, one witness, Michael Cohen, lied to the Committee about highly relevant issues and ultimately pled guilty for those lies."

He also noted that special counsels in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments investigated privately.

[...]

[Leawood]

To this I agree.

[Geezer]

The trial in the Senate, should it be necessary, will be public.

[Shirley]

You have to give DC credit, like nearly all "conservative" republicans, he'd like to talk about the process rather than the facts. And considering "the facts", who can blame him?

[DCHawk1]

Sorry to see that someone has obviously hacked your account.

Well argued.

Which tends to be how you approach things these days.

Gosh, that's so burn!

Were the Nixon and Clinton impeachment investigations "public"? No.

Lulz.

Starr delivered his report and the supporting documents to the Congress on 9/9. EVERY member had access to the room in which they were stored, and TWO days later, the House voted 363-63 to release the report TO THE PUBLIC.

The impeachment inquiry -- which was voted on by the ENTIRE House, as per precedent -- did not even begin until October 8.

[Shirley]

And despite DC and "conservative" republican whining to the contrary, Matt Gaetz and his republican Clown Posse forcing themselves into the SCIF to interrupt the hearing has nothing to do with opening up the process, and everything to do with shutting it down.

[DCHawk1]

And despite DC and "conservative" republican whining to the contrary, Matt Gaetz and his republican Clown Posse forcing themselves into the SCIF to interrupt the hearing has nothing to do with opening up the process, and everything to do with shutting it down.

I don't recall whining.

I asked a question.

Weird.