Another lie debunked- Democratic secret hearings

[The Purge]

Why even bother showing up for work when Republicans can't cross examine, they can't call witnesses, they can't subpoena, they aren't privy to vital information, and they only hear information when it is splashed up on news tickers on cable news shows when they see the words "sources say." Republicans might as well show up when Dems say they are ready to open it up.

Schiff won't allow anything opened up because he says Republicans will share information, but someone is still leaking, and they turn out to be leaks that support the Democrats' narrative, they are Orange Man Bad, and no way to cross examine them in real time like all others before have allowed.

The Constitution says the House has power over impeachment, but that does not mean Pelosi, nor Schiff, nor even just the majority.

I''ll bite, what witnesses would the republicans call??

You will have to ask them...but I would presume the president of Ukraine who stated publically that he was NOT PRESSURED in anyway would shoot the whole proceedings down!....

 

[Syriusly]

Is the OP seriously trying to compare a phone call made and released by TRUMP to the death of 4 Americans who were left defenseless during a terrorist attack by the Obama administration who went on TV and blamed everything on a youtube video no one had heard of...

Are you seriously this stupid?

The OP points out that the GOP were fine with confidential meetings excluding other members of congress during the Benghazi hearings but suddenly are outraged during the impeachment investigation.

The OP was pointing out the GOP/Trumpean hypocrisy.

And it was well done.

 

[Syriusly]

Why even bother showing up for work when Republicans can't cross examine, they can't call witnesses, they can't subpoena, they aren't privy to vital information, and they only hear information when it is splashed up on news tickers on cable news shows when they see the words "sources say." Republicans might as well show up when Dems say they are ready to open it up.

Schiff won't allow anything opened up because he says Republicans will share information, but someone is still leaking, and they turn out to be leaks that support the Democrats' narrative, they are Orange Man Bad, and no way to cross examine them in real time like all others before have allowed.

The Constitution says the House has power over impeachment, but that does not mean Pelosi, nor Schiff, nor even just the majority.

I''ll bite, what witnesses would the republicans call??

You will have to ask them...but I would presume the president of Ukraine who stated publically that he was NOT PRESSURED in anyway would shoot the whole proceedings down!....

Bill Taylor's statement:
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a
mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White
House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement
of investigations—in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent
on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President
Trump wanted President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement
about ordering such investigations.
....
Two days later, on September 7, I had a conversation with Mr. Morrison in which
he described a phone conversation earlier that day between Ambassador Sondland
and President Trump. Mr. Morrison said that he had a “sinking feeling” after
learning about this conversation from Ambassador Sondland. According to Mr.
Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a
“quid pro quo.” But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a
microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election
interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself. Mr.
Morrison said that he told Ambassador Bolton and the NSC lawyers of this phone
call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland.

The following day, on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the
phone. He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week
earlier, but that President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself,
had to “clear things up and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a
“quid pro quo.” Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President
Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro
quo, if President Zelenskyy did not “clear things up” in public, we would be at a
“stalemate.” I understood a “stalemate” to mean that Ukraine would not receive
the much-needed military assistance. Ambassador Sondland said that this
conversation concluded with President Zelenskyy agreeing to make a public
statement in an interview with CNN.

 

[Syriusly]

View attachment 286053

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

So let's not hear the Trump cult running their mouths about democrats holding secret meetings.

How has it been debunked?

You are comparing sparklers with hand grenades.

Inquiry into malfeasance or culpability with regard to an overseas event and then trying to equate that to an impeachment cannot be equated.

Do tell us why a confidential inquiry is okay when the GOP insists on them- and not when the DNC insists on them.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras.

 

[The Purge]

Why even bother showing up for work when Republicans can't cross examine, they can't call witnesses, they can't subpoena, they aren't privy to vital information, and they only hear information when it is splashed up on news tickers on cable news shows when they see the words "sources say." Republicans might as well show up when Dems say they are ready to open it up.

Schiff won't allow anything opened up because he says Republicans will share information, but someone is still leaking, and they turn out to be leaks that support the Democrats' narrative, they are Orange Man Bad, and no way to cross examine them in real time like all others before have allowed.

The Constitution says the House has power over impeachment, but that does not mean Pelosi, nor Schiff, nor even just the majority.

I''ll bite, what witnesses would the republicans call??

You will have to ask them...but I would presume the president of Ukraine who stated publically that he was NOT PRESSURED in anyway would shoot the whole proceedings down!....

Bill Taylor's statement:
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a
mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White
House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement
of investigations—in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent
on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President
Trump wanted President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement
about ordering such investigations.
....
Two days later, on September 7, I had a conversation with Mr. Morrison in which
he described a phone conversation earlier that day between Ambassador Sondland
and President Trump. Mr. Morrison said that he had a “sinking feeling” after
learning about this conversation from Ambassador Sondland. According to Mr.
Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a
“quid pro quo.” But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a
microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election
interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself. Mr.
Morrison said that he told Ambassador Bolton and the NSC lawyers of this phone
call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland.

The following day, on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the
phone. He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week
earlier, but that President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself,
had to “clear things up and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a
“quid pro quo.” Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President
Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro
quo, if President Zelenskyy did not “clear things up” in public, we would be at a
“stalemate.” I understood a “stalemate” to mean that Ukraine would not receive
the much-needed military assistance. Ambassador Sondland said that this
conversation concluded with President Zelenskyy agreeing to make a public
statement in an interview with CNN.

4th person hearsay.... already proven!

 

[Penelope]

Why even bother showing up for work when Republicans can't cross examine, they can't call witnesses, they can't subpoena, they aren't privy to vital information, and they only hear information when it is splashed up on news tickers on cable news shows when they see the words "sources say." Republicans might as well show up when Dems say they are ready to open it up.

Schiff won't allow anything opened up because he says Republicans will share information, but someone is still leaking, and they turn out to be leaks that support the Democrats' narrative, they are Orange Man Bad, and no way to cross examine them in real time like all others before have allowed.

The Constitution says the House has power over impeachment, but that does not mean Pelosi, nor Schiff, nor even just the majority.

I''ll bite, what witnesses would the republicans call??

You will have to ask them...but I would presume the president of Ukraine who stated publically that he was NOT PRESSURED in anyway would shoot the whole proceedings down!....

Sure he would be on the side of any president in office since he wants military aid, but he doesn't want to get involved in our politics, and there is something about a foreign national taking place in the impeachment process. LOL. Foreign influence, that is what tramp intentions were.

anyone else??

Who else??

 

[Penelope]

Clinton didn't have a hearing , and Ken Starr was not on national TV. It was up to the Judiciary Committee whether to impeach him. It took 2 days of them pretending to read the report.

 

[Syriusly]

Why even bother showing up for work when Republicans can't cross examine, they can't call witnesses, they can't subpoena, they aren't privy to vital information, and they only hear information when it is splashed up on news tickers on cable news shows when they see the words "sources say." Republicans might as well show up when Dems say they are ready to open it up.

Schiff won't allow anything opened up because he says Republicans will share information, but someone is still leaking, and they turn out to be leaks that support the Democrats' narrative, they are Orange Man Bad, and no way to cross examine them in real time like all others before have allowed.

The Constitution says the House has power over impeachment, but that does not mean Pelosi, nor Schiff, nor even just the majority.

I''ll bite, what witnesses would the republicans call??

You will have to ask them...but I would presume the president of Ukraine who stated publically that he was NOT PRESSURED in anyway would shoot the whole proceedings down!....

Bill Taylor's statement:
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a
mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White
House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement
of investigations—in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent
on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President
Trump wanted President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement
about ordering such investigations.
....
Two days later, on September 7, I had a conversation with Mr. Morrison in which
he described a phone conversation earlier that day between Ambassador Sondland
and President Trump. Mr. Morrison said that he had a “sinking feeling” after
learning about this conversation from Ambassador Sondland. According to Mr.
Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a
“quid pro quo.” But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a
microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election
interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself. Mr.
Morrison said that he told Ambassador Bolton and the NSC lawyers of this phone
call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland.

The following day, on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the
phone. He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week
earlier, but that President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself,
had to “clear things up and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a
“quid pro quo.” Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President
Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro
quo, if President Zelenskyy did not “clear things up” in public, we would be at a
“stalemate.” I understood a “stalemate” to mean that Ukraine would not receive
the much-needed military assistance. Ambassador Sondland said that this
conversation concluded with President Zelenskyy agreeing to make a public
statement in an interview with CNN.

4th person hearsay.... already proven!

And?

Now the House will follow the threads in Taylor's statement and we will see where that takes us.

Remember two things:
a) Just because it is hearsay doesn't mean it isn't true.
b) Hearsay can absolutely be used to impeach a person.

 

[Penelope]

Nixon:
Those seven months were spent largely behind closed doors. They were thus not used to rally public opinion. The House Judiciary Committee, whose inquiry staff was bipartisan, did hear witnesses, but they were heard in closed session where committee counsel John Doar and the president’s counsel James St. Claire did most of the questioning.

It was the July televised session at which members explained their votes that had the biggest impact on public thinking. Those who heard it will not forget the speeches of Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-Texas) and Rep. James Mann (D-S.C.). According to Gallup polls, only after that committee debate did public support for impeachment exceed 50 percent after starting at 19 percent in June 1973.
Today's Congress can learn from the Nixon impeachment inquiry
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/televised-watergate-hearings-begin

 

[Third Party]

Is the OP seriously trying to compare a phone call made and released by TRUMP to the death of 4 Americans who were left defenseless during a terrorist attack by the Obama administration who went on TV and blamed everything on a youtube video no one had heard of...

No, he's seriously comparing the practice of taking depositions in private. Didn't you read his post?

Is the OP seriously trying to compare a phone call made and released by TRUMP to the death of 4 Americans who were left defenseless during a terrorist attack by the Obama administration who went on TV and blamed everything on a youtube video no one had heard of...

No, he is comparing the process..

Sill not following comparing the process started because of the death of Americans with the process started by 3rd and 4th hand whistleblower information based on a phone call that has been released...

Some witnesses want to remain anonymous and there may be classified info they are obtaining which is why the Benghazi hearings were closed. There is no laws against having an inquiry behind closed doors..

Saying lynching is not illegal either. Saying do me a savor is not illegal either. Saying please hire my son is NOT illegal either.

Depends on the situation..

You mean if Trump is involved he's guilty, but if it is anybody else, its OK?

 

[CWayne]

View attachment 286053

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

So let's not hear the Trump cult running their mouths about democrats holding secret meetings.

You can try all you like, but you will never be able to justify the closed door kangaroo court that we are seeing now.

You do know that the minority party has members on these committees that have access to the proceedings right?

Phony allegations make the Trumpsters look desperate.

If you are gagged and have your hands tied, not permitted to ask questions or participate, those are NOT members on the committee. They are hostages to the Chairman.

Do the rest of us a favor and realize that telling them to sit down, shut up, and don't talk about this outside these doors, means they are NOT participants.

For all practicality, Republicans are not involved in these proceedings.

 

[CWayne]

View attachment 286053

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

So let's not hear the Trump cult running their mouths about democrats holding secret meetings.

How has it been debunked?

You are comparing sparklers with hand grenades.

Inquiry into malfeasance or culpability with regard to an overseas event and then trying to equate that to an impeachment cannot be equated.

Do tell us why a confidential inquiry is okay when the GOP insists on them- and not when the DNC insists on them.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras.

It has nothing to do with what party is holding them. It has to do with the subject matter. An investigation into malfeasance of conduct regarding the death of Americans overseas is not the same thing as trying to impeach a President. The latter is an attempt to overthrow the will of the people, the former is just a criminal investigation.

 

[BlindBoo]

View attachment 286053

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

So let's not hear the Trump cult running their mouths about democrats holding secret meetings.

You can try all you like, but you will never be able to justify the closed door kangaroo court that we are seeing now.

You do know that the minority party has members on these committees that have access to the proceedings right?

Phony allegations make the Trumpsters look desperate.

If you are gagged and have your hands tied, not permitted to ask questions or participate, those are NOT members on the committee. They are hostages to the Chairman.

Do the rest of us a favor and realize that telling them to sit down, shut up, and don't talk about this outside these doors, means they are NOT participants.

For all practicality, Republicans are not involved in these proceedings.

Better check that gag again. The minority members get equal time with each witness they interview. They cannot call their own witnesses. Exactly like previous investigations led by Republicans. They cannot subpoena witnesses. Exactly like previous investigations led by Republicans. Furthermore, in the previous impeachment inquiries the minorities were given the power call and even to subpoena relevant witnesses but the majority always had the right to veto any subpoena put forward by the minority.

 

[CWayne]

View attachment 286053

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

So let's not hear the Trump cult running their mouths about democrats holding secret meetings.

You can try all you like, but you will never be able to justify the closed door kangaroo court that we are seeing now.

You do know that the minority party has members on these committees that have access to the proceedings right?

Phony allegations make the Trumpsters look desperate.

If you are gagged and have your hands tied, not permitted to ask questions or participate, those are NOT members on the committee. They are hostages to the Chairman.

Do the rest of us a favor and realize that telling them to sit down, shut up, and don't talk about this outside these doors, means they are NOT participants.

For all practicality, Republicans are not involved in these proceedings.

Better check that gag again. The minority members get equal time with each witness they interview. They cannot call their own witnesses. Exactly like previous investigations led by Republicans. They cannot subpoena witnesses. Exactly like previous investigations led by Republicans. Furthermore, in the previous impeachment inquiries the minorities were given the power call and even to subpoena relevant witnesses but the majority always had the right to veto any subpoena put forward by the minority.

Where are you getting this information from, Schiff? LOL

Regardless, if they are gagged and unable to use the information and ONLY Schiff is permitted to use the information, then there is no practical participation by the GOP.

The statement that the minority is sitting on the committee is meaningless. They may as well not be for all the authority and rights they enjoy.

 

[IM2]

View attachment 286053

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

So let's not hear the Trump cult running their mouths about democrats holding secret meetings.

How has it been debunked?

You are comparing sparklers with hand grenades.

Inquiry into malfeasance or culpability with regard to an overseas event and then trying to equate that to an impeachment cannot be equated.

Do tell us why a confidential inquiry is okay when the GOP insists on them- and not when the DNC insists on them.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras.

It has nothing to do with what party is holding them. It has to do with the subject matter. An investigation into malfeasance of conduct regarding the death of Americans overseas is not the same thing as trying to impeach a President. The latter is an attempt to overthrow the will of the people, the former is just a criminal investigation.

The people do not support a criminal. Even when that criminal is elected. Trump overthrew his own election by abusing his office.

 

[BlindBoo]

Where are you getting this information from,

Oh you know people talk, you hear things.....

The use of closed-door witness interviews is also consistent with how fact finding for previous impeachment inquiries has been conducted, the Wall Street Journal’s Natalie Andrews reports:

Independent counsel Ken Starr conducted his probe of President Clinton using a grand jury, which by law conducts all its business behind closed doors. In Watergate, special counsel Leon Jaworski also used a grand jury to collect evidence that he eventually transmitted to Congress during its impeachment inquiry. Much of the legal work analyzing the evidence collected by Mr. Jaworski’s prosecutors was done behind closed doors by congressional lawyers.

Several of the key players in Watergate did end up testifying publicly in front of the Senate Watergate committee, but that was a separate investigation from the House impeachment inquiry.

House Republicans’ impeachment stunt is an attempt to distract from the allegations against Trump

Where are you getting the story that the minority members on the committee can't ask questions? Sure that sleaze bucket Gowdy interviewed witnesses without Democrats present while investigating Obama, but so far we haven't seen that tactic emulated, yet.

 

[Dana7360]

View attachment 286053

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

So let's not hear the Trump cult running their mouths about democrats holding secret meetings.

Trust me, you are wasting your time. The rubes are parroting what they have been ordered to parrot, and they are not allowed to think.

Exactly, as with just about everything, you can present all the honest facts in the world. The trump supporters ignore it and pretend they didn't get the information or don't already know it.

They will continue to repeat the lies as they have for decades.

 

[Dana7360]

View attachment 286053

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

So let's not hear the Trump cult running their mouths about democrats holding secret meetings.

You can try all you like, but you will never be able to justify the closed door kangaroo court that we are seeing now.

I don't have to justify the constitutional process whereby 47 republicans were sitting in on the testimonies.

Kangaroo court.

That's a polar opposite. The Kangaroo court is the court of public opinion, which is why the Trumpsters want the investigation held there. They know their base is easily manipulated.

The thing is, they don't actually want things to be public.

The testimony in those depositions paint a very bad picture of trump and what he has been doing.

Once the transcripts are released and people start testifying in public, they will be screaming bloody murder.

This is a case of the far right radical extremists better be careful of what they demand.

 

[BlindBoo]

View attachment 286053

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

The Committee’s preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned. Interviews are a more efficient and effective means of discovery. Interviews allow witnesses to be questioned in depth by a highly prepared member or staff person. In a hearing, every member of a committee is recognized—usually for five minutes—a procedure which precludes in-depth focused questioning. Interviews also allow the Committee to safeguard the privacy of witnesses who may fear retaliation for cooperating or whose work requires anonymity, such as intelligence community operatives.

Both witnesses and members of Congress conduct themselves differently in interviews than when in the public glare of a hearing. Neither have an incentive to play to the cameras. Witnesses have no incentive to run out the clock as long-winded evasive answers merely extend the length of the interview. Likewise, Members have no need to interrupt witnesses to try to ask all their questions in five minutes. Perhaps more importantly, political posturing, self- serving speeches, and theatrics serve no purpose in a closed interview and, as a result, the questioning in interviews tends to be far more effective at discovering information than at public hearings. For these reasons, nearly all Executive Branch investigations are conducted in private and without arbitrary time constraints. This is no less true in a Legislative Branch investigation, yet the manner in which the media portrays these investigations is starkly different.

H. Rept. 114-848 - FINAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE 2012 TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

So let's not hear the Trump cult running their mouths about democrats holding secret meetings.

You can try all you like, but you will never be able to justify the closed door kangaroo court that we are seeing now.

I don't have to justify the constitutional process whereby 47 republicans were sitting in on the testimonies.

Kangaroo court.

That's a polar opposite. The Kangaroo court is the court of public opinion, which is why the Trumpsters want the investigation held there. They know their base is easily manipulated.

The thing is, they don't actually want things to be public.

The testimony in those depositions paint a very bad picture of trump and what he has been doing.

Once the transcripts are released and people start testifying in public, they will be screaming bloody murder.

This is a case of the far right radical extremists better be careful of what they demand.

I agree with all of that. Imo, they are masters of the false narrative and would like access to be able to gin one up each day on some trite point to distract their faithful followers.

 

[EvMetro]

The reason for the closed door kangaroo court that we are seeing now is Dems are not focused on 2020 like Repubs are. Dems are still trying to win 2016, while Repubs are focused on winning 2020.