Another lie debunked- Democratic secret hearings

[Third Party]

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.

They are IN FACT
Hiding from public scrutiny
Leaking tidbits of info without corroboration
Bastardizing an established process


Those FACTS are not and will not be debunked

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

 

[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.

They are IN FACT
Hiding from public scrutiny
Leaking tidbits of info without corroboration
Bastardizing an established process


Those FACTS are not and will not be debunked

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

47 republicans serve on those committees. You'll see the evidence soon enough.

 

[Flash]

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.

TDS, you haz it Moon Bat. You delusional shithead. The committee is secretive and that has been explained a million times.

When you dumb uneducated low information Moon Bats come up with silly shit like this we ridicule you for it and make you look a fool and then you wonder why we have no respect for you turds.

 

[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.

They are IN FACT
Hiding from public scrutiny
Leaking tidbits of info without corroboration
Bastardizing an established process


Those FACTS are not and will not be debunked

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

Both sides have equal access to every witness. Nor are they limited to the 5 minute time constraints in the open hearings where we see more partisan grandstanding from members of both parties than we hear actual facts. They just get better information in closed door settings. It's all going to become public.

 

[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.

TDS, you haz it Moon Bat. You delusional shithead. The committee is secretive and that has been explained a million times.

When you dumb uneducated low information Moon Bats come up with silly shit like this we ridicule you for it and make you look a fool and then you wonder why we have no respect for you turds.

You are wrong dumb ass and nobody is concerned about ridicule from the clown car.

 

[Third Party]

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.

They are IN FACT
Hiding from public scrutiny
Leaking tidbits of info without corroboration
Bastardizing an established process


Those FACTS are not and will not be debunked

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

47 republicans serve on those committees. You'll see the evidence soon enough.

You realize that Durham's investigation may over shadow any crap Schiff has fabricated so far?

 

[Third Party]

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.

They are IN FACT
Hiding from public scrutiny
Leaking tidbits of info without corroboration
Bastardizing an established process


Those FACTS are not and will not be debunked

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

Both sides have equal access to every witness. Nor are they limited to the 5 minute time constraints in the open hearings where we see more partisan grandstanding from members of both parties than we hear actual facts. They just get better information in closed door settings. It's all going to become public.

I repeat How do we know-the whole process has been secretive? And how about that "better" information? Don't we deserve to hear that?

 

[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.

They are IN FACT
Hiding from public scrutiny
Leaking tidbits of info without corroboration
Bastardizing an established process


Those FACTS are not and will not be debunked

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

47 republicans serve on those committees. You'll see the evidence soon enough.

You realize that Durham's investigation may over shadow any crap Schiff has fabricated so far?

I doubt it.

 

[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.

They are IN FACT
Hiding from public scrutiny
Leaking tidbits of info without corroboration
Bastardizing an established process


Those FACTS are not and will not be debunked

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

47 republicans serve on those committees. You'll see the evidence soon enough.

You realize that Durham's investigation may over shadow any crap Schiff has fabricated so far?

Speaking of secret investigations.

 

[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.

They are IN FACT
Hiding from public scrutiny
Leaking tidbits of info without corroboration
Bastardizing an established process


Those FACTS are not and will not be debunked

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

Both sides have equal access to every witness. Nor are they limited to the 5 minute time constraints in the open hearings where we see more partisan grandstanding from members of both parties than we hear actual facts. They just get better information in closed door settings. It's all going to become public.

I repeat How do we know-the whole process has been secretive? And how about that "better" information? Don't we deserve to hear that?

We know that it has not been secretive where one side, the majority, excludes the minority from attending.

They will not release the information until the evidence gathering phase is complete, as per the established rules.

Republicans established the rules. Why do republicans want to break the rules they set?

 

[Siete]

RW dopes wouldnt know impeachment procedure it it bit them in the ass -

hell, they have yet to figure out debt/deficit .........

 

[Third Party]

They are IN FACT
Hiding from public scrutiny
Leaking tidbits of info without corroboration
Bastardizing an established process


Those FACTS are not and will not be debunked

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

Both sides have equal access to every witness. Nor are they limited to the 5 minute time constraints in the open hearings where we see more partisan grandstanding from members of both parties than we hear actual facts. They just get better information in closed door settings. It's all going to become public.

I repeat How do we know-the whole process has been secretive? And how about that "better" information? Don't we deserve to hear that?

We know that it has not been secretive where one side, the majority, excludes the minority from attending.

They will not release the information until the evidence gathering phase is complete, as per the established rules.

Republicans established the rules. Why do republicans want to break the rules they set?

It HAS been secretive as regards US! If we watch, NOBODY gets to spin, not Dems, not Reps, not CNN.
TRANSPARENCY NOW!

 

[BlindBoo]

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

Both sides have equal access to every witness. Nor are they limited to the 5 minute time constraints in the open hearings where we see more partisan grandstanding from members of both parties than we hear actual facts. They just get better information in closed door settings. It's all going to become public.

I repeat How do we know-the whole process has been secretive? And how about that "better" information? Don't we deserve to hear that?

We know that it has not been secretive where one side, the majority, excludes the minority from attending.

They will not release the information until the evidence gathering phase is complete, as per the established rules.

Republicans established the rules. Why do republicans want to break the rules they set?

It HAS been secretive as regards US! If we watch, NOBODY gets to spin, not Dems, not Reps, not CNN.
TRANSPARENCY NOW!

So why do you want them to change the rules in the middle of the Congressional session? Because you suddenly realize how unfair they were to President Obama?

 

[Syriusly]

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

Both sides have equal access to every witness. Nor are they limited to the 5 minute time constraints in the open hearings where we see more partisan grandstanding from members of both parties than we hear actual facts. They just get better information in closed door settings. It's all going to become public.

I repeat How do we know-the whole process has been secretive? And how about that "better" information? Don't we deserve to hear that?

We know that it has not been secretive where one side, the majority, excludes the minority from attending.

They will not release the information until the evidence gathering phase is complete, as per the established rules.

Republicans established the rules. Why do republicans want to break the rules they set?

It HAS been secretive as regards US! If we watch, NOBODY gets to spin, not Dems, not Reps, not CNN.
TRANSPARENCY NOW!

Funny how the only TRANSPARENCY you seem to care about is
a) When Democrats are in charge and
b) When it doesn't have anything to do with President Trump being transparent and providing witnesses and documents.

Funny that.

 

[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.

They are IN FACT
Hiding from public scrutiny
Leaking tidbits of info without corroboration
Bastardizing an established process


Those FACTS are not and will not be debunked

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

47 republicans serve on those committees. You'll see the evidence soon enough.

You realize that Durham's investigation may over shadow any crap Schiff has fabricated so far?

Speculate away.

Meanwhile I look forward to your intense demands that Trump be transparent and provide the subpoened documents and witnesses.

 

[Third Party]

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

Both sides have equal access to every witness. Nor are they limited to the 5 minute time constraints in the open hearings where we see more partisan grandstanding from members of both parties than we hear actual facts. They just get better information in closed door settings. It's all going to become public.

I repeat How do we know-the whole process has been secretive? And how about that "better" information? Don't we deserve to hear that?

We know that it has not been secretive where one side, the majority, excludes the minority from attending.

They will not release the information until the evidence gathering phase is complete, as per the established rules.

Republicans established the rules. Why do republicans want to break the rules they set?

It HAS been secretive as regards US! If we watch, NOBODY gets to spin, not Dems, not Reps, not CNN.
TRANSPARENCY NOW!

So why do you want them to change the rules in the middle of the Congressional session? Because you suddenly realize how unfair they were to President Obama?

Don't know nuthin bout no Obama. There should be NO rules that exclude the public by Democrat or Republican.
TRANSPARENCY NOW!

 

[Third Party]

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

Both sides have equal access to every witness. Nor are they limited to the 5 minute time constraints in the open hearings where we see more partisan grandstanding from members of both parties than we hear actual facts. They just get better information in closed door settings. It's all going to become public.

I repeat How do we know-the whole process has been secretive? And how about that "better" information? Don't we deserve to hear that?

We know that it has not been secretive where one side, the majority, excludes the minority from attending.

They will not release the information until the evidence gathering phase is complete, as per the established rules.

Republicans established the rules. Why do republicans want to break the rules they set?

It HAS been secretive as regards US! If we watch, NOBODY gets to spin, not Dems, not Reps, not CNN.
TRANSPARENCY NOW!

Funny how the only TRANSPARENCY you seem to care about is
a) When Democrats are in charge and
b) When it doesn't have anything to do with President Trump being transparent and providing witnesses and documents.

Funny that.

If you think that is funny:
When Durham has his hearings next month, I expect and will push for here that they be open and transparent-fair to both, I say, and fair to US!

 

[Third Party]

They are IN FACT
Hiding from public scrutiny
Leaking tidbits of info without corroboration
Bastardizing an established process


Those FACTS are not and will not be debunked

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

47 republicans serve on those committees. You'll see the evidence soon enough.

You realize that Durham's investigation may over shadow any crap Schiff has fabricated so far?

Speculate away.

Meanwhile I look forward to your intense demands that Trump be transparent and provide the subpoened documents and witnesses.

I would not hand over anything unless the hearing was open to the public. Trump does not trust nor do I trust any Democrat. Once that happens, I will call for the release of documents and workers being pulled from their jobs.

 

[BlindBoo]

Besides the opening statements being released by some of the witnesses themselves, what parts of their testimony has been leaked to the press by either side?

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

47 republicans serve on those committees. You'll see the evidence soon enough.

You realize that Durham's investigation may over shadow any crap Schiff has fabricated so far?

Speculate away.

Meanwhile I look forward to your intense demands that Trump be transparent and provide the subpoened documents and witnesses.

I would not hand over anything unless the hearing was open to the public. Trump does not trust nor do I trust any Democrat. Once that happens, I will call for the release of documents and workers being pulled from their jobs.

I say lets make a deal. Open hearings when Trumpybear agrees to testifies under oath.

 

[Third Party]

How do we know-the whole process has been secretive?

47 republicans serve on those committees. You'll see the evidence soon enough.

You realize that Durham's investigation may over shadow any crap Schiff has fabricated so far?

Speculate away.

Meanwhile I look forward to your intense demands that Trump be transparent and provide the subpoened documents and witnesses.

I would not hand over anything unless the hearing was open to the public. Trump does not trust nor do I trust any Democrat. Once that happens, I will call for the release of documents and workers being pulled from their jobs.

I say lets make a deal. Open hearings when Trumpybear agrees to testifies under oath.

Why wait? Open them now-unless these subpoenaed people are not trustworthy?