https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-lawmakers-in-blasting-secret-impeachment-probe-before-attempting-to-storm-the-proceedings

 

As I understand it, there were republicans who were part of this hearing so it wasn't a secret democrat only hearing. Am I mistaken?

As I understand it, there were republicans who were part of this hearing so it wasn't a secret democrat only hearing. Am I mistaken?

Democrats who are not on the committees are allowed to attend the hearings.

GOP member who are not on the committees are not allowed in.  So, while a few Republicans do attend as part of their duties, there's no reason to bar any other Republicans from the hearings. impeachment impacts every single member of Congress, in that they represent the voters of their districts.  Something this important should include every member of the House.

Only redacted transcripts are available to those not on the committees, and a guard has to stand over their shoulder as they read it -- no copying or taking notes.

Committee members aren't supposed to discuss the proceedings outside of the hearing when it's a closed door hearing.  The only reason Schiff gave for these secretive tactics was to prevent Republicans from leaking info from the proceeding to the press.  LOL!  Schiff has been a constant leaker for years.  What's he afraid of? That we, the people, will learn the truth and shut his circus down?

None of that stops Schiff and other Dems from leaking the tidbits they liked to the press, just to keep chumming the waters.

LOL!  Schiff has been a constant leaker for years.  What's he afraid of? That we, the people, will learn the truth and shut his circus down?

Maybe he is afraid some republican will leak the whistleblower's identity.

Maybe he is afraid some republican will leak the whistleblower's identity.

Whistleblowers are not guaranteed anonymity. That's not how the whistleblowers are supposed to be treated throughout the entire process.

Knowing who the person is sheds light on the person's history, politics, motivations, associations, and so on.  Those are all important factors in determining credibility.

Keep him in the dark avoids all those embarrassingly negative factors from being known.

You have an erroneous belief that whistleblowers can be shielded from being outed beyond the initial review. That's true up until the point their accusations become a full fledged investigation.  At that point, the people being targeted in the complaint have a right to confront their accusers.  Nobody should be afforded the protection of anonymity during a public investigation, especially a criminal investigation.

Whistleblowers who do come forward, anonymously or otherwise, often request that their identities be concealed.
There are just too many headaches involved in continuing to work in an environment in which they are known to
have been a “snitch”. But can a company agree to keep the person’s identity a secret and still conduct a thorough
and fair investigation? Unfortunately, the answer may be no.

“The company can’t promise that the whistleblower’s identity won’t be revealed because there are certain instances in which it may need to be revealed,” says Lisa Noller, litigation partner with Foley and Lardner LLP. “For example, if the company is cooperating with the government, then the whistleblower’s identity may need to be disclosed because the government requires it.”

And then there’s the chance that others in the company may be able to guess the whistleblower’s identity. “You might need to disclose detail about the nature of the complaint, for example in an SEC filing, that somebody will be able to figure out who the whistleblower is,” says Noller.

https://i-sight.com/resources/can-whistleblowers-remain-anonymous-during-an-investigation/

Our system of justice is predicated upon the notion that all parties are treated equally under the law.  Giving one party anonymity offers an unfair advantage to that party.

People know what becoming a whistleblower means, most often than not leaving the organization they are reporting.  Who really believes they can continue working in a place they see as needing to be reported to an outside investigator?

What do you think is going to happen to the whistleblower?  There are protections in place to prevent/punish retaliation.

Whistleblowers are not guaranteed anonymity. That's not how the whistleblowers are supposed to be treated throughout the entire process.

Knowing who the person is sheds light on the person's history, politics, motivations, associations, and so on.  Those are all important factors in determining credibility.

Keep him in the dark avoids all those embarrassingly negative factors from being known.

You have an erroneous belief that whistleblowers can be shielded from being outed beyond the initial review. That's true up until the point their accusations become a full fledged investigation.  At that point, the people being targeted in the complaint have a right to confront their accusers.  Nobody should be afforded the protection of anonymity during a public investigation, especially a criminal investigation.

https://i-sight.com/resources/can-whistleblowers-remain-anonymous-during-an-investigation/

Our system of justice is predicated upon the notion that all parties are treated equally under the law.  Giving one party anonymity offers an unfair advantage to that party.

People know what becoming a whistleblower means, most often than not leaving the organization they are reporting.  Who really believes they can continue working in a place they see as needing to be reported to an outside investigator?

What do you think is going to happen to the whistleblower?  There are protections in place to prevent/punish retaliation.

You are correct, whistleblowers do not get anonymity forever but their identity is protected in the beginning and while an investigation is held.
"It(the persons identity) generally becomes public when the government makes a decision about whether they’re going to support the case or not support the case and that takes quite a while."

https://whistleblower-quitam-attorney.net/whistleblower/the-experience/can-you-remain-anonymous/

In the trial stage in the Senate the whistleblower's identity would need to be made public.

You are correct, whistleblowers do not get anonymity forever but their identity is protected in the beginning and while an investigation is held.
"It(the persons identity) generally becomes public when the government makes a decision about whether they’re going to support the case or not support the case and that takes quite a while."

https://whistleblower-quitam-attorney.net/whistleblower/the-experience/can-you-remain-anonymous/

In the trial stage in the Senate the whistleblower's identity would need to be made public.

This Russia 2.0 witch hunt is well beyond beginning stages.

Now, Schiff is saying they don't need to call the Whistleblower to testify because they have so much other evidence.

Maybe it's because Schiff doesn't want the inside informant testifying under oath on the level of contact and influence Schiff and his staff had prior to the complaint?

Schiff lied about not having contact with him already. Then the spin was that Schiff's office wasn't sure if the complaint was the one written by this informant or another.  Really?  The man contacted Schiff's staff (he'd previously worked with 2 of the staff's members), and then contacted a Democrat lawyer.  The complaint reads like a lawyer wrote it.  What normal person writes a complaint with footnotes?

It's all too well packaged.  They were hoping Trump would refuse to release the transcript, and that their account would be the only one in the press. Trump deflated that plan before it could get off the ground.

Now they want you to believe the complaint (opinion) of one person carries more weight than the official White House record.

So sad that people give Schiff the time of day.  He's proven to be a TDS-riddled liar since 2016.

I guess Pelosi is getting closer to having the votes to officially start impeachment. But not yet:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-says-house-will-vote-this-week-on-resolution-formalizing-impeachment-procedures

I guess Pelosi is getting closer to having the votes to officially start impeachment. But not yet:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-says-house-will-vote-this-week-on-resolution-formalizing-impeachment-procedures

Sounds like she's trying to put the calls for a vote to bed while simultaneously delaying the vote.

GOP:  "Pelosi isn't calling a vote!"

Pelosi: "That's a total lie. I am absolutely calling a vote.   Let's put it on the calendar for October 31, 2020."

She'll keep putting it off until she's sure it'll pass, which means "indefinitely".

Sounds like she's trying to put the calls for a vote to bed while simultaneously delaying the vote.

GOP:  "Pelosi isn't calling a vote!"

Pelosi: "That's a total lie. I am absolutely calling a vote.   Let's put it on the calendar for October 31, 2020."

She'll keep putting it off until she's sure it'll pass, which means "indefinitely".

So #1 and #2 ISIS killed and they want an impeachment vote.

So #1 and #2 ISIS killed and they want an impeachment vote.

All the credit should go to Obama. . . 

Sounds like she's trying to put the calls for a vote to bed while simultaneously delaying the vote.

GOP:  "Pelosi isn't calling a vote!"

Pelosi: "That's a total lie. I am absolutely calling a vote.   Let's put it on the calendar for October 31, 2020."

She'll keep putting it off until she's sure it'll pass, which means "indefinitely".

The thing that I'm hearing is that she still doesn't have the votes for articles of impeachment. She obviously does have enough votes to formalize impeachment procedures on Thursday. Which is what this upcoming vote is for. With that said, I still think they will impeach the president at the worst, or censure him if they don't have enough votes or enough polling to back them up. JMHO

So #1 and #2 ISIS killed and they want an impeachment vote.

He's not a true patriot. 

All the credit should go to Obama. . . 

Yeah, today Susan Rice actually said that Trump should have informed Obama before killing that whimpering dog. 

Yeah, today Susan Rice actually said that Trump should have informed Obama before killing that whimpering dog. 

Trump should kill target do the same to every detainee from GITMO that Obama released.

Assuming they are doing bad things again, of course.   

Trump should kill target do the same to every detainee from GITMO that Obama released.

Assuming they are doing bad things again, of course.   

Someone should make an international red flag law.

The thing that I'm hearing is that she still doesn't have the votes for articles of impeachment. She obviously does have enough votes to formalize impeachment procedures on Thursday. Which is what this upcoming vote is for. With that said, I still think they will impeach the president at the worst, or censure him if they don't have enough votes or enough polling to back them up. JMHO

Didn't Green try twice to have the same vote?  Or was it for something else.  1st round only had like 25 yea's vs 120 nays.  2nd vote a few months later had like 40yay's and 105 nays or something.

Didn't Green try twice to have the same vote?  Or was it for something else.  1st round only had like 25 yea's vs 120 nays.  2nd vote a few months later had like 40yay's and 105 nays or something.

Yes, there were 3 votes that were not successful.

The last one was in July 332 against to 95 for.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-impeachment-resolution-against-trump-n1030791

Yes, there were 3 votes that were not successful.

The last one was in July 332 against to 95 for.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-impeachment-resolution-against-trump-n1030791

Damn, didn't know he tried again.  Kind of like that crazy female friend who wants to be your gf.  Keeps trying and trying until you give in I guess.

Damn, didn't know he tried again.  Kind of like that crazy female friend who wants to be your gf.  Keeps trying and trying until you give in I guess.

One thing to note that this was the only vote while the Dems control the House. The prior 2 votes came about while the Reps controlled the house.