GOP reps say Schiff stopped impeachment witness from answering certain GOP questions

[Revmitchell]

House Republican leaders, in a fiery news conference Tuesday, said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., prevented a witness in the latest impeachment hearing from answering certain questions from Republican members.

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told reporters that Schiff shut down a Republican line of questioning during a hearing with Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the latest current or former Trump administration official to come before Congress in relation to the impeachment probe.


"When we asked [Vindman] who he spoke to after important events in July -- Adam Schiff says, 'no, no, no, we're not going to let him answer that question,"' Jordan said.

Jordan went on to say that Schiff seemed to be breaking his own rules for the hearings, implying the chairman was acting almost as a "lawyer" for Vindman.

GOP reps say Schiff stopped impeachment witness from answering certain GOP questions

 

[Baptist Believer]

He was attempting to keep them from exposing the identity of the whistleblower, if the witness actually knew who that person was.

The whistleblower law is in place to help root out corruption and protect individuals from retribution.

 

[church mouse guy]

It's a Democrat kangaroo court where the chairman also is the lawyer for the witness. It is like the Spanish Inquisition where the RCC executed heretics or like one of Stalin's show trials where Uncle Joe sent millions to their deaths for no reason.

 

[Reformed1689]

He was attempting to keep them from exposing the identity of the whistleblower, if the witness actually knew who that person was.

The whistleblower law is in place to help root out corruption and protect individuals from retribution.

That's what they claim, I don't buy it. Schiff is running a smoke and mirror show.

 

[agedman]

This is a hearing.

It is not a court of Law.

As much as I do not like Schiff I can not blame him for not allowing exposure of the whistleblower.

It would be extremely damaging to the secrecy and the anonymity of the whistleblower. It is the only protection that a person who is seeking accountability of a superior may have.

So, Schiff closed of the line of questioning.

The larger question that I have is where is the cooperation?

If folks really want the truth, then leave the committee alone, no press questions, no outside influence and that which is behind the closed doors stay behind those doors. The two republicans need to keep their mouths and opinions to themselves until the hearing is opened to the public.

But then again, what right do believers, whose citizenship is in heaven, have in complaining about the ungodliness of the ungodly?

 

[Reformed1689]

This is a hearing.

It is not a court of Law.

As much as I do not like Schiff I can not blame him for not allowing exposure of the whistleblower.

It would be extremely damaging to the secrecy and the anonymity of the whistleblower. It is the only protection that a person who is seeking accountability of a superior may have.

So, Schiff closed of the line of questioning.

The larger question that I have is where is the cooperation?

If folks really want the truth, then leave the committee alone, no press questions, no outside influence and that which is behind the closed doors stay behind those doors. The two republicans need to keep their mouths and opinions to themselves until the hearing is opened to the public.

But then again, what right do believers, whose citizenship is in heaven, have in complaining about the ungodliness of the ungodly?

The "whistle blower" had no whistle to blow. It was third hand hearsay and it wasn't even accurate based on the transcript.

 

[agedman]

The "whistle blower" had no whistle to blow. It was third hand hearsay and it wasn't even accurate based on the transcript.

Could be all that.

However, the initial disclosing needs secrecy and absolute silence to the media. The “Watergate” whistleblower (“deep throat”) was never allowed to be exposed for the same reason. To this day speculation of who it was continues, even though William Felt made the claim.

The D.C. environment is just shameful shambles when it comes to investigating. There is rarely any “investigation” that is not filled with agenda driven grabbing.

 

[Adonia]

He was attempting to keep them from exposing the identity of the whistleblower, if the witness actually knew who that person was.

The whistleblower law is in place to help root out corruption and protect individuals from retribution.

The "whistleblower" is now irrelevant as the transcript has been released. But really, I trust no person who is not willing to step up to the plate and make their accusations openly and then suffer the consequences - it's called honor.

The most basic premise that our constitution mandates is that one has the right to face their accusers in the open. The whistleblower law, like many laws of late, defies the Constitution and should not be allowed.

 

[Adonia]

This is a hearing.

It is not a court of Law.

As much as I do not like Schiff I can not blame him for not allowing exposure of the whistleblower.

It would be extremely damaging to the secrecy and the anonymity of the whistleblower. It is the only protection that a person who is seeking accountability of a superior may have.

So, Schiff closed of the line of questioning.

The larger question that I have is where is the cooperation?

If folks really want the truth, then leave the committee alone, no press questions, no outside influence and that which is behind the closed doors stay behind those doors. The two republicans need to keep their mouths and opinions to themselves until the hearing is opened to the public.

But then again, what right do believers, whose citizenship is in heaven, have in complaining about the ungodliness of the ungodly?

Nothing like Soviet style government, right brother? This is a partisan witch hunt by Democrats who have wanted to impeach the President since day one. Adam Schiff is a proven liar and cannot be trusted.

During the Mueller investigation, Mr. Schiff said he had had evidence that the President was guilty of working with the Russians to fix the 2016 election and to this day he has never come forward with his "evidence". I repeat, the man is an out and out liar and cannot be trusted.

 

[agedman]

The "whistleblower" is now irrelevant as the transcript has been released. But really, I trust no person who is not willing to step up to the plate and make their accusations openly and then suffer the consequences - it's called honor.

The most basic premise that our constitution mandates is that one has the right to face their accusers in the open. The whistleblower law, like many laws of late, defies the Constitution and should not be allowed.

This is completely different than a court of law.

A court may have a “secrete witness” but that witness will be exposed to the defendant in the closed court sessions should it be necessary. Such results in “witness protection” in some instances.

In a hearing there is no dishonor or constitution defilement.

The whistle blower policies and laws have been absolutely a great service. People in power don’t particularly like to be exposed, and tremendous harm has been covered up in the past.

John Dean is an example of a whistleblower who was unshielded.

However, A “fixer” who, from early in his career, was self serving and self preserving, continues to this day trying to bolster his own credibility that has repeatedly been troubled as disclosed from his early career. But, because he was both a whistleblower and duplicitous he had/has little audience for his views.

 

[agedman]

Nothing like Soviet style government, right brother? This is a partisan witch hunt by Democrats who have wanted to impeach the President since day one. Adam Schiff is a proven liar and cannot be trusted.

During the Mueller investigation, Mr. Schiff said he had had evidence that the President was guilty of working with the Russians to fix the 2016 election and to this day he has never come forward with his "evidence". I repeat, the man is an out and out liar and cannot be trusted.

Never said he could be trusted.

I merely remarked about that which pertains to whistle blowers and the whole of the hearing panel.

The claims of Russian interference are nothing new, nor unfounded. The US has a history of being highly involved in manipulation of elections in other countries - just ask native Hawaiians, and Bay of Pigs survivors.

From the founding, other countries have interfered in US political scenes. We do the same thing, sometimes militarily.

Such is a matter for God, For He turns the leaders hearts to fulfilling His plan(s).

 

[church mouse guy]

Never said he could be trusted.

I merely remarked about that which pertains to whistle blowers and the whole of the hearing panel.

The claims of Russian interference are nothing new, nor unfounded. The US has a history of being highly involved in manipulation of elections in other countries - just ask native Hawaiians, and Bay of Pigs survivors.

From the founding, other countries have interfered in US political scenes. We do the same thing, sometimes militarily.

Such is a matter for God, For He turns the leaders hearts to fulfilling His plan(s).

What does the Bay of Pigs have to do with bringing a witness before a committee and then not allowing him to be cross-examined when the whole hearing was secret? How is this different from a Star Chamber or an Inquisition or the trial of Rommel in Germany or the show trials of the 1930s when Stalin put the Russian Army officers and most of the members of the communist party in the death camps? Answer, it's not. And what right did Obama have to spy on the Trump campaign and bug the Trump Tower in 2016 before the election? And since when does a President not have the right to call the President of another country and say whatever he likes? Afterall, Biden told the Ukrainian leadership that they had better not investigate his son or Obama would cut aid to them, didn't he? since that is what Biden said on TV at the Council of Foreign Relations, and Biden is a creep.

 

[agedman]

What does the Bay of Pigs have to do with bringing a witness before a committee and then not allowing him to be cross-examined when the whole hearing was secret? How is this different from a Star Chamber or an Inquisition or the trial of Rommel in Germany or the show trials of the 1930s when Stalin put the Russian Army officers and most of the members of the communist party in the death camps? Answer, it's not. And what right did Obama have to spy on the Trump campaign and bug the Trump Tower in 2016 before the election? And since when does a President not have the right to call the President of another country and say whatever he likes? Afterall, Biden told the Ukrainian leadership that they had better not investigate his son or Obama would cut aid to them, didn't he? since that is what Biden said on TV at the Council of Foreign Relations, and Biden is a creep.

I have no doubt as to the evil abounding in all these things and many others. There is very little “right” even among the “right wingers” in D.C.

Two points need to be remembered.

1) A witness doesn’t need brought when the committee has the documents. For example, the documents (tapes) brought down Nixon. Witness testimony is not taken with other than hot air without documentation.

2) just because others do evil, it does not give permission for a believer to do evil. For example, both Nixon and Trump both claim to be believers. There is a standard of accountability not applied to unbelievers.

Is it possible that the heart of the leadership is not in the hands of God and that He will not turn it to His purposes?

 

[church mouse guy]

I have no doubt as to the evil abounding in all these things and many others. There is very little “right” even among the “right wingers” in D.C.

Two points need to be remembered.

1) A witness doesn’t need brought when the committee has the documents. For example, the documents (tapes) brought down Nixon. Witness testimony is not taken with other than hot air without documentation.

2) just because others do evil, it does not give permission for a believer to do evil. For example, both Nixon and Trump both claim to be believers. There is a standard of accountability not applied to unbelievers.

Is it possible that the heart of the leadership is not in the hands of God and that He will not turn it to His purposes?

If you are saying that the Dems are heathen, then I agree. Nevertheless, they are turning this into a Salem Witch Hunt in that they want to bring witnesses but do not want them cross-examined. Are they trying to start a second civil war since Trump did nothing wrong unlike Biden who did a quid pro quo with Obama's help?

 

[Use of Time]

What a surprise. Another misleading thread title from Mitch without the whole story.

 

[Revmitchell]

What a surprise. Another misleading thread title from Mitch without the whole story.

1. Thread titles never tell the "whole story".
2. What part of the thread title do you find objectionable?
3. The article does in fact present the issues from both sides.

It appears you read the thread title and some posts but not the article itself. Further, your reading comprehension of the title is questionable at best at this point.

 

[church mouse guy]

Schiff is trying to railroad the GOP by acting both as chairman and lawyer for the witness. This is not impeachment but attempted overthrow of an elected government. All presidents of the United States have a right to call foreign leaders and discuss mutual problems, including quid pro quo deals of a previous administration. Biden is a creep who puts his hands on women and little girls in public on camera and likes to smell the hair of other men's wives and other men's daughters. Biden is a creep and his son is a crook.

 

[Use of Time]

1. Thread titles never tell the "whole story".
2. What part of the thread title do you find objectionable?
3. The article does in fact present the issues from both sides.

It appears you read the thread title and some posts but not the article itself. Further, your reading comprehension of the title is questionable at best at this point.

Yeah this isn’t at all a slanted hit piece trying to make Dems look like the bad guys for trying to protect a whistleblower. It’s a real nuanced and balanced perspective in this article.

You know exactly what are you doing.

People of power really hate whistle blowers.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yeah this isn’t at all a slanted hit piece trying to make Dems look like the bad guys for trying to protect a whistleblower. It’s a real nuanced and balanced perspective in this article.

You know exactly what are you doing.

People of power really hate whistle blowers.

So you accused me of posting a "misleading" thread title but apparently you cannot now defend it. Not uncommon for you

 

[church mouse guy]

The Democrats are the bad guys. They are acting in an un-American way. Period. This is the Salem witch trial all over again.