Democrats Are Embarrassed By Schiff’s Impeachment Tactics, And They Should Be

thefederalist ^ | 10/24/2019 | Adam Mill

[ChicagoConservative27]

Criticisms of Rep. Adam Schiff’s impeachment tactics have begun to bite. Fair-minded people have begun to ask why is it necessary to have secret witnesses, secret hearings, and leaks of distorted, out-of-context excerpts from transcripts,

Why is it necessary to block the president from sending representatives to attend these hearings so he can have equal access to any evidence? Why was it necessary for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff to “parody” the transcript of the president’s call to the Ukrainian president? Aren’t parodies supposed to be funny? Shouldn’t the chairman be proceeding with sober deliberation and fairness instead of romping about with gleeful shtick?

[jmacusa]

I should just being a Democrat embarrassment enough.

[CodeToad]

“acknowledged that the closed-door nature of the impeachment proceedings are consistent with the House’s procedures.”

What procedures?? There are no impeachment proceedings going on. The House has not voted on any impeachment proceedings.

[kosciusko51]

Imagine if D’rats put as much effort into representing their constituents as they’re putting into this coup.

Considering who their constituency that funds them is, they are doing exactly that.

[RooRoobird20]

I don’t think the sleazebag Rats are embarrassed by anything sh*tty and underhanded that they’re doing.

They’re only concerned that their slimey lies and tactics will be fully exposed to the public; they know they will lose in the court of public opinion.

[TexasGator]

“Too numerous to hold that type of discussion on FR.
Do you think there have been no laws broken?”

I didn’t ask for a discussion. I asked you to name A law.

[Highest Authority]

Has anyone demanded that Schiff take a mental test? The guy gives all the earmarks of a flat out loon!

[DoughtyOne]

I’ll bet none of their embarrassment matches mine, at having him as my Congressman.

[HarleyD]

If this country can try a sitting president in secret without him being allowed to face his accursors, without people being allowed to see any evidence, without the accused being able to defend himself. and with the opposition selectively leaking information, then it can happen to ANYONE.

We ARE a third world country.

[TexasGator]

“More to the point: SC wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole,”

Touch what?

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Yep. I see ZERO evidence of shame, embarrassment, concern for precedent, violation of all standards of fair conduct. None, zip, zero, zilch, nada.

It’s a fine article, but it really is grasping at straws and the author is reading far too much into what a few Dems are saying. Whoever wrote that headline was smoking crack because the article does not support it whatsoever.

[j.havenfarm]

They wouldn’t touch the irregularities you cite

[Major Matt Mason]

The responses from Democrats at that article link pretty much put the lie to the headline of this article. You can't shame the shameless.

[Mariner]

“Do you think there have been no laws broken?”

I contend Democrat non-procedure in the House breaks no laws nor Constitutional boundaries.

The House can choose to follow precedent, House rules, Federal Rules of Evidence, etc.

Or, they can choose to do none of the above.

Impeachment is not a criminal process. It is a wholly political process and their are absolutely no constraints on how the House chooses to investigate. There are only TWO constraints on the House:

1. They need to hold a vote on articles of impeachment and gain a majority.

2. They need to stand for election every two years.

There are no others, and there is no authority over them that can compel otherwise.

[Buckeye McFrog]

They’ll only be embarrassed when it doesn’t work.

[TexasGator]

“They wouldn’t touch the irregularities you cite”

I didn’t cite any.

[treetopsandroofs]

I know, and Big Media only yesterday or day before acknowledged he’s in on it.

Which other Rat Republicans are involved?

[jughandle]

I beg to differ, no democrat is embarrassed by anything they do as long as in the end there’s a chance they get their way.

[cgbg]

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.

We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power.

No one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.

Power is not a means; it is an end.

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

The object of persecution is persecution.

The object of torture is torture.

The object of power is power.

George Orwell, 1984

[samtheman]

They support the murder of infants on the day of their birth. Why would this embarrass any of them?

[livius]

You can have closed proceedings - the Benghazi investigation, for example - when there’s a matter of national security, as there obviously was when our intelligence services fell down on the job and let a US ambassador be killed in a consular facility.

There actually aren’t any rules, and Congress makes its own. However, there are customary ways of handling these things, and impeachment has always been bipartisan and open and voted upon publicly, And as someone else pointed out, if they try to claim national security is involved, first of all, it’s not; and secondly, why are they leaking it all (or whatever appeals to them) if it’s so secret?

So there’s no justification for either the fact that this is being held by the Intelligence Committee (except that Schiff is on it) or the fact that it’s being held secretly and has never been decided on by a by-partisan, open vote.