and the Senate wouldn't be already telling her there is nothing to see here, and it's going nowhere …. … It is definitely not bipartisan … and if there was something so "compelling and overwhelming," it would be, especially given the number of anti-Trump Republicans in Congress. Unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country"?
I don't believe there is one person who would feel he/she was being treated with any fairness if he/she were being judged by a hostile group under these rules.Īnd what happened to Pelosi's insistence back in March, when she took impeachment off the table then and said: "I'm not for impeachment ….
You can say whatever you want as long as you agree with me."Įven the release of the transcripts of the first witnesses is unfair because the Republicans were not allowed to cross-examine them to the extent they should have been … and some of those witnesses were coached by Schiff and told not to answer some of the Republicans' questions. IOW Schiff still runs this sham investigation by his rules and his rules alone, and this Resolution is a pathetic attempt to make it seem otherwise.Īs McCarthy pointed out, it is like telling someone "Of course, you are entitled to your First Amendment rights. Of, course, they are allowed to appeal if the chairman rules against them, in which case it will be decided by a vote of the democrat majority in said committee. Yes, democrats claim that this resolution allows the Republicans to call their own witnesses and to cross-examine the witnesses brought forth by Schiff and his shifty crew, but in reality all it does is allow them to plead to the democrat committee chairman for permission to do so. The testimony should have proceeded in public from the beginning.
LAW ABIDING CITIZEN QUOTES VON CLAUSEWITZ FULL
They didn't need a full House vote for that. It changes nothing except makes the rest of the pre- pre- pre-impeachment inquiry public.