Collins: Schiff wants interviews kept secret because Dems ‘can’t win this in the public eye’

[mystery-ak]

Collins: Schiff wants interviews kept secret because Dems ‘can’t win this in the public eye’
By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News

    House committees are expected to continue their series of closed-door transcribed interviews as part of their impeachment-related investigation of President Trump this week, and Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga. claims the secrecy is due to the Democratic majority not wanting the public to know that the testimony does not support their narrative.

Earlier this month, former U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson and former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch went before Democrat-led committees to face questions about President Trump and whether he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into helping investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. Both sessions took place in closed-door settings. U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland is re-scheduled for this Thursday after his previous appearance was shut down by Trump.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/collins-schiff-wants-interviews-kept-secret-because-dems-cant-win-this-in-the-public-eye

[PeteS in CA]

A secret "investigation" demanding transparency of the one "investigated";

Or

Smokescreened Mirrors.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

If Rep. Doug Collins was on the oversight committee I might care what he says.

[Cyber Liberty]

If Rep. Doug Collins was on the oversight committee I might care what he says.

If he's on Schitt's committee, I care, because he's hearing what we aren't.

[Hoodat]

If Rep. Doug Collins was on the oversight committee I might care what he says.

Collins is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee that Nadler chairs.  His effectiveness in keeping Nadler in check could be the reason that Schiff has been chosen to lead the charge for the Dems.

[Cyber Liberty]

Collins is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee that Nadler chairs.  His effectiveness in keeping Nadler in check could be the reason that Schiff has been chosen to lead the charge for the Dems.

Witness like Candace Owens kept Waddler in check better than the Republicans could.  The man is an idiot.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

If he's on Schitt's committee, I care, because he's hearing what we aren't.

Schiff's committee is the oversight committee.

[Cyber Liberty]

Schiff's committee is the oversight committee.

Yeah, I got caught up on that.  He's as meaningful as Gaetz at this moment.

[Jazzhead]

If Rep. Doug Collins was on the oversight committee I might care what he says.

C'mon Once-ler,  I respect you.  Why can't you see this is a kangaroo court?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Collins is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee that Nadler chairs.  His effectiveness in keeping Nadler in check could be the reason that Schiff has been chosen to lead the charge for the Dems.

@Hoodat
Then it was wise of the rats to pass the ball the Schiff.  Jim Jordan must be much less effective than Collins.  Jordan is the ranking Republican on the oversight committee.  He was allowed in the secret meetings, because everyone know Coach Jordan knows how to keep a secret.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Hoodat
Then it was wise of the rats to pass the ball the Schiff.  Jim Jordan must be much less effective than Collins.  Jordan is the ranking Republican on the oversight committee.  He was allowed in the secret meetings, because everyone know Coach Jordan knows how to keep a secret.

The difference is, Jordan can't leak like Schitt can, and get away with it.  As of Monday, 10/14/19, there are effectively no Republicans on that committee.

[Free Vulcan]

@Hoodat
Then it was wise of the rats to pass the ball the Schiff.  Jim Jordan must be much less effective than Collins.  Jordan is the ranking Republican on the oversight committee.  He was allowed in the secret meetings, because everyone know Coach Jordan knows how to keep a secret.

At least Jordan doesn't use taxpayer money to keep his own little secrets, like Rep. Chicken Schiff does.

Seems like Chicken Schiff does most of his business in secret.

[Cyber Liberty]

At least Jordan doesn't use taxpayer money to keep his own little secrets, like Rep. Chicken Schiff does.

Seems like Chicken Schiff does most of his business in secret.

And, he can leak those secrets at will, even things that should be secrets because he has a press that will cover for him, including Fox News.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

C'mon Once-ler,  I respect you.  Why can't you see this is a kangaroo court?

I respect you immensely @Jazzhead .  The Constitution provides no instruction for impeachment except to say the House controls it.  The GOP didn't have to allow the rats subpoena power in the Clinton impeachment.  The GOP did it because they knew they would be punished by voters if they appeared unfair during a constitutional crisis.  The GOP was in a tough place in 1998 because the rats would punish them for impeachment and the republicans would punish them if they didn't.  The rats are in a similar no win position now. 

One of the things Trump supporters like about Trump is his brash arrogance in the face of the liberals.  After 3 years of it perhaps the rats think they can get away with also being bold.  As far as the kangaroo court I think it's an unfair court because the rats believe they can get away with being unfair.  I don't know how it will go down, but I do know that every salacious detail will be presented before the election.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

The difference is, Jordan can't leak like Schitt can, and get away with it.  As of Monday, 10/14/19, there are effectively no Republicans on that committee.

@Cyber Liberty
What are you talking about?  I have not heard this.

[Hoodat]

Jordan isn't on the Intelligence Committee.  Here is a list of the members:

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

DEMS
---
Adam Schiff, Chairman
28-California

Jim Himes
4-Connecticut

Terri Sewell
7-Alabama

Andre Carson
7-Indiana

Jackie Speier
14-California

Mike Quigley
5-Illinois

Eric Swalwell
15-California

Joaquin Castro
20-Texas

Denny Heck
10-Washington

Peter Welch
Vermont at-large

Sean Patrick Maloney
18-New York

Val Demings
10-Florida

Raja Krishnamoorthi
8-Illinois

-------------------------------

GOP
---
Devin Nunes, Ranking Member
22-California

Mike Conaway
11-Texas

Michael Turner
10-Ohio

Brad Wenstrup
2-Ohio

Chris Stewart
2-Utah

Rick Crawford
1-Arkansas

Elise Stefanik
21-New York

Will Hurd
23-Texas

John Ratcliffe
4-Texas

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty
What are you talking about?  I have not heard this.

They are physically there.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

They are physically there.

I kinda figured that's what you meant after I posted. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I kinda figured that's what you meant after I posted. 

 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I can't remember back before President Trump, but according the inter-web Gowdy, Pompeo, and Jordan presided over an investigation called Bengahzi.  Evidently the Republicans held the inquiries behind closed door for almost every session.  The rats called it a "witch hunt" and accused the Republicans of selectively releasing information to paint Clinton in an unfavorable light.  I expect the rats will release impeachment testimony selectively to paint Trump in an unfavorable light.

[Cyber Liberty]

I can't remember back before President Trump, but according the inter-web Gowdy, Pompeo, and Jordan presided over an investigation called Bengahzi.  Evidently the Republicans held the inquiries behind closed door for almost every session.  The rats called it a "witch hunt" and accused the Republicans of selectively releasing information to paint Clinton in an unfavorable light.  I expect the rats will release impeachment testimony selectively to paint Trump in an unfavorable light.

Did Obama get Impeached for Benghazi?  I don't think the comparison is correct. 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Did Obama get Impeached for Benghazi?  I don't think the comparison is correct.

That's a good point.  I concede it isn't a perfect analogy

[Jazzhead]

I respect you immensely @Jazzhead .  The Constitution provides no instruction for impeachment except to say the House controls it.  The GOP didn't have to allow the rats subpoena power in the Clinton impeachment.  The GOP did it because they knew they would be punished by voters if they appeared unfair during a constitutional crisis.  The GOP was in a tough place in 1998 because the rats would punish them for impeachment and the republicans would punish them if they didn't.  The rats are in a similar no win position now. 

One of the things Trump supporters like about Trump is his brash arrogance in the face of the liberals.  After 3 years of it perhaps the rats think they can get away with also being bold.  As far as the kangaroo court I think it's an unfair court because the rats believe they can get away with being unfair.  I don't know how it will go down, but I do know that every salacious detail will be presented before the election.

I understand that the Constitution provides no specific rules for conducting impeachment.   But the Dems seem to think they can ignore basic due process - the single most important Constitutional guarantee provided to us as citizens,  and the right that separates us from arbitrary dictatorship.   If you're of the view that due process doesn't matter when it comes to the President,  consider that the Dems in a very real sense are seeking to impeach the 63 million who voted for him.   Now you didn't vote for him, and neither did I,  but it is outrageous to annul the people's choice by means of a kangaroo court.  There's a reason the past three impeachments took pains to provide the President and the minority with procedural rights - because it is such a serious matter to turn our system of free and fair elections on its head.    This is an exercise in partisan slander and opportunism, and those fair-minded critics of the President - and I think that includes you - should IMO stand in solidarity to defend the peoples' ability to elect their own leaders.

[Cyber Liberty]

I understand that the Constitution provides no specific rules for conducting impeachment.   But the Dems seem to think they can ignore basic due process - the single most important Constitutional guarantee provided to us as citizens,  and the right that separates us from arbitrary dictatorship.   If you're of the view that due process doesn't matter when it comes to the President,  consider that the Dems in a very real sense are seeking to impeach the 63 million who voted for him.   Now you didn't vote for him, and neither did I,  but it is outrageous to annul the people's choice by means of a kangaroo court.  There's a reason the past three impeachments took pains to provide the President and the minority with procedural rights - because it is such a serious matter to turn our system of free and fair elections on its head.    This is an exercise in partisan slander and opportunism, and those fair-minded critics of the President - and I think that includes you - should IMO stand in solidarity to defend the peoples' ability to elect their own leaders.

@Jazzhead

This is a line I've seen drawn pretty clearly among Briefers...I can only think of one or two who want him Impeached and removed.  Other than them, nobody here wants him removed via Impeachment, even the self-certified "Never Trumpers" who criticize everything he says, and everything he does.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I understand that the Constitution provides no specific rules for conducting impeachment.   But the Dems seem to think they can ignore basic due process - the single most important Constitutional guarantee provided to us as citizens,  and the right that separates us from arbitrary dictatorship.   If you're of the view that due process doesn't matter when it comes to the President,  consider that the Dems in a very real sense are seeking to impeach the 63 million who voted for him.   Now you didn't vote for him, and neither did I,  but it is outrageous to annul the people's choice by means of a kangaroo court.  There's a reason the past three impeachments took pains to provide the President and the minority with procedural rights - because it is such a serious matter to turn our system of free and fair elections on its head.    This is an exercise in partisan slander and opportunism, and those fair-minded critics of the President - and I think that includes you - should IMO stand in solidarity to defend the peoples' ability to elect their own leaders.

Thanks for the reply.  You stand on solid philosophy and I agree with your complaints about impeachment.  In a perfect world both sides would be searching for the truth.  In the real world neither side is.  Impeachment is Constitutional but it always seeks to nullify the votes of the people.  In this case crying for the 63 million means ignoring the 66 million who voted for the other side.  The rats say the President abused his power.  I think they are right.  I am more concerned with that abuse than the unfairness of the House inquiry, since I know President Trump will be treated fairly in the Senate and he's unlikely to be removed. 

The Constitution does not require the rats act fairly.  I am not shocked the rats are unfair, and we knew this was coming after the 2018 elections when the GOP lost the House. 

Lastly, this is just phase 1 fact finding.  The rats will release their information long before they argue it's time to take a vote.  I suspect the House will allow the GOP ample time to argue for the President as we enter later phases...if only to give the appearance of open debate.

(or we could impeach Pelosi, Schiff, and Romney as tweet commanded by President Trump.)

Rejoice.  This is the suicidal impeachment Trump supporting briefers said they were wishing for since Nov 2018.