CrottyKid said:

---

I heard a guy on the radio this morning say that Pelosi diverted $2B from social security to pay for impeachment costs.

Probably not true, but I can't see the optics being very good.

---

Not possible. Taking money from Social Security would require something passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

Most likely she took money (and no where close to 2 billion) from various departments/committees in the House itself where she can control the budget to a great degree.

Quote:

---

Misko, 37, worked in the Obama administration as a member of the secretary of state's policy planning staff under deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan, who became Hillary Clinton's top foreign policy official during her 2016 presidential campaign. In 2015, Misko was the director for the Gulf states at the NSC, remaining there into the Trump administration's first year.

A source familiar with Grace's work at the NSC told the Washington Examiner, "Abby Grace had access to executive privilege information, and she has a duty not to disclose that information. She is not authorized to reveal that information."

The same source said that Misko had not been trusted by Trump appointees. "There were a few times where documents had been signed off for final editing before they go to the national security adviser for signature," the source said. "And he actually went in and made changes after those changes were already finished. So he basically tried to insert, without his boss' approval.

"There were meetings in which he protested very heavily, and next thing you know, there's an article in the paper about the contents of that meeting."

Misko often clashed with other NSC personnel at meetings, another source said. Both Grace and Misko were close to Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump's national security adviser from Feb. 2017 until May 2018.

---

That's a double BOOM!

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hunter-biden-sits-exclusive-interview-abc-news/story?id=66252777

GMA tomorrow.. 1 on 1 interview with Hunter Biden. No off-limits questions. HA.

will25u said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hunter-biden-sits-exclusive-interview-abc-news/story?id=66252777

GMA tomorrow.. 1 on 1 interview with Hunter Biden. No off-limits questions. HA.

---

Someone ought to make sure the process server for that paternity test he keeps ducking knows where he'll be.

BQ_90 said:

---

will25u said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hunter-biden-sits-exclusive-interview-abc-news/story?id=66252777

GMA tomorrow.. 1 on 1 interview with Hunter Biden. No off-limits questions. HA.

---

The off limits questions won't matter since there is good chance he's getting copy of the questions right now for show prep.

---

Interview has already occurred, it just won't be broadcast until tomorrow. But look for some leaks from it to come out this afternoon if it was a good interview for Daddy Joe.

Quote:

---

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/465787-ex-trump-aide-on-russia-testifies-about-shadow-foreign-policy-in-ukraine-in-10

Fiona Hill, who served as Trump's top analyst on Russia on the National Security Council staff until this summer, is the third witness to appear for a closed-door session before the three House committees leading the impeachment inquiry, following former Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker and former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

---

Quote:

---

"Her recall of meetings and content and who was there, with such specificity, was in some ways extraordinary," Rep. Harley Rouda (D-Calif.), a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said afterward.

---

I bet it was. Schiff's office does a good job typing it all up.

chimmy said:

---

---

Looks like a line-up of Deep State conspirators.

It's 9:23AM on October 15, 2019 and Donald J. Trump is STILL the POTUS.

Tom Hagen said:

---

chimmy said:

---

---

Looks like a line-up of Deep State conspirators.

---

Because it is. What Schiff is doing here is circular sourcing from the leakers who spoke with one another (despite need to know) and with Schiff's original so-called whistle blower.

IOW, he's using them to corroborate not only each other but the original whistle blower, meaning he doesn't need to be revealed and cross examined. Indeed, Schiff has set the rules that these witnesses cannot be cross examined by the GOP minority members present for any meaningful period of time. Nor have the Department's attorneys been allowed to be present.

Schiff has stated unabashedly that he is running a grand jury, not an impeachment investigation and thus there is no input allowed from the defense. And that is a very dangerous precedent he is setting.

aggiehawg said:

---

Tom Hagen said:

---

chimmy said:

---

---

Looks like a line-up of Deep State conspirators.

---

Because it is. What Schiff is doing here is circular sourcing from the leakers who spoke with one another (despite need to know) and with Schiff's original so-called whistle blower.

IOW, he's using them to corroborate not only each other but the original whistle blower, meaning he doesn't need to be revealed and cross examined. Indeed, Schiff has set the rules that these witnesses cannot be cross examined by the GOP minority members present for any meaningful period of time. Nor have the Department's attorneys been allowed to be present.

Schiff has stated unabashedly that he is running a grand jury, not an impeachment investigation and thus there is no input allowed from the defense. And that is a very dangerous precedent he is setting.

---

I'm surprised they can be cross examined by the GOP minority at all. Lawyers for the accused don't get to do that for grand juries.

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Tom Hagen said:

---

chimmy said:

---

---

Looks like a line-up of Deep State conspirators.

---

Because it is. What Schiff is doing here is circular sourcing from the leakers who spoke with one another (despite need to know) and with Schiff's original so-called whistle blower.

IOW, he's using them to corroborate not only each other but the original whistle blower, meaning he doesn't need to be revealed and cross examined. Indeed, Schiff has set the rules that these witnesses cannot be cross examined by the GOP minority members present for any meaningful period of time. Nor have the Department's attorneys been allowed to be present.

Schiff has stated unabashedly that he is running a grand jury, not an impeachment investigation and thus there is no input allowed from the defense. And that is a very dangerous precedent he is setting.

---

I'm surprised they can be cross examined by the GOP minority at all. Lawyers for the accused don't get to do that for grand juries.

---

This is not a grand jury nor a criminal proceeding. It is a political proceeding.

Quote:

---

This is not a grand jury nor a criminal proceeding. It is a political proceeding.

---

And an unconstitutional one at best. Grand jury proceedings are a combination of Articl II and Article III criminal proceedings.

Nowhere in Article I is the legislative branch granted powers to enforce criminal laws, absent argumendo a formal impeachment proceeding. Which of course, Schiff does not have that fig leaf to cover his nether regions.

Rapier108 said:

---

This is not a grand jury nor a criminal proceeding. It is a political proceeding.

---

Proceeding is way too strong of a word. At best it's a farce/dog and pony show/circus/stshow.

Quote:

---

It is a political proceeding.

---

No, it's a

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This is not a grand jury nor a criminal proceeding. It is a political proceeding.

---

And an unconstitutional one at best. Grand jury proceedings are a combination of Articl II and Article III criminal proceedings.

Nowhere in Article I is the legislative branch granted powers to enforce criminal laws, absent argumendo a formal impeachment proceeding. Which of course, Schiff does not have that fig leaf to cover his nether regions.

---

Nothing Schiff is doing is unconstitutional and Schiff can not practically enforce criminal law even if he wanted to, which I'm sure he does. However, the House majority can have on-going investigations for the entire 116th session, if they so desire, which they probably do, and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Schiff doesn't need any cover at all if he's not concerned with the opinions of his or other House members' electorate.

They're running the Russian collusion playbook again (circular sourcing, etc.), only using political operatives within our own government instead of DNC sourced lackeys.

This is the very definition of a coup, and these asshats like Schiff need to be held accountable.

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This is not a grand jury nor a criminal proceeding. It is a political proceeding.

---

And an unconstitutional one at best. Grand jury proceedings are a combination of Articl II and Article III criminal proceedings.

Nowhere in Article I is the legislative branch granted powers to enforce criminal laws, absent argumendo a formal impeachment proceeding. Which of course, Schiff does not have that fig leaf to cover his nether regions.

---

Nothing Schiff is doing is unconstitutional and Schiff can not practically enforce criminal law even if he wanted to, which I'm sure he does. However, the House majority can have on-going investigations for the entire 116th session, if they so desire, which they probably do, and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Schiff doesn't need any cover at all if he's not concerned with the opinions of his or other House members' electorate.

---

He has no constitutional authority to run a grand jury (or rather, hide behind its rules).

He's using criminal rules to give himself the cover for a political process (impeachment).

This will backfire on them like all the other escapades. Good luck to you.

AG 2000' said:

---

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This is not a grand jury nor a criminal proceeding. It is a political proceeding.

---

And an unconstitutional one at best. Grand jury proceedings are a combination of Articl II and Article III criminal proceedings.

Nowhere in Article I is the legislative branch granted powers to enforce criminal laws, absent argumendo a formal impeachment proceeding. Which of course, Schiff does not have that fig leaf to cover his nether regions.

---

Nothing Schiff is doing is unconstitutional and Schiff can not practically enforce criminal law even if he wanted to, which I'm sure he does. However, the House majority can have on-going investigations for the entire 116th session, if they so desire, which they probably do, and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Schiff doesn't need any cover at all if he's not concerned with the opinions of his or other House members' electorate.

---

He has no constitutional authority to run a grand jury (or rather, hide behind its rules).

He's using criminal rules to give himself the cover for a political process (impeachment).

---

That's not what is happening here. No 'criminal rules' are at play here. The only rule for impeachment in the Constitution is that the House will vote on impeachment. The majority in the House can have all the investigations they want, like Schiff and other committee heads are doing, and Pelosi may never hold a vote on impeachment.

chimmy said:

---

AG 2000' said:

---

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This is not a grand jury nor a criminal proceeding. It is a political proceeding.

---

And an unconstitutional one at best. Grand jury proceedings are a combination of Articl II and Article III criminal proceedings.

Nowhere in Article I is the legislative branch granted powers to enforce criminal laws, absent argumendo a formal impeachment proceeding. Which of course, Schiff does not have that fig leaf to cover his nether regions.

---

Nothing Schiff is doing is unconstitutional and Schiff can not practically enforce criminal law even if he wanted to, which I'm sure he does. However, the House majority can have on-going investigations for the entire 116th session, if they so desire, which they probably do, and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Schiff doesn't need any cover at all if he's not concerned with the opinions of his or other House members' electorate.

---

He has no constitutional authority to run a grand jury (or rather, hide behind its rules).

He's using criminal rules to give himself the cover for a political process (impeachment).

---

That's not what is happening here. No 'criminal rules' are at play here. The only rule for impeachment in the Constitution is that the House will vote on impeachment. The majority in the House can have all the investigations they want, like Schiff and other committee heads are doing, and Pelosi may never hold a vote on impeachment.

---

Do you really not see a problem with overturning an election of the people if the other party happens to control the House? The founders were very fearful of this exact thing.

Here's the problem with your and Schiff's interpretation of their unfettered power to conduct sweeping investigations without proper predicate of either a legitimate legislative purpose (arguably oversight) or a formal impeachment investigation which would necessitate new rules giving some rights to the minority to call witnesses and cross examine all witnesses.

By keeping this in the Intelligence Committee and thus calling their proceedings "secret" and theratening ethics complaints against any minority member saying much of anything about the substance of the testimony will lead to only one result, by design.

The full House will be asked to vote on Articles of Impeachment where only a hand full of members have an inkling of what the evidence really is, much less the American people.

Tell you what though, if the Dems continue heading down this path, the Independent Counsel Statute will likely be revived in the aftermath. Get the House out of the unfettered investigation business and back to the legislating business.

And I hate the Independent Counsel Statute and was glad it was sunsetted. But if the current situation is the by-product of not having that statute, it is the lesser of two evils, IMO.

aggiehawg said:

---

Here's the problem with your and Schiff's interpretation of their unfettered power to conduct sweeping investigations without proper predicate of either a legitimate legislative purpose (arguably oversight) or a formal impeachment investigation which would necessitate new rules giving some rights to the minority to call witnesses and cross examine all witnesses.

By keeping this in the Intelligence Committee and thus calling their proceedings "secret" and theratening ethics complaints against any minority member saying much of anything about the substance of the testimony will lead to only one result, by design.

The full House will be asked to vote on Articles of Impeachment where only a hand full of members have an inkling of what the evidence really is, much less the American people.

Tell you what though, if the Dems continue heading down this path, the Independent Counsel Statute will likely be revived in the aftermath. Get the House out of the unfettered investigation business and back to the legislating business.

And I hate the Independent Counsel Statute and was glad it was sunsetted. But if the current situation is the by-product of not having that statute, it is the lesser of two evils, IMO.

---

My and Schiff's interpretation? DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT ME. The Constitution says what it says AND Dems in the House are doing what they are doing. I'm merely stating the obvious course House Dems are taking. But because I'm bucking your desired narrative, hate comes my way.

I doubt Dems will keep this all a secret. IMHO, they want to dig up dirt. Look at recent history. We only found out about Hillary's email server after multiple investigations into Benghazi that lasted several years across multiple House sessions. And that was a gem that keeps on giving to this day.

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Here's the problem with your and Schiff's interpretation of their unfettered power to conduct sweeping investigations without proper predicate of either a legitimate legislative purpose (arguably oversight) or a formal impeachment investigation which would necessitate new rules giving some rights to the minority to call witnesses and cross examine all witnesses.

By keeping this in the Intelligence Committee and thus calling their proceedings "secret" and theratening ethics complaints against any minority member saying much of anything about the substance of the testimony will lead to only one result, by design.

The full House will be asked to vote on Articles of Impeachment where only a hand full of members have an inkling of what the evidence really is, much less the American people.

Tell you what though, if the Dems continue heading down this path, the Independent Counsel Statute will likely be revived in the aftermath. Get the House out of the unfettered investigation business and back to the legislating business.

And I hate the Independent Counsel Statute and was glad it was sunsetted. But if the current situation is the by-product of not having that statute, it is the lesser of two evils, IMO.

---

My and Schiff's interpretation? DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT ME. The Constitution says what it says AND Dems in the House are doing what they are doing. I'm merely stating the obvious course House Dems are taking. But because I'm bucking your desired narrative, hate comes my way.

I doubt Dems will keep this all a secret. IMHO, they want to dig up dirt. Look at recent history. We only found out about Hillary's email server after multiple investigations into Benghazi that lasted several years across multiple House sessions. And that was a gem that keeps on giving to this day.

---

Hate? Got it, disagreement is now hate. Y'all are insufferable.

Even the President has rights.

Ninth Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

....The Ninth Amendment declares that there are additional fundamental rights that exist outside the Constitution. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not an explicit and exhaustive list of individual rights.

...The First through Eighth Amendments address the means by which the federal government exercises its enumerated powers, while the Ninth Amendment addresses a "great residuum" of rights that have not been "thrown into the hands of the government," as Madison put it.
(In other words the Federal Government, House of Representatives, is abusing its powers by denying a citizen, the President due process)

The Constitution lists due process as a right albeit in criminal proceedings, but a right none the less. It could be argued that the current House proceedings are denying due process.

I am not a lawyer but after rereading the Constitution & Bill of Rights it seems the Democrats are off the rails heading down the path of fascism.

Spotted Ag said:

---

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Here's the problem with your and Schiff's interpretation of their unfettered power to conduct sweeping investigations without proper predicate of either a legitimate legislative purpose (arguably oversight) or a formal impeachment investigation which would necessitate new rules giving some rights to the minority to call witnesses and cross examine all witnesses.

By keeping this in the Intelligence Committee and thus calling their proceedings "secret" and theratening ethics complaints against any minority member saying much of anything about the substance of the testimony will lead to only one result, by design.

The full House will be asked to vote on Articles of Impeachment where only a hand full of members have an inkling of what the evidence really is, much less the American people.

Tell you what though, if the Dems continue heading down this path, the Independent Counsel Statute will likely be revived in the aftermath. Get the House out of the unfettered investigation business and back to the legislating business.

And I hate the Independent Counsel Statute and was glad it was sunsetted. But if the current situation is the by-product of not having that statute, it is the lesser of two evils, IMO.

---

My and Schiff's interpretation? DON'T MAKE THIS ABOUT ME. The Constitution says what it says AND Dems in the House are doing what they are doing. I'm merely stating the obvious course House Dems are taking. But because I'm bucking your desired narrative, hate comes my way.

I doubt Dems will keep this all a secret. IMHO, they want to dig up dirt. Look at recent history. We only found out about Hillary's email server after multiple investigations into Benghazi that lasted several years across multiple House sessions. And that was a gem that keeps on giving to this day.

---

Hate? Got it, disagreement is now hate. Y'all are insufferable.

---

(insert the condescending 'yeah, sure, okay' meme here)
The obtuseness of this comment is insufferable.
(FYI: Civil disagreements shouldn't involve ad hominems.)