BluHorseShu said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

APHIS AG said:

---

He thinks he is above the law for he wants to testify in the open after Congress told him it will be a closed testimony, which he did not like.

I guess he thinks he is running the show, like his father.

---

What I don't get is why they are opposed to doing it in public. We expected full transparency with Trumps impeachment.

---

The criminal doesn't get to dictate the terms, nor should he.

Trump's impeachment had to be in public because it was a political stunt. The democrats wanted the world to watch. Nothing about it was done properly according to precedent. It was a political hit job, as everything that has followed has been.

---

That's not what I was saying. The dems wanted to do the depositions in private. R's wanted full transparency, thus public. It was political for both sides.

---

Both impeachments were utter BS. Republicans wanted America to know just how corrupt democrats are.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What I don't get is why they are opposed to doing it in public. We expected full transparency with Trumps impeachment.

---

Have you ever watched the kabuki theater that is a public hearing in the House? Five minutes per member to shoud and scream about whatever is their latest woke theme, du jour, no meaningful nor direct questioning, constant interruptions, etc.

Closed door depositions allow for more detailed questions with direct follow up questions to remove ambiguities. Further, Hunter and his lawyers would have the opportunity to conduct clean-up on the transcripts with the errata sheets.

---

That makes sense, but the House Republicans adamantly called for no closed door depositions for the Trump impeachment. Gaetz was especially vocal about it.

---

*face palm*

---

Did no one learn any civics in school? Watch School Rock? (Granted, School Rock was a little past my age and I learned this stuff the old fashioned way, taught in school.)

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

APHIS AG said:

---

He thinks he is above the law for he wants to testify in the open after Congress told him it will be a closed testimony, which he did not like.

I guess he thinks he is running the show, like his father.

---

What I don't get is why they are opposed to doing it in public. We expected full transparency with Trumps impeachment.

---

The criminal doesn't get to dictate the terms, nor should he.

Trump's impeachment had to be in public because it was a political stunt. The democrats wanted the world to watch. Nothing about it was done properly according to precedent. It was a political hit job, as everything that has followed has been.

---

So Meadows and Scavino got to ignore their subpoena's? Why wouldn't republicans want the world to watch now? They have all the evidence.

Explain to me what the precedent is that is being followed now vs not then?

aggiehawg said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What I don't get is why they are opposed to doing it in public. We expected full transparency with Trumps impeachment.

---

Have you ever watched the kabuki theater that is a public hearing in the House? Five minutes per member to shoud and scream about whatever is their latest woke theme, du jour, no meaningful nor direct questioning, constant interruptions, etc.

Closed door depositions allow for more detailed questions with direct follow up questions to remove ambiguities. Further, Hunter and his lawyers would have the opportunity to conduct clean-up on the transcripts with the errata sheets.

---

That makes sense, but the House Republicans adamantly called for no closed door depositions for the Trump impeachment. Gaetz was especially vocal about it.

---

*face palm*

---

Did no one learn any civics in school? Watch School Rock? (Granted, School Rock was a little past my age and I learned this stuff the old fashioned way, taught in school.)

---

Et tu Hawg? Et tu?

Did R's not ask for no closed door depositions or not? Simple question?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

APHIS AG said:

---

He thinks he is above the law for he wants to testify in the open after Congress told him it will be a closed testimony, which he did not like.

I guess he thinks he is running the show, like his father.

---

What I don't get is why they are opposed to doing it in public. We expected full transparency with Trumps impeachment.

---

The criminal doesn't get to dictate the terms, nor should he.

Trump's impeachment had to be in public because it was a political stunt. The democrats wanted the world to watch. Nothing about it was done properly according to precedent. It was a political hit job, as everything that has followed has been.

---

That's not what I was saying. The dems wanted to do the depositions in private. R's wanted full transparency, thus public. It was political for both sides.

---

Both impeachments were utter BS. Republicans wanted America to know just how corrupt democrats are.

---

So then why not allow America to see the process in the same transparency?

People keep mentioned precedent and standard process. Are the R's are following appropriate protocol now, but the Dems never did (regardless if the impeachment was BS or not...that is not my question)?

Quote:

---

So Meadows and Scavino got to ignore their subpoena's? Why wouldn't republicans want the world to watch now? They have all the evidence.

Explain to me what the precedent is that is being followed now vs not then?

---

JEEBUS!

DO YOU NOT GET EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? Meadows and Scavino were Presidential advisors.

aggiehawg said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What I don't get is why they are opposed to doing it in public. We expected full transparency with Trumps impeachment.

---

Have you ever watched the kabuki theater that is a public hearing in the House? Five minutes per member to shoud and scream about whatever is their latest woke theme, du jour, no meaningful nor direct questioning, constant interruptions, etc.

Closed door depositions allow for more detailed questions with direct follow up questions to remove ambiguities. Further, Hunter and his lawyers would have the opportunity to conduct clean-up on the transcripts with the errata sheets.

---

That makes sense, but the House Republicans adamantly called for no closed door depositions for the Trump impeachment. Gaetz was especially vocal about it.

---

*face palm*

---

Did no one learn any civics in school? Watch School Rock? (Granted, School Rock was a little past my age and I learned this stuff the old fashioned way, taught in school.)

---

Umm...I watch how a bill was made. I must have missed the Schoolhouse Rock episode on impeachments. And honestly, show me more than 3 people here who understand the standard 'appropriate' impeachment process or congressional investigations. I know what I've seen on tv, but honestly its impossible to cut through the biases in the media (social or ms) to glean what is actually the standard.
So no...I don't think this is face palm worthy.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So Meadows and Scavino got to ignore their subpoena's? Why wouldn't republicans want the world to watch now? They have all the evidence.

Explain to me what the precedent is that is being followed now vs not then?

---

JEEBUS!

DO YOU NOT GET EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? Meadows and Scavino were Presidential advisors.

---

Cool your jets. You're getting too emotional about this. Was Bannon or Navarro not under the same privilege?

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So Meadows and Scavino got to ignore their subpoena's? Why wouldn't republicans want the world to watch now? They have all the evidence.

Explain to me what the precedent is that is being followed now vs not then?

---

JEEBUS!

DO YOU NOT GET EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? Meadows and Scavino were Presidential advisors.

---

Cool your jets. You're getting too emotional about this. Was Bannon or Navarro not under the same privilege?

---

No they were not officially still in advisory positions.

Do you have a problem with your memory? Or do you just not pay attention to the news?.

aggiehawg said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So Meadows and Scavino got to ignore their subpoena's? Why wouldn't republicans want the world to watch now? They have all the evidence.

Explain to me what the precedent is that is being followed now vs not then?

---

JEEBUS!

DO YOU NOT GET EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? Meadows and Scavino were Presidential advisors.

---

Cool your jets. You're getting too emotional about this. Was Bannon or Navarro not under the same privilege?

---

No they were not officially still in advisory positions.

Do you have a problem with your memory? Or do you just not pay attention to the news?.

---

Well, to be honest...I do have a problem with memory but I do try to pay attention to the news. So I apologize.

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So Meadows and Scavino got to ignore their subpoena's? Why wouldn't republicans want the world to watch now? They have all the evidence.

Explain to me what the precedent is that is being followed now vs not then?

---

JEEBUS!

DO YOU NOT GET EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? Meadows and Scavino were Presidential advisors.

---

Cool your jets. You're getting too emotional about this. Was Bannon or Navarro not under the same privilege?

---

No they were not officially still in advisory positions.

Do you have a problem with your memory? Or do you just not pay attention to the news?.

---

Well, to be honest...I do have a problem with memory but I do try to pay attention to the news. So I apologize.

---

It's no wonder you are confused, especially if you are too young to know how the rules were followed at Clinton's impeachment....

Democrats don't follow rules, they make **** up as they go along. It's like playing sandlot football with the idiots on the other side of the neighborhood.

VitruvianAg said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So Meadows and Scavino got to ignore their subpoena's? Why wouldn't republicans want the world to watch now? They have all the evidence.

Explain to me what the precedent is that is being followed now vs not then?

---

JEEBUS!

DO YOU NOT GET EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? Meadows and Scavino were Presidential advisors.

---

Cool your jets. You're getting too emotional about this. Was Bannon or Navarro not under the same privilege?

---

No they were not officially still in advisory positions.

Do you have a problem with your memory? Or do you just not pay attention to the news?.

---

Well, to be honest...I do have a problem with memory but I do try to pay attention to the news. So I apologize.

---

It's no wonder you are confused, especially if you are too young to know how the rules were followed at Clinton's impeachment....

Democrats don't follow rules, they make **** up as they go along. It's like playing sandlot football with the idiots on the other side of the neighborhood.

---

Yes, unfortunately vascular diseases can cause difficulty with memory. I don't think I am confused though.

ETA: I'm pretty sure I'm older than you unless your before early Gen X.

Want to know why Hunter cannot sit for a closed door deposition?

Watch this. (Derkach doesn't speak English so you need the subtitles.)

📷📷BREAKING 📷Watch the full interview with Andrii Derkach, the Ukrainian parliamentarian who exposed Biden’s family corruption in Ukraine and that have been targeted by both Ukraine and the USA as result.

He disappeared from the public ever  since but we achieved to catch him… pic.twitter.com/kLCIDhCoal

— Simona Mangiante Papadopoulos (@SimonaMangiante) January 11, 2024

Tid bit: Derkach claims that Blinken instructed Zelensky to clean up the Burisma/Derkach problem in January 2022.

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What I don't get is why they are opposed to doing it in public. We expected full transparency with Trumps impeachment.

---

Have you ever watched the kabuki theater that is a public hearing in the House? Five minutes per member to shoud and scream about whatever is their latest woke theme, du jour, no meaningful nor direct questioning, constant interruptions, etc.

Closed door depositions allow for more detailed questions with direct follow up questions to remove ambiguities. Further, Hunter and his lawyers would have the opportunity to conduct clean-up on the transcripts with the errata sheets.

---

That makes sense, but the House Republicans adamantly called for no closed door depositions for the Trump impeachment. Gaetz was especially vocal about it.

---

Rules for thee not for me.

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What I don't get is why they are opposed to doing it in public. We expected full transparency with Trumps impeachment.

---

Have you ever watched the kabuki theater that is a public hearing in the House? Five minutes per member to shoud and scream about whatever is their latest woke theme, du jour, no meaningful nor direct questioning, constant interruptions, etc.

Closed door depositions allow for more detailed questions with direct follow up questions to remove ambiguities. Further, Hunter and his lawyers would have the opportunity to conduct clean-up on the transcripts with the errata sheets.

---

That makes sense, but the House Republicans adamantly called for no closed door depositions for the Trump impeachment. Gaetz was especially vocal about it.

---

Rules for thee not for me.

---

The problem there was they were leaking fake news to the media and not releasing the transcripts. They were outright lying about everything. Saying they had all this evidence that they never had. The republicans have said they will release the transcripts.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So Meadows and Scavino got to ignore their subpoena's? Why wouldn't republicans want the world to watch now? They have all the evidence.

Explain to me what the precedent is that is being followed now vs not then?

---

JEEBUS!

DO YOU NOT GET EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? Meadows and Scavino were Presidential advisors.

---

Maybe I don't understand Executive Privilege. So if Biden had the marines murder Trump, he would be protected by Executive Privilege?

Quote:

---

The republicans have said they will release the full transcripts.

---

FIFY.

RogerFurlong said:

---

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What I don't get is why they are opposed to doing it in public. We expected full transparency with Trumps impeachment.

---

Have you ever watched the kabuki theater that is a public hearing in the House? Five minutes per member to shoud and scream about whatever is their latest woke theme, du jour, no meaningful nor direct questioning, constant interruptions, etc.

Closed door depositions allow for more detailed questions with direct follow up questions to remove ambiguities. Further, Hunter and his lawyers would have the opportunity to conduct clean-up on the transcripts with the errata sheets.

---

That makes sense, but the House Republicans adamantly called for no closed door depositions for the Trump impeachment. Gaetz was especially vocal about it.

---

Rules for thee not for me.

---

The problem there was they were leaking fake news to the media and not releasing the transcripts. They were outright lying about everything. Saying they had all this evidence that they never had. The republicans have said they will release the transcripts.

---

Who? The Dems or the GOP? The GOP already got smoked on the Archer testimony they cherry picked.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The republicans have said they will release the full transcripts.

---

FIFY.

---

When? Why haven't they already released them?

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What I don't get is why they are opposed to doing it in public. We expected full transparency with Trumps impeachment.

---

Have you ever watched the kabuki theater that is a public hearing in the House? Five minutes per member to shoud and scream about whatever is their latest woke theme, du jour, no meaningful nor direct questioning, constant interruptions, etc.

Closed door depositions allow for more detailed questions with direct follow up questions to remove ambiguities. Further, Hunter and his lawyers would have the opportunity to conduct clean-up on the transcripts with the errata sheets.

---

That makes sense, but the House Republicans adamantly called for no closed door depositions for the Trump impeachment. Gaetz was especially vocal about it.

---

Rules for thee not for me.

---

You have no idea what's going on in this discussion haha.

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The republicans have said they will release the full transcripts.

---

FIFY.

---

When? Why haven't they already released them?

---

To which transcripts do you refer? The deponents have 30 days to review and submit errata sheets once a transcript is created and given to them.

AggieHammer2000 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The republicans have said they will release the full transcripts.

---

FIFY.

---

When? Why haven't they already released them?

---

See what happened is hunter didn't show up so there aren't any transcripts.