Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Republicans Storm the Schiff SCIF!
Yes, the title of this post is hyperbole, and I’m delighted to describe the most dramatic event for the Republicans in the impeachment process this year; I hope they were all taking notes. I think this action was especially noteworthy and beneficial to the Republicans and I’ll describe the reasons. Let me first give a brief description of the event:
House Republicans stormed a closed-door impeachment hearing on Wednesday to protest the inquiry and refused to leave until Democrats held an open hearing.
About 30 House Republicans, headed by Rep. Matt Gaetz, forced their way into the hearing as Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, was providing private testimony as part of the impeachment inquiry inside the House Intelligence Committee’s Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).
Here are the reasons this demonstration was so significant:
- It’s sending a message to the House Democrats that they can’t control everything in this process.
- The Republicans are finally discovering the joy that Trump has known for months of demonstrating pure power.
- No one even tried to stop them, eject them or punish them; they were chastised for taking their phones into the room.
- Schiff left in a huff with Laura Cooper so that the interview didn’t happen.
- The Republicans continue to demand transparency, the right to call witnesses and a copy of the transcripts.
- The Democrats have been given notice that the Republicans are not going to cave in to their tyrannical and secretive activities.
- Democrats who are reluctantly going along with this charade are going to be even more uncomfortable as Republicans point out their irresponsible efforts to withhold information from the public.
- Even those Republicans who weren’t with the 30 who attended the sit-in did their part in bringing in 17 pizzas to feed the troops.
- Republicans must continue these kinds of protests; others are calling the protest a political ploy, but their actions are bringing international attention to the situation.
- These actions could unite Republicans like they haven’t been united in a long time, both in the House and in the Senate, as well as their backing the President.
Let’s hope this is not just a one-time effort, and that Republicans are developing other strategies to shine a light on the misadventures of Adam Schiff and his cohorts.
Keep on fighting, Republicans!
Published in Politics
Sounds like it was a rather quiet storm, no chanting, no wearing of red MAGA ushankas, nothing really confrontational at all, other than their presence. Since no one attempted to stop them, or remove them, I hope they do this every day. BTW, I had also heard that they complied with the no cell phone rule, by handing off cell phones to aides before walking in. Is that true? in general, a rather docile and fake rule abiding storming of the Democrats’ secret stronghold.
Perhaps as significantly, Lindsey Graham 2.0 and Mitch McConnell are planning to introduce a resolution to condemn the House Democrats for this star chamber nonsense.
The first time I heard the talk about this congressional SCIF, I wondered if the Congress had its own little yacht club.
Susan,
I felt a little letdown. If they had planned in advance better they could have blocked Schiff’s exit out the rear. Then, if they were really prepared, they could have brought in a large vat of lime jello and thrown Schiff into it.
Regards,
Jim
It’s a big learning curve. They better learn fast. Nancy is planning to amp up the impeachment noise and use the media to persuade a majority in the House that it will be popular and to start a stampede by the Republican pachyderms in the Senate.
I think you’re right, @nohaaj. But the very thought that they might have tried to sneak them in–horrors! I’m not sure a protest everyday will work well; I think they need to be strategic.
Excellent! But they need to figure out how to maximize the publicity on this effort; otherwise it will just disappear, thanks to the MSM. Thanks, @drewinwisconsin.
@tigerlily, they ought to carry one in with them the next time–would that cause a ruckus!
That’s why I said they need to be strategic, @rodin. There’s no time to lose!
Honest question here re: the procedures the Dems have put in place. Are the Republican members of the committee allowed to question the witnesses, call their own witnesses, issue subpoenas, etc.? I’ve read that the Republicans can do none of this; I’ve also read that they can do almost everything they can usually do in a hearing with the exception of subpoenaing witnesses.
Can anyone point me to a definitive source for an answer?
TIA, and @susanquinn I apologize for the “branching” of your post.
Susan, apparently at about the same time you were writing this excellent post, I was drafting a letter to Matt Gaetz. I’m taking the liberty of copying it below, in the event any of our colleagues might want to use some of it, or perhaps the ideas behind it, in their own correspondence with their Representatives in “our” National Legislature.
Here is my letter to Congressman Gaetz:
I am a devoted fan of the Andrew Klavan podcast, and he routinely refers to Schiff as the modern day Joe McCarthy; I could not agree more, and maybe this “storm” by our Representatives will start to turn the tide against this little tyrant from LaLaLand! Sincerely, Jim
What is “branching”? You’ve asked a good question, @danok1. My understanding is that members of the Intel committee can ask questions, but they have no subpoena power, no ability to invite (rather than subpeona witnesses), and are not allowed to even see transcripts.
That’s a nasty thing to say about Joe McCarthy.
Horse manure!
Republicans have plenty of of access to these hearing as they are being held by committees on which Republicans sit (I think I read that there are something like 39 republicans in total between the three committees conducting these investigations). The sitting members can and are (I assume) attending these meeting and asking questions of the witnesses. If the complaint is that Dems are leaking, the Reps have people on the inside that can also play the leaking game.
When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table. All I see here is a lot of table pounding by people acting and arguing in bad faith.
If these hearings were being held in the open you lot would be arguing they are only being done so as a show trial, and when public hearing on this matter are eventually held I expect you will brazenly still argue that point in the throw everything against the wall style you practice.
The Presidents lawyer in court argues you can’t arrest or even investigate the president if he would commit murder in public, his former acting AG gives us this pearl “Abuse of power is not a crime”, and here you guys are cheering on a childish stunt conducted by grown men to entertain the Talk Radio audience. There is absolutely no bottom to the Republican’s disgrace.
Maybe if Schiff drank more …
I don’t see what would have been accomplished by taking cell phones in if the Democrats were abiding by that rule, too. It would have detracted from their message. They handled the whole thing fairly well. There were a few who got a little windbaggy in their turn at the lectern before entering the committee room, but at least it showed that they weren’t all speaking from a prepared script and that they had taken independent action to join the protest.
Ah, but they and the media were in lockstep afterward. It was a “storm,” “mob,” and other derogatory terms. They just needed time to get on the same page.
The whole reason Trump persevered in the Republican nominee debates is because he, to me, was the only one to come out blasting and calling a spade a spade. He said what a lot of the public was thinking while the rest of the debaters were milquetoast pitter pattering back and forth on things we just aren’t happy about. So, I am SO glad to see them grow a set of cajones and take a stance. Please make it succinct and don’t say anything else, just keep repeating it. That’s how you drive home a point.
Now, @valiuth, stop holding back. Tell us what you really think!
@jonb60173, as you know from my comment, I agree with you 100%; that said, the main reason I am commenting is that, judging by the photo by your tag/name, it is obvious that you and I are kindred spirits, as I was just having my first sip of Chardonnay of the evening when I saw your comment! Maybe we could talk about our favorite labels sometime. As a devotee of the lovely product of Sonoma Valley which produces so many superb Chardonnays, it is just one more reason for me to, shall we say, detest Felonia von Pantsuit — detest being the mildest possible euphemism I could think of for that wretched person (?) — for the bad name she has brought to that particular wine.
Sincerely, Jim
I have just written to our House representative, Darren Soto, with perhaps calmer language than @jimgeorge used (that’s just “nice Susan” talking) and I feel so good about urging him on. Please consider writing to your representative as well! Here’s the list: https://www.house.gov/
On June 22, 2016, the Democrats started a “sit-in” on the floor of the House of Representatives. The Democrats adandoned their “sit-in” after making their point.
On January 3, 2017, the House convened the 115th Congress and passed rules intended to prevent future sit-ins. The new rules included language against disorderly or disruptive conduct, in addition to bans against members of Congress taking pictures and video on the House floor, though an exemption for the latter occurs for events such as the State of the Union addresses. Fines are also included within the new rules, with $500 being mandated for first offenses and $2,500 for each additional offense.[26]
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Representatives_sit-in.
During the Benghazi hearings Representative Darrell Issa crashed the Intelligence Committee hearing room, and was escorted out one minute later by Chairman Trey Gowdy.
All the Democrats need to do is to amend the rules to provide rapidly escalating fines.
Thanks for giving your Democrat friends advice.
I take it you’re done pretending to be a Republican, then?
I think they are beginning to realize that their actions are not helping their image; adding fines will only make things worse. Better to just open things up–now.
Had the Democrats done the same to Reagan over Iran-Contra, would it have been OK to crash a sit-in? Or sit in a crash-in?
Really getting confused by the analogous metaphorical historical throw-backisms here.
This is not an ordinary investigation. This is about impeachment.
Which would seem to require complete transparency. Can you imagine impeaching a President based on secret testimony that you refuse to reveal to the public?
Exactly. I know Kevin Williamson is not popular around here, but he nails it:
No, the Republicans can’t play the same leaking game, because the New York Times, CNN, et all will not broadcast those leaks to the world. Fox might, but you can’t count on the same closed loop of communication if you leak to Fox. Also, the House majority will not apply penalties against leaking the same for Democrats as for Republicans.
Rep. Matt Gaetz describes the problem of the closed door hearings fairly well here: