HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Hillary Clinton says Cong...

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 08:59 PM

Hillary Clinton says Congress should begin Watergate-style hearings after Mueller findings

Source: Bloomberg

WASHINGTON — Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Congress should begin a Watergate-style investigation into President Donald Trump’s attempts to obstruct Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election that she lost.

Clinton wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that lawmakers should undertake “substantive hearings” on the special counsel’s report from his investigation and shouldn’t “jump straight to an up-or-down vote on impeachment.”

“Obviously, this is personal for me, and some may say on that I’m not the right messenger,” she acknowledged. But the decision between Trump’s immediate impeachment and doing nothing, she wrote, is a “false choice.”

It was a “mistake” for Republicans to pursue impeachment in 1998 against her husband, President Bill Clinton, “and would be a mistake now.”

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton-says-congress-should-begin-watergate-style-hearings-after-mueller-findings/ar-BBWg4Dq?li=BBnb7Kz

31 replies, 1505 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton says Congress should begin Watergate-style hearings after Mueller findings (Original post)
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2019 OP
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #1
yardwork Apr 2019 #2
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #8
Name removed Apr 2019 #4
gldstwmn Apr 2019 #6
pecosbob Apr 2019 #3
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #10
pecosbob Apr 2019 #13
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #15
pecosbob Apr 2019 #20
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #21
yardwork Apr 2019 #22
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #23
yardwork Apr 2019 #25
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #28
ginnyinWI Apr 2019 #5
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #11
True_Blue Apr 2019 #19
BigmanPigman Apr 2019 #7
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #12
BigmanPigman Apr 2019 #14
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #17
onetexan Apr 2019 #9
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #16
yaesu Apr 2019 #18
DeminPennswoods Apr 2019 #24
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #29
DeminPennswoods Apr 2019 #30
dlk Apr 2019 #26
saidsimplesimon Apr 2019 #27
BeyondGeography Apr 2019 #31

Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:05 PM

1. Yes, they need to be impeachment investigation hearings, like they did in Watergate.

That would allow us to get Mueller's grand jury info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:28 PM

2. Did you read Clinton's piece?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:27 PM

8. Yes; she called for exactly what I have been calling for here for days, and being pilloried for it.

Hillary is calling for formal impeachment investigation hearings:

Watergate offers a better precedent. Then, as now, there was an investigation that found evidence of corruption and a coverup. It was complemented by public hearings conducted by a Senate select committee, which insisted that executive privilege could not be used to shield criminal conduct and compelled White House aides to testify. The televised hearings added to the factual record and, crucially, helped the public understand the facts in a way that no dense legal report could. Similar hearings with Mueller, former White House counsel Donald McGahn and other key witnesses could do the same today.

During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee also began a formal impeachment inquiry that was led by John Doar, a widely respected former Justice Department official and hero of the civil rights struggle. He was determined to run a process that the public and history would judge as fair and thorough, no matter the outcome. If today’s House proceeds to an impeachment inquiry, I hope it will find someone as distinguished and principled as Doar to lead it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.108a5648959e

Hillary should know, she was there. The process started with a formal House Resolution: "An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal....The Judiciary Committee set up a staff, the Impeachment Inquiry staff, to handle looking into the charges, that was separate from its regular Permanent staff. Based upon the recommendations of many in the legal community, John Doar, a well-known civil rights attorney in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who was a long-time Republican turned Independent, was hired by Rodino in December 1973 to be the lead special counsel for the Impeachment Inquiry staff. Doar shared with Rodino a view that the Senate hearings had gone overboard with leaked revelations and witnesses compelled to testify under immunity grants; they were determined to do things in a more thorough and objective process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon

That is what we need to do now.

As I have also been saying for days (although Hillary does not mention it in her piece, BUT I AM SURE SHE KNOWS), regular oversight hearings do not give authority to Congress to obtain Mueller's grand jury info, only formal impeachment proceedings can do that.

As Lawrence Tribe stated in the Washington Post:

The uncertain prospect that the House Judiciary Committee will receive the raw, unredacted report generated by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III got even less certain Friday. A decision by the federal court of appeals in Washington now confronts the House leadership and Attorney General William P. Barr with some difficult political choices.

In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no “inherent power” to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.

In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trump’s former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.

In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.

One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.

Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.

But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is “not worth it.” That decision may hamstring Nadler’s quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government “oversight” to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.

For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee — and the public — about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trump’s selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense — unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html

Not only would trying to recreate the grand jury testimony be time-consuming and wasteful in a regular oversight hearing, now that the White House has ordered all Trump aides, including McGahn, to not respond to Congressional subpoenas, it will be next to impossible to do it in light of case law. But not if it is a formal impeachment investigation hearing. That is why we must go this route, and do it immediately.

So, you don't have to believe me, just listen to Hillary Clinton and Lawrence Tribe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #1)


Response to Name removed (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:06 PM

6. He'll ignore it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:33 PM

3. Just what I have been saying all week...

“This is bigger than politics,” Hillary Clinton wrote. “What our country needs now is clear-eyed patriotism, not reflexive partisanship.”


Responding to Mueller’s conclusion regarding Russian meddling, Clinton recommended Congress establish a bipartisan commission, similar to the panel convened after the 9/11 attacks, to protect U.S. elections against future foreign interference.

“This is necessary because the president of the United States has proved himself unwilling to defend our nation from a clear and present danger,” she said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pecosbob (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:33 PM

10. So you've been calling for formal impeachment investigation hearings like I have? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:41 PM

13. My post history clearly indicates my stance...

that generalized investigations should be begun and impeachment proceedings follow, as they did in Watergate. There are so many issues Dems need to address immediately that go far beyond collusion or obstruction. Impeachment should be an organic result of those investigations and this will likely take a lot of time to complete...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039447

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039488

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039407

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pecosbob (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:55 PM

15. Yes, it is clear you do not understand what an impeachment hearing is.

"I think investigations can begin and impeachment can be left on the shelf for now." https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039575

"It's vastly more important to address the criminal enterprise that is the GOP than to impeach Trump." https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039488

Dems can and should investigate the numerous cases of wrondoing [sic]by the administration. They would take an extended period of time. Even if impeachment is the end result that would not come for a year or more. The Senate will not get to intervene in any proceedings until such a time as impeachment proceedings are begun. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039407

You have been shouting "BS" to folks calling for impeachment proceedings to commence. "I say BS to the OP...investigative hearings are called for" https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039407

You have been dismissive of people like me who have been calling for impeachment proceedings to commence because you apparently believe "the Senate will get to intervene." But you are wrong. An impeachment proceeding is not just a vote on articles of impeachment, as Hillary made clear in her piece. It involves formal impeachment investigation hearings. That impeachment vote is the end of the impeachment process, not the beginning. The Senate does not come into play until the House votes on article of impeachment, passes them, and forwards them to the Senate for trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:49 PM

20. I thought my posts were quite clear that investigations come before any vote to impeach

am I not speaking English? I have been dismissive of no one calling for immediate impeachment...just saying that impeachment is the end of a long process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pecosbob (Reply #20)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 12:30 AM

21. Your posts make clear that you don't understand that impeachment is a PROCESS.

Hence your opposition to immediately commencing impeachment. You insisted that we start "investigative hearings" first, for about "a year" then maybe go to impeachment. But regular oversight investigation hearings are very different from formal impeachment investigation hearings. Please let me explain why.

Hillary in her Op Ed called for immediately commencing formal impeachment investigation hearings because:

Watergate offers a better precedent. Then, as now, there was an investigation that found evidence of corruption and a coverup. It was complemented by public hearings conducted by a Senate select committee, which insisted that executive privilege could not be used to shield criminal conduct and compelled White House aides to testify. The televised hearings added to the factual record and, crucially, helped the public understand the facts in a way that no dense legal report could. Similar hearings with Mueller, former White House counsel Donald McGahn and other key witnesses could do the same today.

During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee also began a formal impeachment inquiry that was led by John Doar, a widely respected former Justice Department official and hero of the civil rights struggle. He was determined to run a process that the public and history would judge as fair and thorough, no matter the outcome. If today’s House proceeds to an impeachment inquiry, I hope it will find someone as distinguished and principled as Doar to lead it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.108a5648959e

Hillary should know, she was there, working as an impeachment lawyer for the committee. The process started with a formal House Resolution: "An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal....The Judiciary Committee set up a staff, the Impeachment Inquiry staff, to handle looking into the charges, that was separate from its regular Permanent staff. Based upon the recommendations of many in the legal community, John Doar, a well-known civil rights attorney in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who was a long-time Republican turned Independent, was hired by Rodino in December 1973 to be the lead special counsel for the Impeachment Inquiry staff. Doar shared with Rodino a view that the Senate hearings had gone overboard with leaked revelations and witnesses compelled to testify under immunity grants; they were determined to do things in a more thorough and objective process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon

That is what we need to do now.

As I have also been saying for days (although Hillary does not mention it in her piece, BUT I AM SURE SHE KNOWS), regular oversight hearings do not give authority to Congress to obtain Mueller's grand jury info, only formal impeachment proceedings can do that.

As Lawrence Tribe stated in the Washington Post:

The uncertain prospect that the House Judiciary Committee will receive the raw, unredacted report generated by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III got even less certain Friday. A decision by the federal court of appeals in Washington now confronts the House leadership and Attorney General William P. Barr with some difficult political choices.

In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no “inherent power” to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.

In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trump’s former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.

In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.

One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.

Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.

But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is “not worth it.” That decision may hamstring Nadler’s quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government “oversight” to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.

For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee — and the public — about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trump’s selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense — unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html

Not only would trying to recreate the grand jury testimony be time-consuming and wasteful in a regular oversight hearing, now that the White House has ordered all Trump aides, including McGahn, to not respond to Congressional subpoenas, it will be next to impossible to do it in light of case law. But not if it is a formal impeachment investigation hearing. That is why we must commence the impeachment process and do so immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #21)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 05:44 AM

22. Seems like you are misunderstanding the whole point of her piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #22)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 09:12 AM

23. How so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #23)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:24 AM

25. Hillary wisely suggests that Democrats stop focusing on impeachment, but proceed with hearings.

Hearings may very well lead to impeachment, but focusing on that now dissipates energy and sets up a false dichotomy. Your posts here focus on impeachment. We need to focus on hearings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #25)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:29 AM

28. No she didn't. OFFS. Impeachment is a PROCESS. It starts with impeachment investigation hearings.

Hillary is calling for formal impeachment investigation hearings. THAT is the whole point of her piece. That is how she is counseling us to respond. She is telling us to start the impeachment process.

Please quote where in the piece Hillary says to "stop focusing on impeachment."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 09:44 PM

5. Televised hearings!

So many people don't read or won't read something like the Mueller Report. They want pictures. If it's on TV or streamed with a lot of video clips on FB or Twitter, it will get a lot more people informed.

That's the point in her op-ed that stood out to me. Get the truth to the people, and then see where we go from there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ginnyinWI (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:37 PM

11. No, what should have stood out is that she is calling for formal impeachment investigation hearings.

Televised of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ginnyinWI (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:34 PM

19. Yes televised hearings!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:10 PM

7. I have been calling my reps about this for two years...

an independent commission like 9/11 would be transparent, quick, non partisan and fully funded (that is why the GOP never allowed it when Dems wrote bills introducing it). Also, televised hearings is the way to go...if they could get them up and running by the Summer, like during Watergate, this could get the ball moving faster.

Hillary is the voice I needed to hear. I trust her experience, judgment and unique position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:39 PM

12. What Hillary is calling for is formal impeachment investigation hearings. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:53 PM

14. I'm all for that and on TV too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:02 PM

17. Of course on TV. Just like in Watergate!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:29 PM

9. Hillary's got the last laugh!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:01 PM

16. And another kick because I fucking LOVE HILLARY!

She's always the smartest adult in the room!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:22 PM

18. I agree with my president, HRC, the dictator must be taken down, I do love her. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 09:31 AM

24. The House Watergate Impeachment hearings happened

nearly a year after the Senate Select Committee on Watergate hearings began. The senate hearings are what everyone was watching starting in the summer of 1973.

I agree about calling witnesses and getting the facts before Americans via televised hearings, but I believe the Dems are making a mistake by having the investigations done by individual committees. That makes everything disjointed. Pelosi needs to establish a select House committee to weave all these individual threads together. The senate select committee is the model to follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeminPennswoods (Reply #24)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 11:15 AM

29. THIS. You appear to be one of the few who got Hillary's point. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #29)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 03:18 PM

30. Probaby because I lived throught Watergate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:27 AM

26. Clinton is Absolutely Right - Let the Crooks Get Quizzed on Camera During Prime Time

Lights, cameras, action — let’s get started!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:27 AM

27. Thank you Mrs. Clinton

I know it is pure fantasy on my part. I would love to see a rematch with Hillary Clinton running for President. The election was stolen by foreign and domestic criminal behaviour.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 03:25 PM

31. Starting yesterday

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread