Now that Attorney General Bill Barr has opened a criminal investigation into the origins of the “Trump/Russia” probe, news outlets have been working feverishly trying to dismiss and discredit him while defending Adam Schiff. Spend ten minutes with your Democrat friends, and you’re bound to be subjected to the same talking points they’ve heard on CNN or MSNBC. At the moment, the Top Three would probably be: 1) Barr is just working for Trump to get him political payback; 2) “Due process” doesn’t kick in for Trump until impeachment goes to the Senate for trial; and 3) The Benghazi hearings were behind closed doors, so Schiff’s can be, too, just like a grand jury. One reader’s Democrat friends have been talking about 3), and he has asked me to comment. Here is his letter and my reply, followed by (yes) a limerick.

From Rick:

...A couple of my friends are comparing these hearings to the Benghazi hearings, that I didn't know about.  

"Republicans held closed meetings re: Benghazi and thought it was perfectly fine. Now they don’t like it when the Democrats have that same policy for the impeachment hearings. This part of the investigation can be compared to a grand jury inquiry. What and who they present is not made public until the decision to move ahead or not." This [is] one quote.
Could you please address this publicly? I feel it is like comparing grapes to watermelons. I would really appreciate a response that I can share again on Facebook.

...........................

Glad to, Rick. Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that the founders intended impeachment to be in a class by itself, not lumped into the same category as a general fact-finding investigation, as with Benghazi, or a typical grand jury. Not only does it target an individual, but that person is the President of the United States, no less, and the endgame is possibly removing that duly-elected person from office. There is nothing more serious that our Congress can undertake, aside perhaps from declaring war, and certain important protocols have been established. Those who say Schiff’s committee is essentially a grand jury and that this is all right either have not read the Constitution and Federalist papers or else have been blinded by partisan dislike of this President, or both.

In contrast, the hearings of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, chaired by Trey Gowdy, were for fact-finding, and my understanding is that much of that work was properly conducted behind closed doors because of the vast amount of classified information potentially involved. In that case, a formal vote WAS held to form the committee and outline the scope and details, with seven House Democrats voting in favor. Both sides could call witnesses; the Republicans in the room with Schiff and his Inquisitors cannot. Hillary testified extensively about her role in the murder of four Americans in Libya when she was Secretary of State. Critics saw the move to question her and her associates as politically motivated –- and they undoubtedly were for many Republicans, as she was running for President and some of the questioning, particularly of Sidney Blumenthal, arguably went far afield (that’s when we learned about her email server) –- but the committee did include seven Republicans and five Democrats. In fact, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi personally appointed the five Democrats to, as she said, “be there to fight for a fair hearing and process, to try to bring some openness and transparency to what’s going on.” (Ironically, Adam Schiff was one of her five picks; he was already on the Intel Committee then and called this special committee “a colossal waste of time,” which is really funny considering what he’s doing now.)

In addition to the closed-door hearings, there were four public hearings –- remember when Hillary famously snapped “What difference, at this point, does it make??” –- and transcripts, congressional reports, committee websites and fact sheets were generally available. Also, Hillary wanted the public hearing, and they gave it to her. Functionally, this committee was bipartisan, and much more transparent than Schiff-ty’s no-rules “secure” hearings. I don’t recall that the private Benghazi hearings were nearly as shrouded with secrecy as Schiff’s hearings are, as I’ve never heard of an SCIF (“skiff”) until now.

Incidentally, even though Hillary walked away from the Benghazi investigation, they found massive screwing-up on her part. Here’s one op-ed from September 2016 we found by the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli…

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/what-the-benghazi-attack-taught-me-about-hillary-clinton

But I digress. Now let’s make the most meaningful comparison: impeachment inquiry to impeachment inquiry. In Lindsay Graham’s press conference on Thursday, he outlined all the due process rights given to Bill Clinton by the House during his impeachment inquiry but denied President Trump now:

– House debate and formal vote on holding an inquiry

– Defined scope of inquiry

– House members allowed to see evidence

– President’s counsel allowed to attend

– Specific rules for investigation

– President’s counsel allowed to challenge evidence

– Minority given subpoena power

I should mention that we have breaking news about Schiff’s “inquiry.” D.C. District Court Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, has said it is valid even though the House hasn’t formally authorized it with a floor vote. (This was part of an equally dismaying ruling concerning the Mueller report that chips away at the long-term secrecy of grand jury transcripts; details in the op-ed at this link…)

Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling on releasing grand jury testimony is 100% partisan gobbledygook

Okay, I assume that if Schiff’s kangaroo court is going to be considered legitimate without a floor vote, then he will immediately extend to President Trump and his legal counsel all the due process considerations that were granted to Nixon and Clinton and that would automatically kick in with the floor vote. Rep. Mark Meadows has three suggestions to start: 1) Don’t have the hearings in a SCIF (secure room) if the information is not classified; 2) Extend due process to the minority; both sides should get to call their own witnesses, have subpoena power, etc.; and 3) “Get counsel in there that protects some of the equities of the executive branch.” I’m not holding my breath, though.

Well, I hope this helps. Your grape-and-watermelon analogy really does make sense, as we’re talking about IMPEACHMENT now, and we’ve not seen anything like this before. I think this all this secrecy will go down in history making Schiff’s “inquiry” look really bad. I’ll close with a limerick:

There once was a fellow named Schiff

Whose meetings were held in a “skiff”

He trashed all the rules

Dems followed like fools

Or like lemmings who jump off a cliff

 

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 26-50 of 56

  • Michael Moody

    10/26/2019 03:26 PM

    Dear Mike:

    This is not so much a related comment or proposal as it is a bit of analysis of the current political situation. I call it , MAD is gone. Do we need to replace it with MARD?"

    I am sure you are familiar with the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, which gave us the nuclear strategy that dominated the Cold War. Basically, you wipe us out. We will wipe you out.
    Nobody wins.
    Although it was a costly strategy, there are many who would argue that the concept that the United States and the Soviet Union both had the power to destroy the world actually did keep the peace. What we may need now is a domestic political equivalent of Mutual Assured Reputation Destruction.

    I think you would agree that the Democrats are not really opposing Donald Trump on the merits of what he has done. Or that a lot of Americans would actually support some of the things he has done such as trade deals. No one really realizes what he has accomplished in that arena because the media intentionally withholds any positive press coverage.

    What the Democrats are doing is besmirching and destroying Donald Trump's reputation and the reputation of anyone associated with him. I will admit that he makes himself an easy target in that respect but I say it does not matter. I think the media and the Democratic Party are so close to each other and so coordinated in their attacks on Republicans that it will continue in the future and it will continue at all levels.

    For the good of the nation, we need to attack this collusive monopoly. We could start by requesting the Federal Communications Commission to conduct an in-house study of the Anti-Competititve Effects of Monopoly in Media Conglomerates. Such a study would probably be a turgid work in antitrust economics but it could provide the rationale for reducing the concentration of power in the media. We could also take legislative action to bring back the fairness doctrine. If we implement this like we do FOIA through a request system, that would provide an interesting result.

    These are just some thoughts about what it would take to implement a MARD political doctrine. I would like for these things to be done, but I think it has become necessary.

  • Diane Rowlands

    10/26/2019 03:13 PM

    That judge is terrible. Can’t they take it to a higher court? Because It is definitely partisan.

  • Emily Pomrenke

    10/26/2019 02:58 PM

    Benghazi was about a Secretary of State and about four men losing their lives—I saw the hearings on tv and it wasn’t secret—it also had little effect on Killery as a lot of people had been blamed and paid off I’m sure, but I’d like to see her in jail. Her email deletions were about that incident as well. Trump is our President and we elected him—what they’re doing is against us and against Trump! We’re not going to stand for it or put up with it! It’s political and unfair!

  • Helen Corey

    10/26/2019 02:37 PM

    New Dem rule—Minority party (Dems) was present at Benghazi hearings by Gowdy. Minority party (Republicans) was not allowed at impeachment hearings by Schiff.

  • Rick Holcomb

    10/26/2019 02:34 PM

    Thanks, I really appreciate the response.

  • Carol Russell

    10/26/2019 02:31 PM

    In the 48 years since I became of voting age and started paying attention to what was happening at governmental levels in our America, I have never seen anything as sinister as what has transpired at the hands of Democratic party in the past 4+ years. Shameful and pathetic. Our founding fathers knew there would always be a multitude of opinions on how our country should be governed, and therefore wisely set up our Constitution and branches of government to be a framework to work through those differences amicably for the good of all. However, we seem to have forgotten how to disagree with people without vilifying them in the process. What has seemingly gone on behind the scenes prior to the 2016 election, and the rancor ever since speaks volumes. Our President has been blamed for tearing our country apart...I don't think he is the culprit here!!

  • Kathleen LoVerso

    10/26/2019 02:24 PM

    Thank you !

  • rodney burke

    10/26/2019 02:13 PM

    well schiff is about to see pain. He is neck deep in spygate as are many libs. When the Guys get thru, there will be many who will NOT be in play anymore. That MUST happen, we had treason, sedition, espionage and other serious crimes. Haven't heard much about GITMO except for the Jag troops who are TDY for a year down there. I am ready for the barge and it being filled up with conspirators of which we have gobs. Get serious. Benghazi was nothing even close to this debacle by schiff. Your limerick is quite accurate. Thanks

  • Debra K Dancel

    10/26/2019 02:02 PM

    This is very concerning if the court has now been given the place of usurping their jurisdiction over the Constitution in assuming a place in deciding about impeachment. Also deciding to make changes to the rule of law is giving a place to lawlessness that is beyond unprecedented. To me this is tearing down the very fiber of our democracy and our republic. I have always believed that we live in a country of the people, by the people and for the people. If this has changed, where will we go in the future because our country will be torn down to be no longer safe. Where we go one, we go all and the road that Schiff is taking us down is not one I am willing to go. Guess I am not willing to be a "lemming."

  • Jim Spaulding

    10/26/2019 01:51 PM

    As always superb insight, Governor. Great limerick to tie it all up... by the way...
    Isn't Schiff from Nantucket?...asking for a friend.

  • Keith F. Hebert

    10/26/2019 01:50 PM

    The Democrats along with our fake news (Those committing Fraud and Treason) needs to stop NOW or else start getting local police (backed up with our US military) to be using more handcuffs and open up all old US and State Prisons and local Jail houses ...

  • Judy Smith

    10/26/2019 01:47 PM

    I always remember some "news" that isn't really in the daily newscasts as being like what my parents told me about things that happened during WW II. They told me that many times Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin would have meetings that were in the news much later. When I asked them why, they always said that it was because our safety might depend on not making public strategic planning times when they met. Another thing we might consider is what if Eisenhower and Churchill had told everyone the plans for D-Day. You know what? The Germans just might have had the whole German army right there on the beach to meet them. Some were there, but there weren't enough to make us now have to speak Deutsch these days. That's the way I would classify Benghazi. As to the way I would categorize the impeachment hearings, I agree that this fits into its own category; plus anyone accused of having committed a crime has the right to be faced with all facts as he looks his accuser in the eye.

  • Rose Ropp

    10/26/2019 01:44 PM

    Praise the Lord! Fatiguing watching Congress act like clowns

  • mike erwin stead

    10/26/2019 01:36 PM

    lot of difference traitors who killed american ambasador and soldiers fo money greedy /?

  • suzannegibbs

    10/26/2019 01:22 PM

    I haven't been commenting because, frankly, I am literally sick to my stomach about what's being done to this President. I cannot believe how The Republican hands are being tied. I cannot believe the Dems are getting away with this. I also have to turn off the News(Fox) often because people like Jessica Tarloff make me want to hurl with all of her "talking points"...........I am now "dvr"ing all of my favorite shows, yours included, so I can fast forward in case some starts to talk the Dem talk. I'm seriously sick about the thought of a Dem winning the election.........I'm waiting for a new law to be enforced, probably in California first, that forces parents to transgender a 2nd child to another gender if the first is a girl or boy. We are becoming a sick nation.
    Suzanne

  • Thelma gibson

    10/26/2019 01:21 PM

    Republicans need to demand equal representation keep walking into hearings quit giving in to dems and stand up for what people elected them to do—represent us
    Dems are scared because they know they have broken the law and don’t want to be exposed

  • dean throntveit

    10/26/2019 01:16 PM

    thanks for the information it was informative to say the least.

  • Suzanne Broeneman

    10/26/2019 01:15 PM

    Right on, Mike!!

  • Paul Crow

    10/26/2019 01:11 PM

    if acosta's employer can sue for press representation so should conservative outlets be able to sue iaw 1st amendment.

  • brenda G deberry

    10/26/2019 01:07 PM

    love the limerick

  • stephen mitchell

    10/26/2019 12:56 PM

    So this foolishness continues on , and on , with no end in sight ! Tax dollars are wasted away , and Congress is in " recess " ! What will eventually stop this asinine foolishness ? I'll say it again , and again , the " judicial system " in our country is broken . You have judges making rulings , not on laws , but on their personal agenda . I expect to hear that Attorney General Barr's investigation has ended with no findings of illegalities ! End of story .

  • Hugh Gautier

    10/26/2019 12:52 PM

    The DemocRATs are using the riles as set up by the Republicans. What a shame that we don't remember that our side set this form of inquisition up, and are willing to scream our heads off because it is being used on us.
    Now, we need to own up to our own rules that the DemocRATs are using against us.

  • Robert Skinner

    10/26/2019 12:52 PM

    Schiff is a real bad guy. This whole process that he is engaged in is lawless and will result in bringing about further polarization and division to our nation. Only the lunatic fringe proponents of the "fake news" will give any heed to this charade.

  • Colleen Kirkpatrick Lea

    10/26/2019 12:52 PM

    Thank you, Mr. Huckabee, for all of this information. I love the way you explain it simplistically for us "regular" folks.

  • Michael Blanton

    10/26/2019 12:52 PM

    Gross negligence by high ranking officials that had the power to help out American’s under attack and allowed them to be killed and humiliated does not have anything to do with another witch hunt by liberals that are upset because their candidate didn’t win an election!!! This is crazy, to even mention them in the same breath is moronic !!!

Now that Attorney General Bill Barr has opened a criminal investigation into the origins of the “Trump/Russia” probe, news outlets have been working feverishly trying to dismiss and discredit him while defending Adam Schiff. Spend ten minutes with your Democrat friends, and you’re bound to be subjected to the same talking points they’ve heard on CNN or MSNBC. At the moment, the Top Three would probably be: 1) Barr is just working for Trump to get him political payback; 2) “Due process” doesn’t kick in for Trump until impeachment goes to the Senate for trial; and 3) The Benghazi hearings were behind closed doors, so Schiff’s can be, too, just like a grand jury. One reader’s Democrat friends have been talking about 3), and he has asked me to comment. Here is his letter and my reply, followed by (yes) a limerick.

From Rick:

...A couple of my friends are comparing these hearings to the Benghazi hearings, that I didn't know about.  

"Republicans held closed meetings re: Benghazi and thought it was perfectly fine. Now they don’t like it when the Democrats have that same policy for the impeachment hearings. This part of the investigation can be compared to a grand jury inquiry. What and who they present is not made public until the decision to move ahead or not." This [is] one quote.
Could you please address this publicly? I feel it is like comparing grapes to watermelons. I would really appreciate a response that I can share again on Facebook.

...........................

Glad to, Rick. Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that the founders intended impeachment to be in a class by itself, not lumped into the same category as a general fact-finding investigation, as with Benghazi, or a typical grand jury. Not only does it target an individual, but that person is the President of the United States, no less, and the endgame is possibly removing that duly-elected person from office. There is nothing more serious that our Congress can undertake, aside perhaps from declaring war, and certain important protocols have been established. Those who say Schiff’s committee is essentially a grand jury and that this is all right either have not read the Constitution and Federalist papers or else have been blinded by partisan dislike of this President, or both.

In contrast, the hearings of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, chaired by Trey Gowdy, were for fact-finding, and my understanding is that much of that work was properly conducted behind closed doors because of the vast amount of classified information potentially involved. In that case, a formal vote WAS held to form the committee and outline the scope and details, with seven House Democrats voting in favor. Both sides could call witnesses; the Republicans in the room with Schiff and his Inquisitors cannot. Hillary testified extensively about her role in the murder of four Americans in Libya when she was Secretary of State. Critics saw the move to question her and her associates as politically motivated –- and they undoubtedly were for many Republicans, as she was running for President and some of the questioning, particularly of Sidney Blumenthal, arguably went far afield (that’s when we learned about her email server) –- but the committee did include seven Republicans and five Democrats. In fact, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi personally appointed the five Democrats to, as she said, “be there to fight for a fair hearing and process, to try to bring some openness and transparency to what’s going on.” (Ironically, Adam Schiff was one of her five picks; he was already on the Intel Committee then and called this special committee “a colossal waste of time,” which is really funny considering what he’s doing now.)

In addition to the closed-door hearings, there were four public hearings –- remember when Hillary famously snapped “What difference, at this point, does it make??” –- and transcripts, congressional reports, committee websites and fact sheets were generally available. Also, Hillary wanted the public hearing, and they gave it to her. Functionally, this committee was bipartisan, and much more transparent than Schiff-ty’s no-rules “secure” hearings. I don’t recall that the private Benghazi hearings were nearly as shrouded with secrecy as Schiff’s hearings are, as I’ve never heard of an SCIF (“skiff”) until now.

Incidentally, even though Hillary walked away from the Benghazi investigation, they found massive screwing-up on her part. Here’s one op-ed from September 2016 we found by the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli…

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/what-the-benghazi-attack-taught-me-about-hillary-clinton

But I digress. Now let’s make the most meaningful comparison: impeachment inquiry to impeachment inquiry. In Lindsay Graham’s press conference on Thursday, he outlined all the due process rights given to Bill Clinton by the House during his impeachment inquiry but denied President Trump now:

– House debate and formal vote on holding an inquiry

– Defined scope of inquiry

– House members allowed to see evidence

– President’s counsel allowed to attend

– Specific rules for investigation

– President’s counsel allowed to challenge evidence

– Minority given subpoena power

I should mention that we have breaking news about Schiff’s “inquiry.” D.C. District Court Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, has said it is valid even though the House hasn’t formally authorized it with a floor vote. (This was part of an equally dismaying ruling concerning the Mueller report that chips away at the long-term secrecy of grand jury transcripts; details in the op-ed at this link…)

Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling on releasing grand jury testimony is 100% partisan gobbledygook

Okay, I assume that if Schiff’s kangaroo court is going to be considered legitimate without a floor vote, then he will immediately extend to President Trump and his legal counsel all the due process considerations that were granted to Nixon and Clinton and that would automatically kick in with the floor vote. Rep. Mark Meadows has three suggestions to start: 1) Don’t have the hearings in a SCIF (secure room) if the information is not classified; 2) Extend due process to the minority; both sides should get to call their own witnesses, have subpoena power, etc.; and 3) “Get counsel in there that protects some of the equities of the executive branch.” I’m not holding my breath, though.

Well, I hope this helps. Your grape-and-watermelon analogy really does make sense, as we’re talking about IMPEACHMENT now, and we’ve not seen anything like this before. I think this all this secrecy will go down in history making Schiff’s “inquiry” look really bad. I’ll close with a limerick:

There once was a fellow named Schiff

Whose meetings were held in a “skiff”

He trashed all the rules

Dems followed like fools

Or like lemmings who jump off a cliff

 

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 26-50 of 56

  • Michael Moody

    10/26/2019 03:26 PM

    Dear Mike:

    This is not so much a related comment or proposal as it is a bit of analysis of the current political situation. I call it , MAD is gone. Do we need to replace it with MARD?"

    I am sure you are familiar with the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, which gave us the nuclear strategy that dominated the Cold War. Basically, you wipe us out. We will wipe you out.
    Nobody wins.
    Although it was a costly strategy, there are many who would argue that the concept that the United States and the Soviet Union both had the power to destroy the world actually did keep the peace. What we may need now is a domestic political equivalent of Mutual Assured Reputation Destruction.

    I think you would agree that the Democrats are not really opposing Donald Trump on the merits of what he has done. Or that a lot of Americans would actually support some of the things he has done such as trade deals. No one really realizes what he has accomplished in that arena because the media intentionally withholds any positive press coverage.

    What the Democrats are doing is besmirching and destroying Donald Trump's reputation and the reputation of anyone associated with him. I will admit that he makes himself an easy target in that respect but I say it does not matter. I think the media and the Democratic Party are so close to each other and so coordinated in their attacks on Republicans that it will continue in the future and it will continue at all levels.

    For the good of the nation, we need to attack this collusive monopoly. We could start by requesting the Federal Communications Commission to conduct an in-house study of the Anti-Competititve Effects of Monopoly in Media Conglomerates. Such a study would probably be a turgid work in antitrust economics but it could provide the rationale for reducing the concentration of power in the media. We could also take legislative action to bring back the fairness doctrine. If we implement this like we do FOIA through a request system, that would provide an interesting result.

    These are just some thoughts about what it would take to implement a MARD political doctrine. I would like for these things to be done, but I think it has become necessary.

  • Diane Rowlands

    10/26/2019 03:13 PM

    That judge is terrible. Can’t they take it to a higher court? Because It is definitely partisan.

  • Emily Pomrenke

    10/26/2019 02:58 PM

    Benghazi was about a Secretary of State and about four men losing their lives—I saw the hearings on tv and it wasn’t secret—it also had little effect on Killery as a lot of people had been blamed and paid off I’m sure, but I’d like to see her in jail. Her email deletions were about that incident as well. Trump is our President and we elected him—what they’re doing is against us and against Trump! We’re not going to stand for it or put up with it! It’s political and unfair!

  • Helen Corey

    10/26/2019 02:37 PM

    New Dem rule—Minority party (Dems) was present at Benghazi hearings by Gowdy. Minority party (Republicans) was not allowed at impeachment hearings by Schiff.

  • Rick Holcomb

    10/26/2019 02:34 PM

    Thanks, I really appreciate the response.

  • Carol Russell

    10/26/2019 02:31 PM

    In the 48 years since I became of voting age and started paying attention to what was happening at governmental levels in our America, I have never seen anything as sinister as what has transpired at the hands of Democratic party in the past 4+ years. Shameful and pathetic. Our founding fathers knew there would always be a multitude of opinions on how our country should be governed, and therefore wisely set up our Constitution and branches of government to be a framework to work through those differences amicably for the good of all. However, we seem to have forgotten how to disagree with people without vilifying them in the process. What has seemingly gone on behind the scenes prior to the 2016 election, and the rancor ever since speaks volumes. Our President has been blamed for tearing our country apart...I don't think he is the culprit here!!

  • Kathleen LoVerso

    10/26/2019 02:24 PM

    Thank you !

  • rodney burke

    10/26/2019 02:13 PM

    well schiff is about to see pain. He is neck deep in spygate as are many libs. When the Guys get thru, there will be many who will NOT be in play anymore. That MUST happen, we had treason, sedition, espionage and other serious crimes. Haven't heard much about GITMO except for the Jag troops who are TDY for a year down there. I am ready for the barge and it being filled up with conspirators of which we have gobs. Get serious. Benghazi was nothing even close to this debacle by schiff. Your limerick is quite accurate. Thanks

  • Debra K Dancel

    10/26/2019 02:02 PM

    This is very concerning if the court has now been given the place of usurping their jurisdiction over the Constitution in assuming a place in deciding about impeachment. Also deciding to make changes to the rule of law is giving a place to lawlessness that is beyond unprecedented. To me this is tearing down the very fiber of our democracy and our republic. I have always believed that we live in a country of the people, by the people and for the people. If this has changed, where will we go in the future because our country will be torn down to be no longer safe. Where we go one, we go all and the road that Schiff is taking us down is not one I am willing to go. Guess I am not willing to be a "lemming."

  • Jim Spaulding

    10/26/2019 01:51 PM

    As always superb insight, Governor. Great limerick to tie it all up... by the way...
    Isn't Schiff from Nantucket?...asking for a friend.

  • Keith F. Hebert

    10/26/2019 01:50 PM

    The Democrats along with our fake news (Those committing Fraud and Treason) needs to stop NOW or else start getting local police (backed up with our US military) to be using more handcuffs and open up all old US and State Prisons and local Jail houses ...

  • Judy Smith

    10/26/2019 01:47 PM

    I always remember some "news" that isn't really in the daily newscasts as being like what my parents told me about things that happened during WW II. They told me that many times Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin would have meetings that were in the news much later. When I asked them why, they always said that it was because our safety might depend on not making public strategic planning times when they met. Another thing we might consider is what if Eisenhower and Churchill had told everyone the plans for D-Day. You know what? The Germans just might have had the whole German army right there on the beach to meet them. Some were there, but there weren't enough to make us now have to speak Deutsch these days. That's the way I would classify Benghazi. As to the way I would categorize the impeachment hearings, I agree that this fits into its own category; plus anyone accused of having committed a crime has the right to be faced with all facts as he looks his accuser in the eye.

  • Rose Ropp

    10/26/2019 01:44 PM

    Praise the Lord! Fatiguing watching Congress act like clowns

  • mike erwin stead

    10/26/2019 01:36 PM

    lot of difference traitors who killed american ambasador and soldiers fo money greedy /?

  • suzannegibbs

    10/26/2019 01:22 PM

    I haven't been commenting because, frankly, I am literally sick to my stomach about what's being done to this President. I cannot believe how The Republican hands are being tied. I cannot believe the Dems are getting away with this. I also have to turn off the News(Fox) often because people like Jessica Tarloff make me want to hurl with all of her "talking points"...........I am now "dvr"ing all of my favorite shows, yours included, so I can fast forward in case some starts to talk the Dem talk. I'm seriously sick about the thought of a Dem winning the election.........I'm waiting for a new law to be enforced, probably in California first, that forces parents to transgender a 2nd child to another gender if the first is a girl or boy. We are becoming a sick nation.
    Suzanne

  • Thelma gibson

    10/26/2019 01:21 PM

    Republicans need to demand equal representation keep walking into hearings quit giving in to dems and stand up for what people elected them to do—represent us
    Dems are scared because they know they have broken the law and don’t want to be exposed

  • dean throntveit

    10/26/2019 01:16 PM

    thanks for the information it was informative to say the least.

  • Suzanne Broeneman

    10/26/2019 01:15 PM

    Right on, Mike!!

  • Paul Crow

    10/26/2019 01:11 PM

    if acosta's employer can sue for press representation so should conservative outlets be able to sue iaw 1st amendment.

  • brenda G deberry

    10/26/2019 01:07 PM

    love the limerick

  • stephen mitchell

    10/26/2019 12:56 PM

    So this foolishness continues on , and on , with no end in sight ! Tax dollars are wasted away , and Congress is in " recess " ! What will eventually stop this asinine foolishness ? I'll say it again , and again , the " judicial system " in our country is broken . You have judges making rulings , not on laws , but on their personal agenda . I expect to hear that Attorney General Barr's investigation has ended with no findings of illegalities ! End of story .

  • Hugh Gautier

    10/26/2019 12:52 PM

    The DemocRATs are using the riles as set up by the Republicans. What a shame that we don't remember that our side set this form of inquisition up, and are willing to scream our heads off because it is being used on us.
    Now, we need to own up to our own rules that the DemocRATs are using against us.

  • Robert Skinner

    10/26/2019 12:52 PM

    Schiff is a real bad guy. This whole process that he is engaged in is lawless and will result in bringing about further polarization and division to our nation. Only the lunatic fringe proponents of the "fake news" will give any heed to this charade.

  • Colleen Kirkpatrick Lea

    10/26/2019 12:52 PM

    Thank you, Mr. Huckabee, for all of this information. I love the way you explain it simplistically for us "regular" folks.

  • Michael Blanton

    10/26/2019 12:52 PM

    Gross negligence by high ranking officials that had the power to help out American’s under attack and allowed them to be killed and humiliated does not have anything to do with another witch hunt by liberals that are upset because their candidate didn’t win an election!!! This is crazy, to even mention them in the same breath is moronic !!!

Now that Attorney General Bill Barr has opened a criminal investigation into the origins of the “Trump/Russia” probe, news outlets have been working feverishly trying to dismiss and discredit him while defending Adam Schiff. Spend ten minutes with your Democrat friends, and you’re bound to be subjected to the same talking points they’ve heard on CNN or MSNBC. At the moment, the Top Three would probably be: 1) Barr is just working for Trump to get him political payback; 2) “Due process” doesn’t kick in for Trump until impeachment goes to the Senate for trial; and 3) The Benghazi hearings were behind closed doors, so Schiff’s can be, too, just like a grand jury. One reader’s Democrat friends have been talking about 3), and he has asked me to comment. Here is his letter and my reply, followed by (yes) a limerick.

From Rick:

...A couple of my friends are comparing these hearings to the Benghazi hearings, that I didn't know about.  

"Republicans held closed meetings re: Benghazi and thought it was perfectly fine. Now they don’t like it when the Democrats have that same policy for the impeachment hearings. This part of the investigation can be compared to a grand jury inquiry. What and who they present is not made public until the decision to move ahead or not." This [is] one quote.
Could you please address this publicly? I feel it is like comparing grapes to watermelons. I would really appreciate a response that I can share again on Facebook.

...........................

Glad to, Rick. Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that the founders intended impeachment to be in a class by itself, not lumped into the same category as a general fact-finding investigation, as with Benghazi, or a typical grand jury. Not only does it target an individual, but that person is the President of the United States, no less, and the endgame is possibly removing that duly-elected person from office. There is nothing more serious that our Congress can undertake, aside perhaps from declaring war, and certain important protocols have been established. Those who say Schiff’s committee is essentially a grand jury and that this is all right either have not read the Constitution and Federalist papers or else have been blinded by partisan dislike of this President, or both.

In contrast, the hearings of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, chaired by Trey Gowdy, were for fact-finding, and my understanding is that much of that work was properly conducted behind closed doors because of the vast amount of classified information potentially involved. In that case, a formal vote WAS held to form the committee and outline the scope and details, with seven House Democrats voting in favor. Both sides could call witnesses; the Republicans in the room with Schiff and his Inquisitors cannot. Hillary testified extensively about her role in the murder of four Americans in Libya when she was Secretary of State. Critics saw the move to question her and her associates as politically motivated –- and they undoubtedly were for many Republicans, as she was running for President and some of the questioning, particularly of Sidney Blumenthal, arguably went far afield (that’s when we learned about her email server) –- but the committee did include seven Republicans and five Democrats. In fact, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi personally appointed the five Democrats to, as she said, “be there to fight for a fair hearing and process, to try to bring some openness and transparency to what’s going on.” (Ironically, Adam Schiff was one of her five picks; he was already on the Intel Committee then and called this special committee “a colossal waste of time,” which is really funny considering what he’s doing now.)

In addition to the closed-door hearings, there were four public hearings –- remember when Hillary famously snapped “What difference, at this point, does it make??” –- and transcripts, congressional reports, committee websites and fact sheets were generally available. Also, Hillary wanted the public hearing, and they gave it to her. Functionally, this committee was bipartisan, and much more transparent than Schiff-ty’s no-rules “secure” hearings. I don’t recall that the private Benghazi hearings were nearly as shrouded with secrecy as Schiff’s hearings are, as I’ve never heard of an SCIF (“skiff”) until now.

Incidentally, even though Hillary walked away from the Benghazi investigation, they found massive screwing-up on her part. Here’s one op-ed from September 2016 we found by the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli…

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/what-the-benghazi-attack-taught-me-about-hillary-clinton

But I digress. Now let’s make the most meaningful comparison: impeachment inquiry to impeachment inquiry. In Lindsay Graham’s press conference on Thursday, he outlined all the due process rights given to Bill Clinton by the House during his impeachment inquiry but denied President Trump now:

– House debate and formal vote on holding an inquiry

– Defined scope of inquiry

– House members allowed to see evidence

– President’s counsel allowed to attend

– Specific rules for investigation

– President’s counsel allowed to challenge evidence

– Minority given subpoena power

I should mention that we have breaking news about Schiff’s “inquiry.” D.C. District Court Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, has said it is valid even though the House hasn’t formally authorized it with a floor vote. (This was part of an equally dismaying ruling concerning the Mueller report that chips away at the long-term secrecy of grand jury transcripts; details in the op-ed at this link…)

Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling on releasing grand jury testimony is 100% partisan gobbledygook

Okay, I assume that if Schiff’s kangaroo court is going to be considered legitimate without a floor vote, then he will immediately extend to President Trump and his legal counsel all the due process considerations that were granted to Nixon and Clinton and that would automatically kick in with the floor vote. Rep. Mark Meadows has three suggestions to start: 1) Don’t have the hearings in a SCIF (secure room) if the information is not classified; 2) Extend due process to the minority; both sides should get to call their own witnesses, have subpoena power, etc.; and 3) “Get counsel in there that protects some of the equities of the executive branch.” I’m not holding my breath, though.

Well, I hope this helps. Your grape-and-watermelon analogy really does make sense, as we’re talking about IMPEACHMENT now, and we’ve not seen anything like this before. I think this all this secrecy will go down in history making Schiff’s “inquiry” look really bad. I’ll close with a limerick:

There once was a fellow named Schiff

Whose meetings were held in a “skiff”

He trashed all the rules

Dems followed like fools

Or like lemmings who jump off a cliff

 

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 26-50 of 56

  • Michael Moody

    10/26/2019 03:26 PM

    Dear Mike:

    This is not so much a related comment or proposal as it is a bit of analysis of the current political situation. I call it , MAD is gone. Do we need to replace it with MARD?"

    I am sure you are familiar with the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, which gave us the nuclear strategy that dominated the Cold War. Basically, you wipe us out. We will wipe you out.
    Nobody wins.
    Although it was a costly strategy, there are many who would argue that the concept that the United States and the Soviet Union both had the power to destroy the world actually did keep the peace. What we may need now is a domestic political equivalent of Mutual Assured Reputation Destruction.

    I think you would agree that the Democrats are not really opposing Donald Trump on the merits of what he has done. Or that a lot of Americans would actually support some of the things he has done such as trade deals. No one really realizes what he has accomplished in that arena because the media intentionally withholds any positive press coverage.

    What the Democrats are doing is besmirching and destroying Donald Trump's reputation and the reputation of anyone associated with him. I will admit that he makes himself an easy target in that respect but I say it does not matter. I think the media and the Democratic Party are so close to each other and so coordinated in their attacks on Republicans that it will continue in the future and it will continue at all levels.

    For the good of the nation, we need to attack this collusive monopoly. We could start by requesting the Federal Communications Commission to conduct an in-house study of the Anti-Competititve Effects of Monopoly in Media Conglomerates. Such a study would probably be a turgid work in antitrust economics but it could provide the rationale for reducing the concentration of power in the media. We could also take legislative action to bring back the fairness doctrine. If we implement this like we do FOIA through a request system, that would provide an interesting result.

    These are just some thoughts about what it would take to implement a MARD political doctrine. I would like for these things to be done, but I think it has become necessary.

  • Diane Rowlands

    10/26/2019 03:13 PM

    That judge is terrible. Can’t they take it to a higher court? Because It is definitely partisan.

  • Emily Pomrenke

    10/26/2019 02:58 PM

    Benghazi was about a Secretary of State and about four men losing their lives—I saw the hearings on tv and it wasn’t secret—it also had little effect on Killery as a lot of people had been blamed and paid off I’m sure, but I’d like to see her in jail. Her email deletions were about that incident as well. Trump is our President and we elected him—what they’re doing is against us and against Trump! We’re not going to stand for it or put up with it! It’s political and unfair!

  • Helen Corey

    10/26/2019 02:37 PM

    New Dem rule—Minority party (Dems) was present at Benghazi hearings by Gowdy. Minority party (Republicans) was not allowed at impeachment hearings by Schiff.

  • Rick Holcomb

    10/26/2019 02:34 PM

    Thanks, I really appreciate the response.

  • Carol Russell

    10/26/2019 02:31 PM

    In the 48 years since I became of voting age and started paying attention to what was happening at governmental levels in our America, I have never seen anything as sinister as what has transpired at the hands of Democratic party in the past 4+ years. Shameful and pathetic. Our founding fathers knew there would always be a multitude of opinions on how our country should be governed, and therefore wisely set up our Constitution and branches of government to be a framework to work through those differences amicably for the good of all. However, we seem to have forgotten how to disagree with people without vilifying them in the process. What has seemingly gone on behind the scenes prior to the 2016 election, and the rancor ever since speaks volumes. Our President has been blamed for tearing our country apart...I don't think he is the culprit here!!

  • Kathleen LoVerso

    10/26/2019 02:24 PM

    Thank you !

  • rodney burke

    10/26/2019 02:13 PM

    well schiff is about to see pain. He is neck deep in spygate as are many libs. When the Guys get thru, there will be many who will NOT be in play anymore. That MUST happen, we had treason, sedition, espionage and other serious crimes. Haven't heard much about GITMO except for the Jag troops who are TDY for a year down there. I am ready for the barge and it being filled up with conspirators of which we have gobs. Get serious. Benghazi was nothing even close to this debacle by schiff. Your limerick is quite accurate. Thanks

  • Debra K Dancel

    10/26/2019 02:02 PM

    This is very concerning if the court has now been given the place of usurping their jurisdiction over the Constitution in assuming a place in deciding about impeachment. Also deciding to make changes to the rule of law is giving a place to lawlessness that is beyond unprecedented. To me this is tearing down the very fiber of our democracy and our republic. I have always believed that we live in a country of the people, by the people and for the people. If this has changed, where will we go in the future because our country will be torn down to be no longer safe. Where we go one, we go all and the road that Schiff is taking us down is not one I am willing to go. Guess I am not willing to be a "lemming."

  • Jim Spaulding

    10/26/2019 01:51 PM

    As always superb insight, Governor. Great limerick to tie it all up... by the way...
    Isn't Schiff from Nantucket?...asking for a friend.

  • Keith F. Hebert

    10/26/2019 01:50 PM

    The Democrats along with our fake news (Those committing Fraud and Treason) needs to stop NOW or else start getting local police (backed up with our US military) to be using more handcuffs and open up all old US and State Prisons and local Jail houses ...

  • Judy Smith

    10/26/2019 01:47 PM

    I always remember some "news" that isn't really in the daily newscasts as being like what my parents told me about things that happened during WW II. They told me that many times Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin would have meetings that were in the news much later. When I asked them why, they always said that it was because our safety might depend on not making public strategic planning times when they met. Another thing we might consider is what if Eisenhower and Churchill had told everyone the plans for D-Day. You know what? The Germans just might have had the whole German army right there on the beach to meet them. Some were there, but there weren't enough to make us now have to speak Deutsch these days. That's the way I would classify Benghazi. As to the way I would categorize the impeachment hearings, I agree that this fits into its own category; plus anyone accused of having committed a crime has the right to be faced with all facts as he looks his accuser in the eye.

  • Rose Ropp

    10/26/2019 01:44 PM

    Praise the Lord! Fatiguing watching Congress act like clowns

  • mike erwin stead

    10/26/2019 01:36 PM

    lot of difference traitors who killed american ambasador and soldiers fo money greedy /?

  • suzannegibbs

    10/26/2019 01:22 PM

    I haven't been commenting because, frankly, I am literally sick to my stomach about what's being done to this President. I cannot believe how The Republican hands are being tied. I cannot believe the Dems are getting away with this. I also have to turn off the News(Fox) often because people like Jessica Tarloff make me want to hurl with all of her "talking points"...........I am now "dvr"ing all of my favorite shows, yours included, so I can fast forward in case some starts to talk the Dem talk. I'm seriously sick about the thought of a Dem winning the election.........I'm waiting for a new law to be enforced, probably in California first, that forces parents to transgender a 2nd child to another gender if the first is a girl or boy. We are becoming a sick nation.
    Suzanne

  • Thelma gibson

    10/26/2019 01:21 PM

    Republicans need to demand equal representation keep walking into hearings quit giving in to dems and stand up for what people elected them to do—represent us
    Dems are scared because they know they have broken the law and don’t want to be exposed

  • dean throntveit

    10/26/2019 01:16 PM

    thanks for the information it was informative to say the least.

  • Suzanne Broeneman

    10/26/2019 01:15 PM

    Right on, Mike!!

  • Paul Crow

    10/26/2019 01:11 PM

    if acosta's employer can sue for press representation so should conservative outlets be able to sue iaw 1st amendment.

  • brenda G deberry

    10/26/2019 01:07 PM

    love the limerick

  • stephen mitchell

    10/26/2019 12:56 PM

    So this foolishness continues on , and on , with no end in sight ! Tax dollars are wasted away , and Congress is in " recess " ! What will eventually stop this asinine foolishness ? I'll say it again , and again , the " judicial system " in our country is broken . You have judges making rulings , not on laws , but on their personal agenda . I expect to hear that Attorney General Barr's investigation has ended with no findings of illegalities ! End of story .

  • Hugh Gautier

    10/26/2019 12:52 PM

    The DemocRATs are using the riles as set up by the Republicans. What a shame that we don't remember that our side set this form of inquisition up, and are willing to scream our heads off because it is being used on us.
    Now, we need to own up to our own rules that the DemocRATs are using against us.

  • Robert Skinner

    10/26/2019 12:52 PM

    Schiff is a real bad guy. This whole process that he is engaged in is lawless and will result in bringing about further polarization and division to our nation. Only the lunatic fringe proponents of the "fake news" will give any heed to this charade.

  • Colleen Kirkpatrick Lea

    10/26/2019 12:52 PM

    Thank you, Mr. Huckabee, for all of this information. I love the way you explain it simplistically for us "regular" folks.

  • Michael Blanton

    10/26/2019 12:52 PM

    Gross negligence by high ranking officials that had the power to help out American’s under attack and allowed them to be killed and humiliated does not have anything to do with another witch hunt by liberals that are upset because their candidate didn’t win an election!!! This is crazy, to even mention them in the same breath is moronic !!!