Comments by "B Bodziak" (@B_Bodziak) on "Newt Gingrich weighs in on Dems' closed-door impeachment hearings" video.

  1. This is an INVESTIGATION not a Trial. When the House was investigating Bill Clinton for Impeachment, the Republicans pointed out that the Investigation must be held behind closed doors. It is not an option; It is a requirement under the procedures of impeachment. Why isn't FOX reporting that??
    4
  2.  @deplorable_bitter_clinger7482  You are 100% incorrect. Bill Clinton's Impeachment investigation was also done behind closed doors! Look it up!
    2
  3.  @deplorable_bitter_clinger7482  You are 100% incorrect to the impeachment investigation hearings being open. The Clinton impeachment hearings on the House were NOT televised and only the committee members were allowed to be present. Make sure that you are looking at the House's Investigation hearing into purgery. The Start investigation is when Clinton perjured himself under oath. Following that, the House Impeachment hearing to determine if he did commit perjury was closed.
    2
  4. It's an INVESTIGATION not a Trial!! House impeachment is similar to an indictment: Witnesses testify to a grand jury without the defendent. If the grand jury feels there's enough to take it to trial, the defendent is indicted - House is deciding I'd there's enough evidence to charge/impeach Trump. THEN it goes to the Senate for a trial and where the defense can present itself.
    1
  5.  @Over_and_Under  You forgot to mention that Bill Clinton's Impeachment/investigation was behind closed doors also. The Democrats made a bit of stink (they didn't storm the Capitol) about it, but the procedures REQUIRE/D it to be closed-door at this stage of the game.
    1
  6.  @deplorable_bitter_clinger7482  The investigation was not televised! Everything that led up to the impeachment hearing was televised, including Clinton's testimony. The Senate hearings were also televised, but the House's was not. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. On a similar note, when Democrats publically criticized the closed-door investigation hearings into Benghazi, Trey Gowdy, the Republican Congressman leading the investigation, responded by saying, "The private ones always produce better results.". I am definitely no fan of any Clinton, and the only one I might possibly be able to tolerate being in the same room with is Chelsea's new baby. Do not let the term impeachment "hearing" mislead you. President Trump has NOT been charged with a crime, so the rules of a criminal trial do not apply. Even for criminal trials, investigators must first investigate the crime in private prior to charging the suspect. Do you think it would be beneficial to allow suspects to be present the entire time that detectives are evaluating evidence and questioning possible witnesses to their crimes? I'm guessing not since you seem to be an intelligent individual. As for the current investigation, IF the House committees conducting it decide there is enough evidence of wrongdoing, the evidence used to determine this will be PUBLICALLY presented to ALL Representatives of the House prior to having a vote to determine if impeachment is warranted. It is similar to evidence presented to a Grand Jury, who collectively decide if a district attorney has even a smidgeon of evidence that would warrant an actual trial. During presentations to Grand Juries, defendents are not involved in any way whatsoever. All the GJ decides is whether or not it's at all possible, even if it's only remotely possible, that a crime may have happened. If so, the GJ votes in favor of charging the defendent, so that there can be an actual trial where all the evidence from both sides can be presented. It's very much the same as if the full House votes in favor of impeachment, the issue rolls over to the Senate for a hearing that is similar to a trial. The Senate hearings will be conducted publically. This is when Trump and his legal team will have the opportunity to provide a full defense of the impeachment, including the ability to publically question Trump and all of the witnesses who appeared in front of the House committee members. Trump's team would have the opportunity to provide & question any additional witnesses and to present any additional evidence in opposition of removing the President from office due to the impeachment (BTW, no Senate has ever voted to remove a president from office). The House holding a closed door INVESTIGATION hearing is the standard process that BOTH sides have adhered to many decades, centuries actually. Even if the House and the Senate were given the opportunity to vote today on whether or not INVESTIGATION hearings should always be held publically, it would not pass and would likely be unanimous in that decision b/c everyone acknowledges the value of having non-public investigation hearings just like Republicans chose to do for the Benghazi investigation. If Trump has done nothing wrong, then the evidence will not be there.
    1
  7.  @helenshg4580  He stated it was from the 1640s. That is long before we became a nation. So, this rule of law that he is referring to must have been from the UK under the rule of a monarch at the time. When we left the UK, we left behind their protocols, procedures and legal system and was the reason our forefathers had great insight into establishing the rules of law in our Constitution. The rules governing Presidential impeachment hearings in the US actually state that the investigation process may only have members of the committee(s) and select individuals of their staff in attendance during the deposition phase. For the committees to actually allow all members of the House to attend would be a violation.
    1