Ha! Here we go. Who’s adding the caveat of “open door session” Float? You’re just adding that, now, correct? You’re inserting that here, and now - right? Are you saying that the IG didn’t list Ciaramella’s name in his report to Congress, at all?
Because closed door sessions of Congress are governed by House rules, Tenny. If someone violated those rules, then they are subject to fine, censure, expulsion, all kinds of things. If the IG stated the name believing the session secret, and someone in that room leaked, that person should be punished by House rules. It could Schiff himself. It doesn't matter. If however he made it in public session, then it is as you say. But I don't believe it is. I believe someone, somewhere, violated.
1. If determined by House rules, who would have made such a ruling, and is it binding on anyone but House members? 2. Are not documents and filings subject to public records requirements, even if initially provided in a “closed door” session? You’ll keep tracing all of these new arcs, and they’re all going to land back at where I’m right and you’re wrong: 1. There is no law requiring anonymity, and 2. Schiff said so, and invented some reason that has no legal justification, whatsoever.
1. It is binding on all members of the House and their staffs. 2. No. Same as classified materials. Closed door documents potentially become public record in 30 years. This is also a House rule. .... 1 (again). There is, and someone has violated it. 2. Maybe even Schiff.
As one who appreciates a good shit show....I agree. As someone who thinks he’s got better things to focus on....I disagree.
For what? He has no case. If it's about "fake news", then he's open himself to any number of lawsuits for his prolific lying.
