I think it was a good debate. It would have been a better debate, however, if the conclusion had not been predetermined, if, in fact, it was a real debate in the sense that the outcome had not been decided before we entered the room. The gentleman asked how long did it take for the committee to decide not to allow the bipartisan alternative, and I can tell the gentleman, by the time it took me to walk from the Rules Committee across the street to my office, the committee had decided it would not allow a bipartisan alternative. But I suppose that was my own fault for walking too fast. Perhaps if I had walked slower across the street, I might have gotten to my office before the committee ruled. So I am going to tell you today about the bill we will not have the opportunity to vote on, not in an up-or-down fashion, and I think I will tell you a little bit about why we will not have the opportunity to vote on this bipartisan bill.
Adam Schiff: “I think it was a good debate. It would have been a better debate, however, if the conclusion had not been predetermined…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the lack of opportunity to vote on a bipartisan alternative during a Rules Committee debate.
Share
More from Adam Schiff
The Supreme Court has lost the trust of the American people, and Justices accepting lavish gifts from wealthy individuals with business before the court has only made matters worse.
Under your management, DOJ does not consider a case involving deadly risks to medically sensitive infants, after a recommendation of a felony charge, to be worthy of criminal prosecution.
The key to making corruption a powerful issue is by always bringing it back to the impact of that, the cost of his corruption,
We respectfully urge the Commission to evaluate these renewal applications based solely on the factual record and the governing statutory standard, free from political considerations.





