You don't seem to understand that a trial results in an actionable verdict. This results in nothing except maybe enough evidence to have a trial at some future time. So if it's like a lynching, it's a lynching where there's no rope and instead of hanging someone from a tree they march down to the police station and file a complaint.Oldbear83 said:Oh yes it is. And you are just not honest enough to admit that the only closer comparison involves a rope and a tree outside of town.Sam Lowry said:It's not a trial.Oldbear83 said:Rigged trials don't count.Sam Lowry said:Answered it two or three times already. Investigating criminality in the executive branch is part of the oversight process.Oldbear83 said:Might as well rename Oso and Sam 'Donald' and 'Daffy', because they always duck that kind of question.4th and Inches said:their scope for holding hearings requires it to be an aid to the legislative process. What legislative process does this committee hearing aid?Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:SO what exactly are they doing?Guy Noir said:Oldbear83 said:And again, no Congressional committee has law enforcement authority.Guy Noir said:
It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.
They are out of bounds and everyone knows it.
And again they are investigating. They are not enforcing the law. They are not out of bounds.
NO honest answer from the TDSers.
They are hearing testimony
Jan 6 committee
127,036 Views |
3026 Replies |
Last: 5 mo ago by Harrison Bergeron
At least at a lynching the accused gets to yell about their innocence to the mob. The accused in this farce aren't even afforded that much.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Wow.Wangchung said:
At least at a lynching the accused gets to yell about their innocence to the mob. The accused in this farce aren't even afforded that much.
Save your fake shock, we were told Jan 6 was worse than Pearl Harbor.
The level of justice is the same. The nevertrump cultists aren't interested in truth or justice, so the defense of the committee made up of the NT cult leaders has been really quite funny to watch unfold.
The level of justice is the same. The nevertrump cultists aren't interested in truth or justice, so the defense of the committee made up of the NT cult leaders has been really quite funny to watch unfold.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
You're right. I never realized how lucky those ungrateful negroes were.Wangchung said:
Save your fake shock, we were told Jan 6 was worse than Pearl Harbor.
The level of justice is the same. The nevertrump cultists aren't interested in truth or justice, so the defense of the committee made up of the NT cult leaders has been really quite funny to watch unfold.
So it's your contention that only "negros" have been lynched throughout history?
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
I thought that was mostly the case, but I'm getting a whole new perspective here. Perhaps it was Trump's ancestors who were enslaved, and the committee is just perpetuating centuries of oppression? Please educate me.Wangchung said:
So it's your contention that only "negros" have been lynched throughout history?
I believe it was Trump's great great great grandmother who said it best way back in 1878; "Sam Lowry has all the historical insights of your every day average lesbian dog groomer, and you can quote me on that!"Sam Lowry said:I thought that was mostly the case, but I'm getting a whole new perspective here. Perhaps it was Trump's ancestors who were enslaved, and the committee is just perpetuating centuries of oppression? Please educate me.Wangchung said:
So it's your contention that only "negros" have been lynched throughout history?
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
It's not much, but it's good enough for SicEm.Wangchung said:I believe it was Trump's great great great grandmother who said it best way back in 1878; "Sam Lowry has all the historical insights of your every day average lesbian dog groomer, and you can quote me on that!"Sam Lowry said:I thought that was mostly the case, but I'm getting a whole new perspective here. Perhaps it was Trump's ancestors who were enslaved, and the committee is just perpetuating centuries of oppression? Please educate me.Wangchung said:
So it's your contention that only "negros" have been lynched throughout history?
I'm just surprised they had groomers specifically for lesbian dogs back then.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Incorrect. he did put his selections on the cmee. Pelosi kicked them off. So he refused to participate further.Osodecentx said:RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.RMF5630 said:An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?Guy Noir said:
It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.
I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.
Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.
No, I want a real bipartisan hearing with both sides being able to present evidence and answer why things were done. I dont want Liz Cheney sitting deciding who can talk and who can't.
I want evidence provided by real law enforcement and testimony allowed to be questioned.
This is not a hearing. It is a partisan/personal vendetta attack on a future competitor.
McCarthy didn't put his R's on the committee
I'm no particular fan (or opponent) of McCarthy, but I give him a 95 grade on this one. I could quibble with how he handled Cheney and Kinzinger. He should have barred them from caucus meetings as long as they sat on the cmee at the invitation of the opposing party.
Shame on you, Oso. They are hearing prosecution testimony only, with no cross-examination.4th and Inches said:their scope for holding hearings requires it to be an aid to the legislative process. What legislative process does this committee hearing aid?Osodecentx said:Oldbear83 said:SO what exactly are they doing?Guy Noir said:Oldbear83 said:And again, no Congressional committee has law enforcement authority.Guy Noir said:
It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.
They are out of bounds and everyone knows it.
And again they are investigating. They are not enforcing the law. They are not out of bounds.
NO honest answer from the TDSers.
They are hearing testimony
The second impeachment was already a sham because the chief justice refused to sit so they chose a member of the prosecuting body to act as judge
now it seems like they're working toward a third impeachment of a person who no longer hold public office, constitutional scholars are not even sure you can impeach somebody that doesn't currently hold office and chief justice Roberts seem to agree with that by not sitting on the second impeachment trial.
The cmee is a blatant abuse of power. Have we ever had a congressional hearing like this? Where is the precedence? Where in constitution or statute or tradition have we ever seen anything like this? Watergate was not investigated like this. Neither was the Clinton impeachment. Quite even-handed treatment by the party controlling Congress toward the minority party.
Of course, there is precedence. Just not in this country.
That neverTrumpers are going along with it, attaching significance to it, lending credibility to it by treating it seriously while at the same time describing Trump as a threat to the Republic is the most ironic thing I've ever seen posted on this forum. By not denouncing this corruption of the peoples' house as vociferously as they they denounce Trump, they call into question issues of character larger than the target of the investigation himself, for it is an active effort to diminish not just law and Constitution, but the institution of Congress itself. In that they have seized law and one branch of government to pursue a manifestly partisan agenda, it is arguably a greater act of insurrection than anything which happened on J6, in that it is clear-eyed, purposeful, with real power to make real impact.
That cmee is a great stain that soils anyone who touches it.
So you think both the Bushie establishment now in decline and the rising Trumpist consensus are "arrogant and immoral" by thinking that ideological purity makes one "honest and competent."Sam Lowry said:
Trumpists and the old GOP establishment have some different ideas about policy (I lean toward the Trumpists in that regard). What they share is an arrogance and amorality that has hampered the conservative agenda again and again. You think that as long as you're ideologically right, honesty and competence don't matter. It's easy to think that when your opponent has the power and you'll do anything to get it back. When you have the power and it's time to deliver on your promises, it turns out those things matter a lot. That's why, when Dubya abused the public's trust beyond endurance, we ended up with eight years of Obama at a time when Republicans should have been poised to dominate at the national level. Trump has done the same, only worse.
Sure, the Dems play dirty. We can agree on that, so spare me the diatribe you're probably composing in your mind already. But they play dirty within normal bounds. They push the idea of court-packing, but when public opinion pushes back they retreat. They pander to extremists, but they don't actually lead riots. When we saw Kamala making excuses for BLM, we should have said "we're better than that." Instead we said "hold my beer." We didn't just turn a blind eye to sedition, we made ourselves the poster boy for it. That's not showing strength. It's showing your ass. Lucy sets up the football, and you go charging in again…every time.
Exactly what wing of the party do you stand for?
Democrats "play dirty within normal bounds?"
If only you were as exacting in moral judgment toward them as you are to your own teammates.
Democrats "pander....but don't lead riots."
What Republican elected official was in the crowd rioting on J6?
Your capability for projection is remarkable, to include playing with the football Nancy has set up for you.
LOL..Sam Lowry said:Congress oversees the executive branch, in this case specifically the White House, not individual people.4th and Inches said:what part or dept of the executive branch? What current executive branch members?Osodecentx said:Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.4th and Inches said:
Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.. where does this one fall?
The white house is a building.. full of all new people, congress isnt overseeing a damn thing related to the white house.
Since thr SC told them they needed to start legislating again, maybe they should focus on that..
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
The WH Counsel told a low level Assistant to stop POTUS from instructing a demonstration as part of the rally? This lady had to ask if she could be part of the transition team and was denied, that is how high she was in the Admin. You find this reasonable?
Have you ever seen a Staffer tell a Congressman what to do, nevermind POTUS? Ever been to DC on business and met a Senator or Rep? They are treated like God's. Staffers do not tell or prevent them from doing anything. Even the Chief of Staff has to tread lightly.
Sorry, thinking that WH Counsel relied on an Assistant to dictate to POTUS, especially Trump, is not reasonable. Especially if you are talking preventing insurrection, sedition or obstruction.
Have you ever seen a Staffer tell a Congressman what to do, nevermind POTUS? Ever been to DC on business and met a Senator or Rep? They are treated like God's. Staffers do not tell or prevent them from doing anything. Even the Chief of Staff has to tread lightly.
Sorry, thinking that WH Counsel relied on an Assistant to dictate to POTUS, especially Trump, is not reasonable. Especially if you are talking preventing insurrection, sedition or obstruction.
There are 210 Republicans in the House. Pelosi rejected two of them. If McCarthy thought the GOP had anything to gain from a real investigation of the truth, he'd have someone there to cross-examine. The "show trial" spin is what we're hearing instead because that's the best you've got.
I am…if only it made a difference. That's all forgotten as soon as one dares to criticize the Leader.whiterock said:If only you were as exacting in moral judgment toward them as you are to your own teammates.Sam Lowry said:
Trumpists and the old GOP establishment have some different ideas about policy (I lean toward the Trumpists in that regard). What they share is an arrogance and amorality that has hampered the conservative agenda again and again. You think that as long as you're ideologically right, honesty and competence don't matter. It's easy to think that when your opponent has the power and you'll do anything to get it back. When you have the power and it's time to deliver on your promises, it turns out those things matter a lot. That's why, when Dubya abused the public's trust beyond endurance, we ended up with eight years of Obama at a time when Republicans should have been poised to dominate at the national level. Trump has done the same, only worse.
Sure, the Dems play dirty. We can agree on that, so spare me the diatribe you're probably composing in your mind already. But they play dirty within normal bounds. They push the idea of court-packing, but when public opinion pushes back they retreat. They pander to extremists, but they don't actually lead riots. When we saw Kamala making excuses for BLM, we should have said "we're better than that." Instead we said "hold my beer." We didn't just turn a blind eye to sedition, we made ourselves the poster boy for it. That's not showing strength. It's showing your ass. Lucy sets up the football, and you go charging in again…every time.
I'll get you a marble pedestal for ChristmasSam Lowry said:I am…if only it made a difference. That's all forgotten as soon as one dares to criticize the Leader.whiterock said:If only you were as exacting in moral judgment toward them as you are to your own teammates.Sam Lowry said:
Trumpists and the old GOP establishment have some different ideas about policy (I lean toward the Trumpists in that regard). What they share is an arrogance and amorality that has hampered the conservative agenda again and again. You think that as long as you're ideologically right, honesty and competence don't matter. It's easy to think that when your opponent has the power and you'll do anything to get it back. When you have the power and it's time to deliver on your promises, it turns out those things matter a lot. That's why, when Dubya abused the public's trust beyond endurance, we ended up with eight years of Obama at a time when Republicans should have been poised to dominate at the national level. Trump has done the same, only worse.
Sure, the Dems play dirty. We can agree on that, so spare me the diatribe you're probably composing in your mind already. But they play dirty within normal bounds. They push the idea of court-packing, but when public opinion pushes back they retreat. They pander to extremists, but they don't actually lead riots. When we saw Kamala making excuses for BLM, we should have said "we're better than that." Instead we said "hold my beer." We didn't just turn a blind eye to sedition, we made ourselves the poster boy for it. That's not showing strength. It's showing your ass. Lucy sets up the football, and you go charging in again…every time.
It's also an organization, i.e. that part of the executive branch that you asked about. I know you really want to lean into this idea that oversight only applies to the current president. Would be convenient if true, but sadly it isn't.4th and Inches said:LOL..Sam Lowry said:Congress oversees the executive branch, in this case specifically the White House, not individual people.4th and Inches said:what part or dept of the executive branch? What current executive branch members?Osodecentx said:Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.4th and Inches said:
Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.. where does this one fall?
The white house is a building.. full of all new people, congress isnt overseeing a damn thing related to the white house.
Since thr SC told them they needed to start legislating again, maybe they should focus on that..
Sam Lowry said:
There are 210 Republicans in the House. Pelosi rejected two of them. If McCarthy thought the GOP had anything to gain from a real investigation of the truth, he'd have someone there to cross-examine. The "show trial" spin is what we're hearing instead because that's the best you've got.
A show trial is what we've got.
facts are facts: Tradition is that each party puts up its slate. That tradition was not followed. McCarthy was right not to reward it with participation. Good political judgment, and good statesmanship.
Someone should suggest that McCarty investigate you next spring. Who knows what that might be for right now, but I'm sure someone could find something, probably by interviewing everyone you pissed off in your life. In a perfect world, there'd be no Democrats or neverTrumpers on the cmee. Just Trump supporters questioning you, judging you, motivated by all the nice things you've said about them. Doesn't have to be a crime per se. Just an allegation to justify the circus.
Proctology like that is, of course, unAmerican, but I suppose there's always a chance it might turn you into an ardent critic of such a process and impress upon you the importance of fairness, tradition, due process, bi-partisanship, etc..... Part of statesmanship is understanding that anything you do today can and will be used against you in the future. Such is the deterrence that strengthens structural checks and balances.
When you participate in a miscarriage of justice because it suits your political agenda, as you and other neverTrumpers are doing here, you are green-lighting the same to be used against you. That's certainly not the kind of social contract I'd prefer to see engaged, but you are not leaving much wiggle room. You really should be more thoughtful when you choose your political weapons. Your opponents might use them more effectively than you do. I say this as someone who has lived in places run by Samuel Kanyon Doe, Robert Gabriel Mugabe, and Omar al-Bashir. You are playing the game the way they do.
so not within the scope of aiding the legislative process and not any of those other things congress needs a committee for except "oversight" of people that dont work for the govt any more..Sam Lowry said:It's also an organization, i.e. that part of the executive branch that you asked about. I know you really want to lean into this idea that oversight only applies to the current president. Would be convenient if true, but sadly it isn't.4th and Inches said:LOL..Sam Lowry said:Congress oversees the executive branch, in this case specifically the White House, not individual people.4th and Inches said:what part or dept of the executive branch? What current executive branch members?Osodecentx said:Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.4th and Inches said:
Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.. where does this one fall?
The white house is a building.. full of all new people, congress isnt overseeing a damn thing related to the white house.
Since thr SC told them they needed to start legislating again, maybe they should focus on that..
You still check up on your past emplotees?
Keep going, this is some funny stuff!
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
"When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason."Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Yet, no official action versus anyone of note in the Administration? No, indictment. No charges. No arrests. Nothing. Supposedly, the White House Counsel knew there was going to be an insurrection and relied on a low level Assistant to prevent it, but no charges. No pictures of anyone in handcuffs after 700+ arrests and 15 months.
I suspect Sam, the law and facts are not against the past Administration. No matter how much pounding you do. If it was, we would be seeing official action, not this show trial...
It isn't the job of Congress or its committees to prosecute. Aside from that, there are strong considerations that weigh against prosecuting Trump. He's essentially built a whole career as a CYA artist, which makes him hard to pin down. More important, criminalizing political disagreement is the way of banana republics. To prosecute a former president would put us further down a dangerous road.RMF5630 said:"When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason."Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Yet, no official action versus anyone of note in the Administration? No, indictment. No charges. No arrests. Nothing. Supposedly, the White House Counsel knew there was going to be an insurrection and relied on a low level Assistant to prevent it, but no charges. No pictures of anyone in handcuffs after 700+ arrests and 15 months.
I suspect Sam, the law and facts are not against the past Administration. No matter how much pounding you do. If it was, we would be seeing official action, not this show trial...
Ultimately it will be the DOJ's decision based on the evidence that's now being uncovered.
Now being uncovered? Come on, you really think this is all new information being uncovered on National TV? It is choreographed like you would any show, they even titled each rendition. This week - "Trump's disregard for Staff" Liz's special guest star is Cassidy Hutchinson, Assistant to the Assistant of the PIO for the Chief of Staff will answer all our questions.Sam Lowry said:It isn't the job of Congress or its committees to prosecute. Aside from that, there are strong considerations that weigh against prosecuting Trump. He's essentially built a whole career as a CYA artist, which makes him hard to pin down. More important, criminalizing political disagreement is the way of banana republics. To prosecute a former president would put us further down a dangerous road.RMF5630 said:"When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason."Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Yet, no official action versus anyone of note in the Administration? No, indictment. No charges. No arrests. Nothing. Supposedly, the White House Counsel knew there was going to be an insurrection and relied on a low level Assistant to prevent it, but no charges. No pictures of anyone in handcuffs after 700+ arrests and 15 months.
I suspect Sam, the law and facts are not against the past Administration. No matter how much pounding you do. If it was, we would be seeing official action, not this show trial...
Ultimately it will be the DOJ's decision based on the evidence that's now being uncovered.
- What does Trump have against spaghetti?
- Does Trump have combat skills we are not aware of as he takes on a Secret Service agent.
- Hear how Donald is able to commandeer a Limo from the backseat.
- Hear how White House Counsel relied on Cassidy Hutchinson to save Democracy.
All this an more. Same Liz time. Same Liz Channel...
It is closer to that, than a real investigation turning up evidence. They have all of this and if there was anything to it they would charge Trump and love it. By the way, CYA means no evidence or not guilty... Sort of like being almost late, the other word is on time.
No, obviously it's not all new information being uncovered on TV. The investigation goes on behind the scenes, and the results are presented in the hearings. Liz does not have the power to charge Trump with anything.RMF5630 said:Now being uncovered? Come on, you really think this is all new information being uncovered on National TV? It is choreographed like you would any show, they even titled each rendition. This week - "Trump's disregard for Staff" Liz's special guest star is Cassidy Hutchinson, Assistant to the Assistant of the PIO for the Chief of Staff will answer all our questions.Sam Lowry said:It isn't the job of Congress or its committees to prosecute. Aside from that, there are strong considerations that weigh against prosecuting Trump. He's essentially built a whole career as a CYA artist, which makes him hard to pin down. More important, criminalizing political disagreement is the way of banana republics. To prosecute a former president would put us further down a dangerous road.RMF5630 said:"When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason."Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Yet, no official action versus anyone of note in the Administration? No, indictment. No charges. No arrests. Nothing. Supposedly, the White House Counsel knew there was going to be an insurrection and relied on a low level Assistant to prevent it, but no charges. No pictures of anyone in handcuffs after 700+ arrests and 15 months.
I suspect Sam, the law and facts are not against the past Administration. No matter how much pounding you do. If it was, we would be seeing official action, not this show trial...
Ultimately it will be the DOJ's decision based on the evidence that's now being uncovered.
- What does Trump have against spaghetti?
- Does Trump have combat skills we are not aware of as he takes on a Secret Service agent.
- Hear how Donald is able to commandeer a Limo from the backseat.
- Hear how White House Counsel relied on Cassidy Hutchinson to save Democracy.
All this an more. Same Liz time. Same Liz Channel...
It is closer to that, than a real investigation turning up evidence. They have all of this and if there was anything to it they would charge Trump and love it. By the way, CYA means no evidence or not guilty... Sort of like being almost late, the other word is on time.
CYA may mean technically not guilty, but it doesn't mean innocent. It means saying "march peacefully" when you know it's going to be anything but. That should matter to us as citizens even if it doesn't lead to prosecution. Trump is really a political problem, not a criminal one. The obviously correct, political solution was to impeach him and disqualify him from holding office again. The system failed in that regard, which leaves a dilemma: go the banana republic route, or let him get away with it? There's no good option. What we can do as voters is evaluate the evidence honestly, recognize the seriousness of what happened, and act accordingly.
Actually Sam, in the US it does. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove it, you are not guilty. Basis of our legal system, unless you are Trump. Or, is it the ******* rule, if you are not liked by enough people you must have done something illegal. We just haven't found it yet...Sam Lowry said:No, obviously it's not all new information being uncovered on TV. The investigation goes on behind the scenes, and the results are presented in the hearings. Liz does not have the power to charge Trump with anything.RMF5630 said:Now being uncovered? Come on, you really think this is all new information being uncovered on National TV? It is choreographed like you would any show, they even titled each rendition. This week - "Trump's disregard for Staff" Liz's special guest star is Cassidy Hutchinson, Assistant to the Assistant of the PIO for the Chief of Staff will answer all our questions.Sam Lowry said:It isn't the job of Congress or its committees to prosecute. Aside from that, there are strong considerations that weigh against prosecuting Trump. He's essentially built a whole career as a CYA artist, which makes him hard to pin down. More important, criminalizing political disagreement is the way of banana republics. To prosecute a former president would put us further down a dangerous road.RMF5630 said:"When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason."Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Yet, no official action versus anyone of note in the Administration? No, indictment. No charges. No arrests. Nothing. Supposedly, the White House Counsel knew there was going to be an insurrection and relied on a low level Assistant to prevent it, but no charges. No pictures of anyone in handcuffs after 700+ arrests and 15 months.
I suspect Sam, the law and facts are not against the past Administration. No matter how much pounding you do. If it was, we would be seeing official action, not this show trial...
Ultimately it will be the DOJ's decision based on the evidence that's now being uncovered.
- What does Trump have against spaghetti?
- Does Trump have combat skills we are not aware of as he takes on a Secret Service agent.
- Hear how Donald is able to commandeer a Limo from the backseat.
- Hear how White House Counsel relied on Cassidy Hutchinson to save Democracy.
All this an more. Same Liz time. Same Liz Channel...
It is closer to that, than a real investigation turning up evidence. They have all of this and if there was anything to it they would charge Trump and love it. By the way, CYA means no evidence or not guilty... Sort of like being almost late, the other word is on time.
CYA may mean technically not guilty, but it doesn't mean innocent. It means saying "march peacefully" when you know it's going to be anything but. That should matter to us as citizens even if it doesn't lead to prosecution. Trump is really a political problem, not a criminal one. The obviously correct, political solution was to impeach him and disqualify him from holding office again. The system failed in that regard, which leaves a dilemma: go the banana republic route, or let him get away with it? There's no good option. What we can do as voters is evaluate the evidence honestly, recognize the seriousness of what happened, and act accordingly.
All of them. Legislative function includes oversight of the executive branch. If the art 1 body doesn't oversee the Art ll body, who can?4th and Inches said:what part or dept of the executive branch? What current executive branch members?Osodecentx said:Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.4th and Inches said:
Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.. where does this one fall?
I'm talking about actual innocence, not presumption of innocence.RMF5630 said:Actually Sam, in the US it does. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove it, you are not guilty. Basis of our legal system, unless you are Trump. Or, is it the ******* rule, if you are not liked by enough people you must have done something illegal. We just haven't found it yet...Sam Lowry said:No, obviously it's not all new information being uncovered on TV. The investigation goes on behind the scenes, and the results are presented in the hearings. Liz does not have the power to charge Trump with anything.RMF5630 said:Now being uncovered? Come on, you really think this is all new information being uncovered on National TV? It is choreographed like you would any show, they even titled each rendition. This week - "Trump's disregard for Staff" Liz's special guest star is Cassidy Hutchinson, Assistant to the Assistant of the PIO for the Chief of Staff will answer all our questions.Sam Lowry said:It isn't the job of Congress or its committees to prosecute. Aside from that, there are strong considerations that weigh against prosecuting Trump. He's essentially built a whole career as a CYA artist, which makes him hard to pin down. More important, criminalizing political disagreement is the way of banana republics. To prosecute a former president would put us further down a dangerous road.RMF5630 said:"When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason."Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Yet, no official action versus anyone of note in the Administration? No, indictment. No charges. No arrests. Nothing. Supposedly, the White House Counsel knew there was going to be an insurrection and relied on a low level Assistant to prevent it, but no charges. No pictures of anyone in handcuffs after 700+ arrests and 15 months.
I suspect Sam, the law and facts are not against the past Administration. No matter how much pounding you do. If it was, we would be seeing official action, not this show trial...
Ultimately it will be the DOJ's decision based on the evidence that's now being uncovered.
- What does Trump have against spaghetti?
- Does Trump have combat skills we are not aware of as he takes on a Secret Service agent.
- Hear how Donald is able to commandeer a Limo from the backseat.
- Hear how White House Counsel relied on Cassidy Hutchinson to save Democracy.
All this an more. Same Liz time. Same Liz Channel...
It is closer to that, than a real investigation turning up evidence. They have all of this and if there was anything to it they would charge Trump and love it. By the way, CYA means no evidence or not guilty... Sort of like being almost late, the other word is on time.
CYA may mean technically not guilty, but it doesn't mean innocent. It means saying "march peacefully" when you know it's going to be anything but. That should matter to us as citizens even if it doesn't lead to prosecution. Trump is really a political problem, not a criminal one. The obviously correct, political solution was to impeach him and disqualify him from holding office again. The system failed in that regard, which leaves a dilemma: go the banana republic route, or let him get away with it? There's no good option. What we can do as voters is evaluate the evidence honestly, recognize the seriousness of what happened, and act accordingly.
ah, vague answers continue..Osodecentx said:All of them. Legislative function includes oversight of the executive branch. If the art 1 body doesn't oversee the Art ll body, who can?4th and Inches said:what part or dept of the executive branch? What current executive branch members?Osodecentx said:Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.4th and Inches said:
Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.. where does this one fall?
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
So, to sum up.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about actual innocence, not presumption of innocence.RMF5630 said:Actually Sam, in the US it does. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove it, you are not guilty. Basis of our legal system, unless you are Trump. Or, is it the ******* rule, if you are not liked by enough people you must have done something illegal. We just haven't found it yet...Sam Lowry said:No, obviously it's not all new information being uncovered on TV. The investigation goes on behind the scenes, and the results are presented in the hearings. Liz does not have the power to charge Trump with anything.RMF5630 said:Now being uncovered? Come on, you really think this is all new information being uncovered on National TV? It is choreographed like you would any show, they even titled each rendition. This week - "Trump's disregard for Staff" Liz's special guest star is Cassidy Hutchinson, Assistant to the Assistant of the PIO for the Chief of Staff will answer all our questions.Sam Lowry said:It isn't the job of Congress or its committees to prosecute. Aside from that, there are strong considerations that weigh against prosecuting Trump. He's essentially built a whole career as a CYA artist, which makes him hard to pin down. More important, criminalizing political disagreement is the way of banana republics. To prosecute a former president would put us further down a dangerous road.RMF5630 said:"When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason."Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Yet, no official action versus anyone of note in the Administration? No, indictment. No charges. No arrests. Nothing. Supposedly, the White House Counsel knew there was going to be an insurrection and relied on a low level Assistant to prevent it, but no charges. No pictures of anyone in handcuffs after 700+ arrests and 15 months.
I suspect Sam, the law and facts are not against the past Administration. No matter how much pounding you do. If it was, we would be seeing official action, not this show trial...
Ultimately it will be the DOJ's decision based on the evidence that's now being uncovered.
- What does Trump have against spaghetti?
- Does Trump have combat skills we are not aware of as he takes on a Secret Service agent.
- Hear how Donald is able to commandeer a Limo from the backseat.
- Hear how White House Counsel relied on Cassidy Hutchinson to save Democracy.
All this an more. Same Liz time. Same Liz Channel...
It is closer to that, than a real investigation turning up evidence. They have all of this and if there was anything to it they would charge Trump and love it. By the way, CYA means no evidence or not guilty... Sort of like being almost late, the other word is on time.
CYA may mean technically not guilty, but it doesn't mean innocent. It means saying "march peacefully" when you know it's going to be anything but. That should matter to us as citizens even if it doesn't lead to prosecution. Trump is really a political problem, not a criminal one. The obviously correct, political solution was to impeach him and disqualify him from holding office again. The system failed in that regard, which leaves a dilemma: go the banana republic route, or let him get away with it? There's no good option. What we can do as voters is evaluate the evidence honestly, recognize the seriousness of what happened, and act accordingly.
A- He really isn't innocent, just good a CYA
OR
B- It is not in the interest of the US to prosecute, but he really isn't innocent.
OR
C- They can't prosecute Trump because there is not enough evidence, but we know he really isn't innocent.
So, there is NO OUTCOME that shows Trump innocent. Every single road leads to Trump being guilty even if he is not prosecuted.
The possible outcomes pertaining to Trump are a criminal referral, or no criminal referral. I expect no criminal referral and no independent decision by the DOJ to prosecute. It's then up to the public to decide the truth.RMF5630 said:So, to sum up.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about actual innocence, not presumption of innocence.RMF5630 said:Actually Sam, in the US it does. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove it, you are not guilty. Basis of our legal system, unless you are Trump. Or, is it the ******* rule, if you are not liked by enough people you must have done something illegal. We just haven't found it yet...Sam Lowry said:No, obviously it's not all new information being uncovered on TV. The investigation goes on behind the scenes, and the results are presented in the hearings. Liz does not have the power to charge Trump with anything.RMF5630 said:Now being uncovered? Come on, you really think this is all new information being uncovered on National TV? It is choreographed like you would any show, they even titled each rendition. This week - "Trump's disregard for Staff" Liz's special guest star is Cassidy Hutchinson, Assistant to the Assistant of the PIO for the Chief of Staff will answer all our questions.Sam Lowry said:It isn't the job of Congress or its committees to prosecute. Aside from that, there are strong considerations that weigh against prosecuting Trump. He's essentially built a whole career as a CYA artist, which makes him hard to pin down. More important, criminalizing political disagreement is the way of banana republics. To prosecute a former president would put us further down a dangerous road.RMF5630 said:"When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason."Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Yet, no official action versus anyone of note in the Administration? No, indictment. No charges. No arrests. Nothing. Supposedly, the White House Counsel knew there was going to be an insurrection and relied on a low level Assistant to prevent it, but no charges. No pictures of anyone in handcuffs after 700+ arrests and 15 months.
I suspect Sam, the law and facts are not against the past Administration. No matter how much pounding you do. If it was, we would be seeing official action, not this show trial...
Ultimately it will be the DOJ's decision based on the evidence that's now being uncovered.
- What does Trump have against spaghetti?
- Does Trump have combat skills we are not aware of as he takes on a Secret Service agent.
- Hear how Donald is able to commandeer a Limo from the backseat.
- Hear how White House Counsel relied on Cassidy Hutchinson to save Democracy.
All this an more. Same Liz time. Same Liz Channel...
It is closer to that, than a real investigation turning up evidence. They have all of this and if there was anything to it they would charge Trump and love it. By the way, CYA means no evidence or not guilty... Sort of like being almost late, the other word is on time.
CYA may mean technically not guilty, but it doesn't mean innocent. It means saying "march peacefully" when you know it's going to be anything but. That should matter to us as citizens even if it doesn't lead to prosecution. Trump is really a political problem, not a criminal one. The obviously correct, political solution was to impeach him and disqualify him from holding office again. The system failed in that regard, which leaves a dilemma: go the banana republic route, or let him get away with it? There's no good option. What we can do as voters is evaluate the evidence honestly, recognize the seriousness of what happened, and act accordingly.
A- He really isn't innocent, just good a CYA
OR
B- It is not in the interest of the US to prosecute, but he really isn't innocent.
OR
C- They can't prosecute Trump because there is not enough evidence, but we know he really isn't innocent.
So, there is NO OUTCOME that shows Trump innocent. Every single road leads to Trump being guilty even if he is not prosecuted.
Trump disagrees with you. The facts are well documented.whiterock said:Incorrect. he did put his selections on the cmee. Pelosi kicked them off. So he refused to participate further.Osodecentx said:RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.RMF5630 said:An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?Guy Noir said:
It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.
I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.
Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.
No, I want a real bipartisan hearing with both sides being able to present evidence and answer why things were done. I dont want Liz Cheney sitting deciding who can talk and who can't.
I want evidence provided by real law enforcement and testimony allowed to be questioned.
This is not a hearing. It is a partisan/personal vendetta attack on a future competitor.
McCarthy didn't put his R's on the committee
I'm no particular fan (or opponent) of McCarthy, but I give him a 95 grade on this one. I could quibble with how he handled Cheney and Kinzinger. He should have barred them from caucus meetings as long as they sat on the cmee at the invitation of the opposing party.
Pelosi approved of 3 of McCarthy's appointments. She wouldn't approve of Jordan or Banks because they might be called as witnesses. Then McCarthy pulled the 3 who had been approved and refused to appoint any others.
From WaPo:
McCarthy allies argue he had no other option but to pull Republicans from the committee after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's move to bar Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Jim Banks (R-Ind.) from being seated on the panel because they could be called as witnesses by the committee. McCarthy also tapped GOP Reps. Troy E. Nehls (Tex.), Rodney Davis (Ill.), and Kelly Armstrong (N.D.) to participate, choices that Pelosi (D-Calif.) approved.
Former president Donald Trump has said privately for months that McCarthy's decision to pull pro-Trump Republicans from sitting on the Jan. 6 select committee was a mistake, one that has become clearer as Trump watches the hearings that are working to build the case that he should be criminally charged for conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/23/trump-mccarthy-jan-6-committee/
Can't say it any clearer: one of Art l bodies functions is oversight of Art ll bodies. Art ll is the executive branch.4th and Inches said:ah, vague answers continue..Osodecentx said:All of them. Legislative function includes oversight of the executive branch. If the art 1 body doesn't oversee the Art ll body, who can?4th and Inches said:what part or dept of the executive branch? What current executive branch members?Osodecentx said:Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.4th and Inches said:
Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.. where does this one fall?
As I said, a campaign to hurt Trump's and GOP for 22 midterms.Sam Lowry said:The possible outcomes pertaining to Trump are a criminal referral, or no criminal referral. I expect no criminal referral and no independent decision by the DOJ to prosecute. It's then up to the public to decide the truth.RMF5630 said:So, to sum up.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about actual innocence, not presumption of innocence.RMF5630 said:Actually Sam, in the US it does. We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove it, you are not guilty. Basis of our legal system, unless you are Trump. Or, is it the ******* rule, if you are not liked by enough people you must have done something illegal. We just haven't found it yet...Sam Lowry said:No, obviously it's not all new information being uncovered on TV. The investigation goes on behind the scenes, and the results are presented in the hearings. Liz does not have the power to charge Trump with anything.RMF5630 said:Now being uncovered? Come on, you really think this is all new information being uncovered on National TV? It is choreographed like you would any show, they even titled each rendition. This week - "Trump's disregard for Staff" Liz's special guest star is Cassidy Hutchinson, Assistant to the Assistant of the PIO for the Chief of Staff will answer all our questions.Sam Lowry said:It isn't the job of Congress or its committees to prosecute. Aside from that, there are strong considerations that weigh against prosecuting Trump. He's essentially built a whole career as a CYA artist, which makes him hard to pin down. More important, criminalizing political disagreement is the way of banana republics. To prosecute a former president would put us further down a dangerous road.RMF5630 said:"When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason."Sam Lowry said:
About half the people I know are Trump supporters, though mostly not of the fanatical variety that's represented in this forum. They're decent people who, like me, would of course be opposed to the kind of witch hunt you describe. What seems to escape you is the fact that I'm a private citizen, not a government agency. You might like the executive to operate without oversight, as long as he belongs to your party. When the other side is in power, you might not like it so much.
As for McCarthy, I'll grant that he's playing good politics. Probably even better than you give him credit for, in fact. I doubt he had any intention of seating his picks on the committee, especially given how obviously inappropriate Jordan would have been. Pelosi could have picked her own substitutes, but they'd have been subject to the same ostracism as Cheney and Kinzinger if they'd accepted. The only other choice was to proceed as she did, subject to all the absurd analogies and wild hyperbole the GOP can muster. Not ideal from McCarthy's point of view, but again, probably the best strategy when you've got no real defense. When the law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the law. When the law and the facts are against you, pound the table. You and your friends are pounding that table as hard as you can, and with good reason.
Yet, no official action versus anyone of note in the Administration? No, indictment. No charges. No arrests. Nothing. Supposedly, the White House Counsel knew there was going to be an insurrection and relied on a low level Assistant to prevent it, but no charges. No pictures of anyone in handcuffs after 700+ arrests and 15 months.
I suspect Sam, the law and facts are not against the past Administration. No matter how much pounding you do. If it was, we would be seeing official action, not this show trial...
Ultimately it will be the DOJ's decision based on the evidence that's now being uncovered.
- What does Trump have against spaghetti?
- Does Trump have combat skills we are not aware of as he takes on a Secret Service agent.
- Hear how Donald is able to commandeer a Limo from the backseat.
- Hear how White House Counsel relied on Cassidy Hutchinson to save Democracy.
All this an more. Same Liz time. Same Liz Channel...
It is closer to that, than a real investigation turning up evidence. They have all of this and if there was anything to it they would charge Trump and love it. By the way, CYA means no evidence or not guilty... Sort of like being almost late, the other word is on time.
CYA may mean technically not guilty, but it doesn't mean innocent. It means saying "march peacefully" when you know it's going to be anything but. That should matter to us as citizens even if it doesn't lead to prosecution. Trump is really a political problem, not a criminal one. The obviously correct, political solution was to impeach him and disqualify him from holding office again. The system failed in that regard, which leaves a dilemma: go the banana republic route, or let him get away with it? There's no good option. What we can do as voters is evaluate the evidence honestly, recognize the seriousness of what happened, and act accordingly.
A- He really isn't innocent, just good a CYA
OR
B- It is not in the interest of the US to prosecute, but he really isn't innocent.
OR
C- They can't prosecute Trump because there is not enough evidence, but we know he really isn't innocent.
So, there is NO OUTCOME that shows Trump innocent. Every single road leads to Trump being guilty even if he is not prosecuted.
I fully expect more hearings in 2024, along with a COVID spike...