Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

And again, no Congressional committee has law enforcement authority.

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.

---

SO what exactly are they doing?

NO honest answer from the TDSers.

---

They are hearing testimony

---

their scope for holding hearings requires it to be an aid to the legislative process. What legislative process does this committee hearing aid?

---

Might as well rename Oso and Sam 'Donald' and 'Daffy', because they always duck that kind of question.

---

Answered it two or three times already. Investigating criminality in the executive branch is part of the oversight process.

---

Rigged trials don't count.

---

It's not a trial.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Wangchung said:

---

So it's your contention that only "negros" have been lynched throughout history?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So it's your contention that only "negros" have been lynched throughout history?

---

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:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So it's your contention that only "negros" have been lynched throughout history?

---

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.

---

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!"

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

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...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
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

---

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.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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?

---

Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.

---

what part or dept of the executive branch? What current executive branch members?

---

Congress oversees the executive branch, in this case specifically the White House, not individual people.

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

If only you were as exacting in moral judgment toward them as you are to your own teammates.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

If only you were as exacting in moral judgment toward them as you are to your own teammates.

---

I am…if only it made a difference. That's all forgotten as soon as one dares to criticize the Leader.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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?

---

Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.

---

what part or dept of the executive branch? What current executive branch members?

---

Congress oversees the executive branch, in this case specifically the White House, not individual people.

---

LOL..

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.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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?

---

Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.

---

what part or dept of the executive branch? What current executive branch members?

---

Congress oversees the executive branch, in this case specifically the White House, not individual people.

---

LOL..

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..

---

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.

---

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.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

"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...

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

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.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

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.

• 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.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

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.

• 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.

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.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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?

---

Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.

---

what part or dept of the executive branch? What current executive branch members?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

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.

• 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.

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...

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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?

---

Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.

---

what part or dept of the executive branch? What current executive branch members?

---

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?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

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.

• 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.

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...

---

I'm talking about actual innocence, not presumption of innocence.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

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.

• 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.

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...

---

I'm talking about actual innocence, not presumption of innocence.

---

So, to sum up.

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.

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.

---

An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

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...

---

Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
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

---

Incorrect. he did put his selections on the cmee. Pelosi kicked them off. So he refused to participate further.

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.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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?

---

Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the executive branch.

---

what part or dept of the executive branch? What current executive branch members?

---

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?

---

ah, vague answers continue..

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

"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.

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.

• 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.

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...

---

I'm talking about actual innocence, not presumption of innocence.

---

So, to sum up.

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.

---