Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

Trump disagrees with you. The facts are well documented.
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/

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

As I said, a campaign to hurt Trump's and GOP for 22 midterms.

I fully expect more hearings in 2024, along with a COVID spike...

---

whiterock 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?

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.

---

Shame on you, Oso. They are hearing prosecution testimony only, with no cross-examination.

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.

---

whiterock 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?

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.

---

Shame on you, Oso. They are hearing prosecution testimony only, with no cross-examination.

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.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Wangchung said:

---

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

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Cute semantics Sam, but its plain that this committee is trying to smear Trump's political career. They clearly fear his viability for 2024.

This committee has produced no evidence that would stand up in court.

This committee is not even pretending to be seeking a valid legislative reason.

Its also plain that people like you and Oso are perfectly fine with defamation of a former President, solely because you do not like him.

You have abandoned even the pretense of ethics.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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..

---

Can't say it any clearer: one of Art l bodies functions is oversight of Art ll bodies. Art ll is the executive branch.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

More excuses.

That "we just want to know what happened" was - as Sam likes to say - debunked the moment Pelosi replaced the only 2 potential defenders for Trump with Trump haters, to make sure the committee said what she wanted, and nothing else.

Again, you are not fooling anyone but the fools whose malice started in 2015 when Trump announced he would run.

If Trump's incompetent or bad, beat him in the primaries or general election. What you are doing now is obscene abuse of power, and you know it for all your whining.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

More excuses.

That "we just want to know what happened" was - as Sam likes to say - debunked the moment Pelosi replaced the only 2 potential defenders for Trump with Trump haters, to make sure the committee said what she wanted, and nothing else.

Again, you are not fooling anyone but the fools whose malice started in 2015 when Trump announced he would run.

If Trump's incompetent or bad, beat him in the primaries or general election. What you are doing now is obscene abuse of power, and you know it for all your whining.

---

It doesn't speak very well of Trump if he only had two potential defenders in the entire House of Representatives.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

More excuses.

That "we just want to know what happened" was - as Sam likes to say - debunked the moment Pelosi replaced the only 2 potential defenders for Trump with Trump haters, to make sure the committee said what she wanted, and nothing else.

Again, you are not fooling anyone but the fools whose malice started in 2015 when Trump announced he would run.

If Trump's incompetent or bad, beat him in the primaries or general election. What you are doing now is obscene abuse of power, and you know it for all your whining.

---

It doesn't speak very well of Trump if he only had two potential defenders in the entire House of Representatives.

---

No, as usual your bias blinds you Sam. Pelosi made it clear she would reject anyone but a stooge. It doesn't speak well of you that you can only see things in ways that support Trump being the villain.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

More excuses.

That "we just want to know what happened" was - as Sam likes to say - debunked the moment Pelosi replaced the only 2 potential defenders for Trump with Trump haters, to make sure the committee said what she wanted, and nothing else.

Again, you are not fooling anyone but the fools whose malice started in 2015 when Trump announced he would run.

If Trump's incompetent or bad, beat him in the primaries or general election. What you are doing now is obscene abuse of power, and you know it for all your whining.

---

It doesn't speak very well of Trump if he only had two potential defenders in the entire House of Representatives.

---

No, as usual your bias blinds you Sam. Pelosi made it clear she would reject anyone but a stooge. It doesn't speak well of you that you can only see things in ways that support Trump being the villain.

---

Reps. Davis, Armstrong, and Nehls all voted against impeachment. Nehls also joined the objection to certifying electoral votes. Explain how it's clear that they're "stooges."

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

More excuses.

That "we just want to know what happened" was - as Sam likes to say - debunked the moment Pelosi replaced the only 2 potential defenders for Trump with Trump haters, to make sure the committee said what she wanted, and nothing else.

Again, you are not fooling anyone but the fools whose malice started in 2015 when Trump announced he would run.

If Trump's incompetent or bad, beat him in the primaries or general election. What you are doing now is obscene abuse of power, and you know it for all your whining.

---

It doesn't speak very well of Trump if he only had two potential defenders in the entire House of Representatives.

---

No, as usual your bias blinds you Sam. Pelosi made it clear she would reject anyone but a stooge. It doesn't speak well of you that you can only see things in ways that support Trump being the villain.

---

Reps. Davis, Armstrong, and Nehls all voted against impeachment. Nehls also joined the objection to certifying electoral votes. Explain how it's clear that they're "stooges."

---

Check your transcripts.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

More excuses.

That "we just want to know what happened" was - as Sam likes to say - debunked the moment Pelosi replaced the only 2 potential defenders for Trump with Trump haters, to make sure the committee said what she wanted, and nothing else.

Again, you are not fooling anyone but the fools whose malice started in 2015 when Trump announced he would run.

If Trump's incompetent or bad, beat him in the primaries or general election. What you are doing now is obscene abuse of power, and you know it for all your whining.

---

It doesn't speak very well of Trump if he only had two potential defenders in the entire House of Representatives.

---

No, as usual your bias blinds you Sam. Pelosi made it clear she would reject anyone but a stooge. It doesn't speak well of you that you can only see things in ways that support Trump being the villain.

---

Reps. Davis, Armstrong, and Nehls all voted against impeachment. Nehls also joined the objection to certifying electoral votes. Explain how it's clear that they're "stooges."

---

Check your transcripts.

---

You have the burden to support your claim.

---

Comedy from the guy who wants to convict the 45th President on no evidence.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

More excuses.

That "we just want to know what happened" was - as Sam likes to say - debunked the moment Pelosi replaced the only 2 potential defenders for Trump with Trump haters, to make sure the committee said what she wanted, and nothing else.

Again, you are not fooling anyone but the fools whose malice started in 2015 when Trump announced he would run.

If Trump's incompetent or bad, beat him in the primaries or general election. What you are doing now is obscene abuse of power, and you know it for all your whining.

---

It doesn't speak very well of Trump if he only had two potential defenders in the entire House of Representatives.

---

No, as usual your bias blinds you Sam. Pelosi made it clear she would reject anyone but a stooge. It doesn't speak well of you that you can only see things in ways that support Trump being the villain.

---

Reps. Davis, Armstrong, and Nehls all voted against impeachment. Nehls also joined the objection to certifying electoral votes. Explain how it's clear that they're "stooges."

---

Check your transcripts.

---

You have the burden to support your claim.

---

Comedy from the guy who wants to convict the 45th President on no evidence.

---

Your non-answer is noted. And of course these aren't the only members that McCarthy could have chosen, so your premise was false to begin with.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

More excuses.

That "we just want to know what happened" was - as Sam likes to say - debunked the moment Pelosi replaced the only 2 potential defenders for Trump with Trump haters, to make sure the committee said what she wanted, and nothing else.

Again, you are not fooling anyone but the fools whose malice started in 2015 when Trump announced he would run.

If Trump's incompetent or bad, beat him in the primaries or general election. What you are doing now is obscene abuse of power, and you know it for all your whining.

---

It doesn't speak very well of Trump if he only had two potential defenders in the entire House of Representatives.

---

No, as usual your bias blinds you Sam. Pelosi made it clear she would reject anyone but a stooge. It doesn't speak well of you that you can only see things in ways that support Trump being the villain.

---

Reps. Davis, Armstrong, and Nehls all voted against impeachment. Nehls also joined the objection to certifying electoral votes. Explain how it's clear that they're "stooges."

---

Check your transcripts.

---

You have the burden to support your claim.

---

Comedy from the guy who wants to convict the 45th President on no evidence.

---

Your non-answer is noted. And of course these aren't the only members that McCarthy could have chosen, so your premise was false to begin with.

---

As if Sam had shown any willingness to answer with anything like candor .....

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

More excuses.

That "we just want to know what happened" was - as Sam likes to say - debunked the moment Pelosi replaced the only 2 potential defenders for Trump with Trump haters, to make sure the committee said what she wanted, and nothing else.

Again, you are not fooling anyone but the fools whose malice started in 2015 when Trump announced he would run.

If Trump's incompetent or bad, beat him in the primaries or general election. What you are doing now is obscene abuse of power, and you know it for all your whining.

---

Quote:

---

A person familiar with McCarthy's argument said he has told Trump that had he cooperated with the committee and installed members, it would be harder to attack the committee as political and they would be responsible for more of the committee's findings. McCarthy also argued that he could not be viewed as weak by letting Pelosi dictate his decisions. But Trump has not relented in growing angry about him, regularly asking why no one is defending him on television, this person said.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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..

---

Can't say it any clearer: one of Art l bodies functions is oversight of Art ll bodies. Art ll is the executive branch.

---

oversight is a vague word, executive branch is vague or overly broad. What oversight is this committee doing with the executive branch that has any relevance moving forward and aids in legislative process?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

More excuses.

That "we just want to know what happened" was - as Sam likes to say - debunked the moment Pelosi replaced the only 2 potential defenders for Trump with Trump haters, to make sure the committee said what she wanted, and nothing else.

Again, you are not fooling anyone but the fools whose malice started in 2015 when Trump announced he would run.

If Trump's incompetent or bad, beat him in the primaries or general election. What you are doing now is obscene abuse of power, and you know it for all your whining.

---

It doesn't speak very well of Trump if he only had two potential defenders in the entire House of Representatives.

---

No, as usual your bias blinds you Sam. Pelosi made it clear she would reject anyone but a stooge. It doesn't speak well of you that you can only see things in ways that support Trump being the villain.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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..

---

Can't say it any clearer: one of Art l bodies functions is oversight of Art ll bodies. Art ll is the executive branch.

---

oversight is a vague word, executive branch is vague or overly broad. What oversight is this committee doing with the executive branch that has any relevance moving forward and aids in legislative process?

---

It may be vague, but that is the way it has worked since the 1700s. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and neither the Court nor the executive branch has the jurisdiction today otherwise. Congress decides whether the oversight is necessary , relevant, and appropriate.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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..

---

Can't say it any clearer: one of Art l bodies functions is oversight of Art ll bodies. Art ll is the executive branch.

---

oversight is a vague word, executive branch is vague or overly broad. What oversight is this committee doing with the executive branch that has any relevance moving forward and aids in legislative process?

---

It may be vague, but that is the way it has worked since the 1700s. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and neither the Court nor the executive branch has the jurisdiction today otherwise. Congress decides whether the oversight is necessary , relevant, and appropriate.

---

with an unprecedented hearing.. it worked until it didnt just like why we are getting calls to pack the court etc.. a bunch of uniparty corrupt politicians cant and dont do their jobs and we have morons that vote so we get what we have..

---

Guy Noir said:

---

whiterock 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?

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.

---

Shame on you, Oso. They are hearing prosecution testimony only, with no cross-examination.

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.

---

In what way was Watergate different?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

More excuses.

That "we just want to know what happened" was - as Sam likes to say - debunked the moment Pelosi replaced the only 2 potential defenders for Trump with Trump haters, to make sure the committee said what she wanted, and nothing else.

Again, you are not fooling anyone but the fools whose malice started in 2015 when Trump announced he would run.

If Trump's incompetent or bad, beat him in the primaries or general election. What you are doing now is obscene abuse of power, and you know it for all your whining.

---

It doesn't speak very well of Trump if he only had two potential defenders in the entire House of Representatives.

---

No, as usual your bias blinds you Sam. Pelosi made it clear she would reject anyone but a stooge. It doesn't speak well of you that you can only see things in ways that support Trump being the villain.

---

Reps. Davis, Armstrong, and Nehls all voted against impeachment. Nehls also joined the objection to certifying electoral votes. Explain how it's clear that they're "stooges."

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "get a Rope" Lowry: "Producing evidence that would stand up in court is not the committee's legislative purpose"

As I said, the committee's sole purpose is to smear Trump.

Your tactics and blatant malice are despicable.

---

Or to find out what happened

I've already posted elsewhere that Trump should not be prosecuted because of what it would do to the nation. We are already too divided. But we need to know what happened on Jan6 and the committee, to my surprise, is discovering facts, unpleasant truths to some

---

More excuses.

That "we just want to know what happened" was - as Sam likes to say - debunked the moment Pelosi replaced the only 2 potential defenders for Trump with Trump haters, to make sure the committee said what she wanted, and nothing else.

Again, you are not fooling anyone but the fools whose malice started in 2015 when Trump announced he would run.

If Trump's incompetent or bad, beat him in the primaries or general election. What you are doing now is obscene abuse of power, and you know it for all your whining.

---

It doesn't speak very well of Trump if he only had two potential defenders in the entire House of Representatives.

---

No, as usual your bias blinds you Sam. Pelosi made it clear she would reject anyone but a stooge. It doesn't speak well of you that you can only see things in ways that support Trump being the villain.

---

Reps. Davis, Armstrong, and Nehls all voted against impeachment. Nehls also joined the objection to certifying electoral votes. Explain how it's clear that they're "stooges."

---

Did anyone on the Jan 6th Commission vote against Impeachment? Or, did they all vote to impeach?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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..

---

Can't say it any clearer: one of Art l bodies functions is oversight of Art ll bodies. Art ll is the executive branch.

---

oversight is a vague word, executive branch is vague or overly broad. What oversight is this committee doing with the executive branch that has any relevance moving forward and aids in legislative process?

---

It may be vague, but that is the way it has worked since the 1700s. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and neither the Court nor the executive branch has the jurisdiction today otherwise. Congress decides whether the oversight is necessary , relevant, and appropriate.

---

with an unprecedented hearing.. it worked until it didnt just like why we are getting calls to pack the court etc.. a bunch of uniparty corrupt politicians cant and dont do their jobs and we have morons that vote so we get what we have..

---

Pack the court? Unprecedented hearing? Corrupt pols? Is there an argument in there?

I get it. You don't like the committee.
They have the authority to have hearings in the manner in which they are being conducted.

Pelosi approved 3 Republicans for the committee. Why didn't they serve? Why did McCarthy not nominate others? Why is Trump mad at McCarthy for not appointing Republicans to the committee?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: "The facts are well documented."

Yes. #1 being they have all avoided the commission's circus presentation.

---