Sam Lowry said:

---

If the DOJ is suppressing evidence, as you claim, are they accountable to Congress? Was Rep. Gaetz wrong to say they should be called to answer for it?

---

Whoa, wouldn't that be legislative oversight of the Executive Branch?

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Did they break the law? Have they been charged with a crime? Why should anyone care?

---

Thank you for your opinion, Mr. Schiff.

---

It's not my opinion at all. It's the opinion I've been seeing on almost every post on every Donald Trump thread for the last three months.

---

waiting all day to spring that one? You telegraphed it..

---

The dupe didn't see it coming.
OB never does but will now argue the unarguable for the next few days.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Did they break the law? Have they been charged with a crime? Why should anyone care?

---

Thank you for your opinion, Mr. Schiff.

---

It's not my opinion at all. It's the opinion I've been seeing on almost every post on every Donald Trump thread for the last three months.

---

waiting all day to spring that one? You telegraphed it..

---

Waiting since 9:28. It didn't take long.

---

Well played

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

If the DOJ is suppressing evidence, as you claim, are they accountable to Congress? Was Rep. Gaetz wrong to say they should be called to answer for it?

---

Whoa, wouldn't that be legislative oversight of the Executive Branch?

---

Republicans have all but promised it if they win a majority. The outrage on this board will be something to see!

Somebody is catching up on their posting with their sock account..

Who else wants to go on the record?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Who else wants to go on the record?

---

Check the thread topic, Sam.

Maybe you should "go on the record"?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Who else wants to go on the record?

---

Check the thread topic, Sam.

Maybe you should "go on the record"?

---

The topic is Hunter Biden and his China business deals. I believe in legislative oversight. If the DOJ is turning a blind eye to crimes and national security threats, I'm completely on board with Congress acting independently.

Do you agree? It's a simple question.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Who else wants to go on the record?

---

Check the thread topic, Sam.

Maybe you should "go on the record"?

---

The topic is Hunter Biden and his China business deals. I believe in legislative oversight. If the DOJ is turning a blind eye to crimes and national security threats, I'm completely on board with Congress acting independently.

Do you agree? It's a simple question.

---

I have answered you fully Sam, more than you have done in return.

Stop pretending you make the rules.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Who else wants to go on the record?

---

Check the thread topic, Sam.

Maybe you should "go on the record"?

---

The topic is Hunter Biden and his China business deals. I believe in legislative oversight. If the DOJ is turning a blind eye to crimes and national security threats, I'm completely on board with Congress acting independently.

Do you agree? It's a simple question.

---

I have answered you fully Sam, more than you have done in return.

Stop pretending you make the rules.

---

Let's say there are no new developments this year. First day of the new Congress, Matt Gaetz announces a select committee to investigate Hunter Biden.

Yea or nay?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Who else wants to go on the record?

---

Check the thread topic, Sam.

Maybe you should "go on the record"?

---

The topic is Hunter Biden and his China business deals. I believe in legislative oversight. If the DOJ is turning a blind eye to crimes and national security threats, I'm completely on board with Congress acting independently.

Do you agree? It's a simple question.

---

I have answered you fully Sam, more than you have done in return.

Stop pretending you make the rules.

---

Let's say there are no new developments this year. First day of the new Congress, Matt Gaetz announces a select committee to investigate Hunter Biden.

Yea or nay?

---

Like, you know, Congressional oversight?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Who else wants to go on the record?

---

Check the thread topic, Sam.

Maybe you should "go on the record"?

---

The topic is Hunter Biden and his China business deals. I believe in legislative oversight. If the DOJ is turning a blind eye to crimes and national security threats, I'm completely on board with Congress acting independently.

Do you agree? It's a simple question.

---

I have answered you fully Sam, more than you have done in return.

Stop pretending you make the rules.

---

Let's say there are no new developments this year. First day of the new Congress, Matt Gaetz announces a select committee to investigate Hunter Biden.

Yea or nay?

---

Yawn.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Who else wants to go on the record?

---

Check the thread topic, Sam.

Maybe you should "go on the record"?

---

The topic is Hunter Biden and his China business deals. I believe in legislative oversight. If the DOJ is turning a blind eye to crimes and national security threats, I'm completely on board with Congress acting independently.

Do you agree? It's a simple question.

---

I have answered you fully Sam, more than you have done in return.

Stop pretending you make the rules.

---

Let's say there are no new developments this year. First day of the new Congress, Matt Gaetz announces a select committee to investigate Hunter Biden.

Yea or nay?

---

Directly against Hunter? Nay.

Investigate why the investigators aren't doing their job.

Videos leaks show underage hookers man. Nothing about this is rational and the only thing that explains it is a protection racket from within the system.

---

Not directly about Hunter. National security issues related to business dealings, etc.

What about my question to JXL? If Dems refuse to participate, should the investigation continue?

So wait, you're a yes now?

Anyone else notice how Sam is playing his version of 'Fredo' Cuomo, like he is an Anchor at CNN?

Here's my complaint about Sam's 'solution':

Show Trials have no place in Congress. Aside from the waste of resources and time, aside from the crappy look of 'they did it, so now we do it', there is the whole point to such hearings.

There is reason to believe the FBI and CIA have been weaponized for political purposes, so that 51 'intelligence professionals' claimed Hunter's laptop was fake in 2020,

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

and we now learn the feds authenticated the laptop at that time, then hid the story.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/09/1091859822/more-details-emerge-in-federal-investigation-into-hunter-biden


No wonder only 21% of Americans say they trust Government to do the right thing,

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/


Comey and McCabe abused their office to go after a sitting President, yet neither has seen even one day in court as a result.

https://lawandcrime.com/federal-bureau-of-investigation/five-bombshells-in-oig-report-saying-fbis-andrew-mccabe-lied-under-oath/

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/comey-lied-under-oath-on-multiple-occasions-clearly-violated-fbi-policies-lewandowki


The rot at the top disgusts Americans.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/1/erosion-public-trust-mounting-fbi-allegations-part/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-federal-bureau-investigation-government-agency-politicized-11632946341


This is about far more than Hunter or even elections.

If you care about the Republic and the Constitution the way certain virtue signalers claim, a lot of federal officials need to lose their jobs and some need to go to prison.

Far too many foxes in the henhouse of government.

Sam Lowry said:

---

So wait, you're a yes now?

---

read thru what Doc wrote too fast- I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions.

I am still against a special committee specific for Hinter Biden.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Who else wants to go on the record?

---

Check the thread topic, Sam.

Maybe you should "go on the record"?

---

The topic is Hunter Biden and his China business deals. I believe in legislative oversight. If the DOJ is turning a blind eye to crimes and national security threats, I'm completely on board with Congress acting independently.

Do you agree? It's a simple question.

---

I have answered you fully Sam, more than you have done in return.

Stop pretending you make the rules.

---

Let's say there are no new developments this year. First day of the new Congress, Matt Gaetz announces a select committee to investigate Hunter Biden.

Yea or nay?

---

Directly against Hunter? Nay.

Investigate why the investigators aren't doing their job.

Videos leaks show underage hookers man. Nothing about this is rational and the only thing that explains it is a protection racket from within the system.

---

Not directly about Hunter. National security issues related to business dealings, etc.

What about my question to JXL? If Dems refuse to participate, should the investigation continue?

---

I'm sorry, I missed this question. I don't like congressional hearings or investigations in which only one side participates, but the other side shouldn't be able to unilaterally stop it by refusing.

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Who else wants to go on the record?

---

Check the thread topic, Sam.

Maybe you should "go on the record"?

---

The topic is Hunter Biden and his China business deals. I believe in legislative oversight. If the DOJ is turning a blind eye to crimes and national security threats, I'm completely on board with Congress acting independently.

Do you agree? It's a simple question.

---

I have answered you fully Sam, more than you have done in return.

Stop pretending you make the rules.

---

Let's say there are no new developments this year. First day of the new Congress, Matt Gaetz announces a select committee to investigate Hunter Biden.

Yea or nay?

---

Directly against Hunter? Nay.

Investigate why the investigators aren't doing their job.

Videos leaks show underage hookers man. Nothing about this is rational and the only thing that explains it is a protection racket from within the system.

---

Not directly about Hunter. National security issues related to business dealings, etc.

What about my question to JXL? If Dems refuse to participate, should the investigation continue?

---

I'm sorry, I missed this question. I don't like congressional hearings or investigations in which only one side participates, but the other side shouldn't be able to unilaterally stop it by refusing.

---

I agree

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So wait, you're a yes now?

---

read thru what Doc wrote too fast- I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions.

---

So you are in favor of Congressional oversight of the Executive branch?

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So wait, you're a yes now?

---

read thru what Doc wrote too fast- I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions.

---

So you are in favor of Congressional oversight of the Executive branch?

---

i am sorry but your question is overly broad and too vague to answer without undue burden.. please rephrase to a more specific question or refer to my previous answers on this topic

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So wait, you're a yes now?

---

read thru what Doc wrote too fast- I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions.

---

So you are in favor of Congressional oversight of the Executive branch?

---

i am sorry but your question is overly broad and too vague to answer without undue burden.. please rephrase to a more specific question or refer to my previous answers on this topic

---

You said "I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions."
The FBI is part of the Executive branch.

Do you favor legislative oversight of the Executive branch?

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So wait, you're a yes now?

---

read thru what Doc wrote too fast- I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions.

---

So you are in favor of Congressional oversight of the Executive branch?

---

i am sorry but your question is overly broad and too vague to answer without undue burden.. please rephrase to a more specific question or refer to my previous answers on this topic

---

You said "I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions."
The FBI is part of the Executive branch.

Do you favor legislative oversight of the Executive branch?

---

Do you favor separation of powers?

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So wait, you're a yes now?

---

read thru what Doc wrote too fast- I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions.

---

So you are in favor of Congressional oversight of the Executive branch?

---

i am sorry but your question is overly broad and too vague to answer without undue burden.. please rephrase to a more specific question or refer to my previous answers on this topic

---

You said "I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions."
The FBI is part of the Executive branch.

Do you favor legislative oversight of the Executive branch?

---

asked an answered

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Who else wants to go on the record?

---

Check the thread topic, Sam.

Maybe you should "go on the record"?

---

The topic is Hunter Biden and his China business deals. I believe in legislative oversight. If the DOJ is turning a blind eye to crimes and national security threats, I'm completely on board with Congress acting independently.

Do you agree? It's a simple question.

---

I have answered you fully Sam, more than you have done in return.

Stop pretending you make the rules.

---

Let's say there are no new developments this year. First day of the new Congress, Matt Gaetz announces a select committee to investigate Hunter Biden.

Yea or nay?

---

Directly against Hunter? Nay.

Investigate why the investigators aren't doing their job.

Videos leaks show underage hookers man. Nothing about this is rational and the only thing that explains it is a protection racket from within the system.

---

Not directly about Hunter. National security issues related to business dealings, etc.

What about my question to JXL? If Dems refuse to participate, should the investigation continue?

---

I'm sorry, I missed this question. I don't like congressional hearings or investigations in which only one side participates, but the other side shouldn't be able to unilaterally stop it by refusing.

---

Thanks.

I'll weigh in.

1. Congressional hearings are only EVER grandstanding political show trials. (J6, steroids in baseball, etc)

2. Grandstanding political show trials are only valuable for two purposes:

A. Shedding light on something actually illegal that the executive refuses to prosecute. (True of HRC, not true of DJT)
B. Hosting a forum for political dbags to hrumph, beat tables, shout things like "have you no decency" and beg for money on the back of said histrionics.

3. Legislators should legislate. If they need answers to legislate, they should ask for answers in writing. They are not the conscience of the nation, as the vast majority of the immoral b @stards don't even have one of their own.

4. The democrat run congress has done nothing of value since taking power but waste mountains of money and host political show trials full of LIQR level lies, distortions and half truths. November can't possibly come soon enough.

Golem said:

---

I'll weigh in.

1. Congressional hearings are only EVER grandstanding political show trials. (J6, steroids in baseball, etc)

2. Grandstanding political show trials are only valuable for two purposes:

A. Shedding light on something actually illegal that the executive refuses to prosecute. (True of HRC, not true of DJT)
B. Hosting a forum for political dbags to hrumph, beat tables, shout things like "have you no decency" and beg for money on the back of said histrionics.

3. Legislators should legislate. If they need answers to legislate, they should ask for answers in writing. They are not the conscience of the nation, as the vast majority of the immoral b @stards don't even have one of their own.

4. The democrat run congress has done nothing of value since taking power but waste mountains of money and host political show trials full of LIQR level lies, distortions and half truths. November can't possibly come soon enough.

---

I'm not sure how to reconcile 2A with 3. If there's illegal activity that the executive refuses to prosecute, should Congress hold hearings or just ask for answers in writing? What about subpoena power?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Golem said:

---

I'll weigh in.

1. Congressional hearings are only EVER grandstanding political show trials. (J6, steroids in baseball, etc)

2. Grandstanding political show trials are only valuable for two purposes:

A. Shedding light on something actually illegal that the executive refuses to prosecute. (True of HRC, not true of DJT)
B. Hosting a forum for political dbags to hrumph, beat tables, shout things like "have you no decency" and beg for money on the back of said histrionics.

3. Legislators should legislate. If they need answers to legislate, they should ask for answers in writing. They are not the conscience of the nation, as the vast majority of the immoral b @stards don't even have one of their own.

4. The democrat run congress has done nothing of value since taking power but waste mountains of money and host political show trials full of LIQR level lies, distortions and half truths. November can't possibly come soon enough.

---

I'm not sure how to reconcile 2A with 3. If there's illegal activity that the executive refuses to prosecute, should Congress hold hearings or just ask for answers in writing? What about subpoena power?

---

Not surprised you don't understand. Start with the first sentence, then move on to the second sentence. Pay particular attention to the purpose behind asking questions described in #3. If you still don't get it after that, just go get some cookies or something.

So we've got two nays and two dodges.

Anyone else?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So wait, you're a yes now?

---

read thru what Doc wrote too fast- I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions.

---

So you are in favor of Congressional oversight of the Executive branch?

---

i am sorry but your question is overly broad and too vague to answer without undue burden.. please rephrase to a more specific question or refer to my previous answers on this topic

---

You said "I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions."
The FBI is part of the Executive branch.

Do you favor legislative oversight of the Executive branch?

---

Do you favor separation of powers?

---

Absolutely

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So wait, you're a yes now?

---

read thru what Doc wrote too fast- I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions.

---

So you are in favor of Congressional oversight of the Executive branch?

---

i am sorry but your question is overly broad and too vague to answer without undue burden.. please rephrase to a more specific question or refer to my previous answers on this topic

---

You said "I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions."
The FBI is part of the Executive branch.

Do you favor legislative oversight of the Executive branch?

---

asked an answered

---

Only by House Judiciary? I assume the Senate can initiate an investigation by a Senate committee.

I'll put you down as a "yes" on the question of legislative oversight of the executive branch.

So a House committee has the power to investigate Trump?

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So wait, you're a yes now?

---

read thru what Doc wrote too fast- I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions.

---

So you are in favor of Congressional oversight of the Executive branch?

---

i am sorry but your question is overly broad and too vague to answer without undue burden.. please rephrase to a more specific question or refer to my previous answers on this topic

---

You said "I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions."
The FBI is part of the Executive branch.

Do you favor legislative oversight of the Executive branch?

---

asked an answered

---

Only by House Judiciary? I assume the Senate can initiate an investigation by a Senate committee.

I'll put you down as a "yes" on the question of legislative oversight of the executive branch.

So a House committee has the power to investigate Trump?

---

Objection, leading the witness

If you don't like that one, then let's just put it down as you testifying on behalf of the witness.

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So wait, you're a yes now?

---

read thru what Doc wrote too fast- I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions.

---

So you are in favor of Congressional oversight of the Executive branch?

---

i am sorry but your question is overly broad and too vague to answer without undue burden.. please rephrase to a more specific question or refer to my previous answers on this topic

---

You said "I am still a house judiciary committee calling the FBI in to answer some questions."
The FBI is part of the Executive branch.

Do you favor legislative oversight of the Executive branch?

---

asked an answered

---

Only by House Judiciary? I assume the Senate can initiate an investigation by a Senate committee.

I'll put you down as a "yes" on the question of legislative oversight of the executive branch.

So a House committee has the power to investigate Trump?

---

Objection, leading the witness

---

Objection, unresponsive

Look, you either believe Congress has the power to investigate or they don't