Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8945 total)
412 online now:
Faith, JonF, PaulK, Theodoric (4 members, 408 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Happy Birthday: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,633 Year: 20,669/19,786 Month: 1,066/2,023 Week: 17/557 Day: 17/101 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why hasn't the FBI taken the 24 Republican Congressmen into custody?
jar
Member
Posts: 31646
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 1 of 123 (865396)
10-24-2019 9:59 AM


Yesterday 24 Republican Members of the House committed acts of espionage and perhaps treason by forcing their way into an area from which they were barred under US House Rules.

The breaking was recorded and reported yet so far the FBI has not taken any actions against the offenders.

Why are these people being treated differently than any other government employee who violated security and exposed US secrets?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AZPaul3, posted 10-24-2019 11:14 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 3 by 1.61803, posted 10-24-2019 11:38 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 10-24-2019 8:32 PM jar has responded
 Message 19 by dwise1, posted 10-25-2019 8:08 PM jar has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4740
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 2 of 123 (865398)
10-24-2019 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
10-24-2019 9:59 AM


House Rules
No one outside the chamber, especially the Executive Branch, has jurisdiction over violations of House rules. Only the House's disciplinary committees. Article 1, sec 5 & 6.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 10-24-2019 9:59 AM jar has not yet responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2925
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 3 of 123 (865399)
10-24-2019 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
10-24-2019 9:59 AM


I can not even imagine if the tables were turned and the Dems did some crap like this. The GOP would be screaming treason!!!!

Edited by 1.61803, : add GOP


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 10-24-2019 9:59 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33699
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 4 of 123 (865421)
10-24-2019 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
10-24-2019 9:59 AM


Oh what House Rules might those be that exclude the participation of other House members from an inquiry into impeaching the President?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 10-24-2019 9:59 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 10-24-2019 8:39 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 6 by DrJones*, posted 10-24-2019 9:34 PM Faith has responded
 Message 12 by AZPaul3, posted 10-25-2019 4:18 AM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31646
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 5 of 123 (865422)
10-24-2019 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
10-24-2019 8:32 PM


The one that said it was only open to members from specific oversight committees.

It's clear evidence that at least 24 Republican Congressmen are so ******** they do not know their own rules or more likely, are simply beyond the realm of reality based decision making.

They are Classic Trump material, deplorable.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 10-24-2019 8:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1988
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(2)
Message 6 of 123 (865424)
10-24-2019 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
10-24-2019 8:32 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 10-24-2019 8:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 10-24-2019 11:45 PM DrJones* has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33699
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 7 of 123 (865425)
10-24-2019 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by DrJones*
10-24-2019 9:34 PM


Interesting you don't actually quote the rule.

However, no impeachment was ever conducted this way.

We know why they are doing it this way, of course. The people they are interviewing are not saying what they want to hear, far from it, and they don't want that to get out. They are looking for someone who can say something against Trump they can run with. Since they are good at inventing such claims out of a few words they may be able to pull it off. But so far they had this guy Taylor whose testimony seemed promising but Ratcliff ripped that all to shreds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by DrJones*, posted 10-24-2019 9:34 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by DrJones*, posted 10-25-2019 12:08 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2019 12:37 AM Faith has responded
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 10-25-2019 11:14 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1988
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(3)
Message 8 of 123 (865427)
10-25-2019 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
10-24-2019 11:45 PM


Interesting you don't actually quote the rule.

interesting that you are unable to show where Judge Napolitano said something that was factually incorrect.

However, no impeachment was ever conducted this way.

and this one is, and is being held consistent with the rules.

We know why they are doing it this way, of course.

yes to prevent other witnesses from altering their testimony in response to previous witnesses. The grand jury portion of a trial is always held behind closed doors.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 10-24-2019 11:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15565
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 9 of 123 (865428)
10-25-2019 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
10-24-2019 11:45 PM


quote:
We know why they are doing it this way, of course.

I know, you don’t. It’s because they are dealing with material that may be highly classified. Hence the House Intelligence Committee are conducting some interviews in a secure facility.
Message 3175

quote:
The people they are interviewing are not saying what they want to hear, far from it, and they don't want that to get out.

It’s a bipartisan committee. Are you asserting that all of them - including the Republicans - are out to get Trump ? On what evidence?

quote:
Since they are good at inventing such claims out of a few words they may be able to pull it off.

Oh, look Faith is trying to discredit the evidence by ***** as usual.

quote:
But so far they had this guy Taylor whose testimony seemed promising but Ratcliff ripped that all to shreds.

I very much doubt that. The evidence against Trump is pretty strong and all you do is try to pretend that it doesn’t exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 10-24-2019 11:45 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 10-25-2019 2:35 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33699
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 10 of 123 (865432)
10-25-2019 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
10-25-2019 12:37 AM


If they had any real evidence they'd be leaking it. Not much leaking going on here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2019 12:37 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2019 4:02 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 14 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-25-2019 1:29 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 15 by dwise1, posted 10-25-2019 5:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15565
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 11 of 123 (865433)
10-25-2019 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
10-25-2019 2:35 AM


quote:
If they had any real evidence they'd be leaking it. Not much leaking going on here.

The evidence we have is pretty convincing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 10-25-2019 2:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4740
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 12 of 123 (865435)
10-25-2019 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
10-24-2019 8:32 PM


The people they are interviewing are not saying what they want to hear, far from it, and they don't want that to get out.

Republicans on the oversight committees were part of the meeting invaded by their unauthorized colleagues.

The closed nature of the meeting was because sensitive intelligence information pertaining to Ukraine operations was being reviewed by the committees. Ukraine, you may recall, is a focus of allegations the committees are investigating.

Intelligence methods and operations are sensitive and not to be made public for obvious reasons. Those on the oversight committees have been vetted for security and have been approved for access to this level of sensitive intelligence information. Others have not been vetted.

This wasn't some super secret Democrat conspiracy meeting on impeachment. It was a bipartisan information gathering meeting.

The invasion of the meeting by unauthorized House Republicans was a publicity stunt that embarrassed the nation, the House and the authorized Republicans attending the meeting. But it played to the Trump faithful, like yourself, who don't care about the details only the appearance.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 10-24-2019 8:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 10-25-2019 6:38 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8163
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 13 of 123 (865442)
10-25-2019 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
10-24-2019 11:45 PM


Faith writes:

We know why they are doing it this way, of course. The people they are interviewing are not saying what they want to hear, far from it, and they don't want that to get out.

If that were so, Republicans would be leaking it. They aren't. Also, if they are going to use these witnesses in an impeachment trial in the Senate then the testimony will have to be public. Also, Democrats are going to have public testimony after the initial depositions, and they have even committed to releasing transcripts of the private testimony.

They are looking for someone who can say something against Trump they can run with. Since they are good at inventing such claims out of a few words they may be able to pull it off. But so far they had this guy Taylor whose testimony seemed promising but Ratcliff ripped that all to shreds.

Thankfully, your fantasy world is going to have meet reality when the public phase of the inquiry starts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 10-24-2019 11:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 522
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 123 (865461)
10-25-2019 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
10-25-2019 2:35 AM


Why aren't these reps leaking?
Republicans on House Intelligence Committee

• Devin Nunes, California, Ranking Member
• Mike Conaway, Texas
• Mike Turner, Ohio
• Brad Wenstrup, Ohio
• Chris Stewart, Utah
• Rick Crawford, Arkansas
• Elise Stefanik, New York
• Will Hurd, Texas
• John Ratcliffe, Texas

Remember Devin Nunes? He’s Trump’s nanny cam into all house proceedings!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 10-25-2019 2:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 15 of 123 (865487)
10-25-2019 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
10-25-2019 2:35 AM


Re: Why aren't these reps leaking?
As AnswersInGenitals points out in Message 14, there are Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee, eight of them (and he lists them). So why haven't they leaked anything yet? In addition there are another 17 Republicans in the House Judicial Committee (one Republican, John Ratcliffe of Texas, is in both committees). There are also many Republicans in the other House committees, such as the House Oversight Committee.

Those Republicans in those committees have been present for closed-door hearings and have been able to hear all testimony delivered plus they had the same access to the witnesses for questioning as the Democrat members had.

Therefore, all the Republican complaints that the Democrats are locking them out and keeping that evidence and testimony secret from them are nothing more than outright lyes!

If [the Democrats] had any real evidence they'd be leaking it. Not much leaking going on here.

This subtopic title bears repeating and real consideration.

The Republican committee members, having full access to all that testimony and evidence, are very oddly quiet. If there were any actual problems with the witnesses, evidence, or testimony (not having "any real evidence" as you put it), then we should have heard leaks about it from those Republican members. Nothing. If there were any evidence that would exonerate Trump in any manner, then they should have leaked that as well. Nothing. In the corridor, reporters have repeatedly asked the Republican members for comment about the testimonies (something that they have been very free with in the past as they would complain loudly in defense of Trump). Nothing.

The Democrats have no need to leak anything, because they are collecting evidence (we are in that phase of the proceedings). The Republicans have every need to leak, yet they don't, not a peep.

Now, why would that be? Because the evidence is so clearly damning that there is no way the Republicans could possibly spin it in their favor?

And please note how AnswersInGenitals pointed out that Devin Nunes is on the House Intelligence Committee. Devin Nunes! You know, the same guy who made all those midnight visits to the White House to leak committee information to Trump. Devin Nunes leaks like a sieve with a huge hole in it! And we're not even getting any leaks from him!

Since they can find no support from the evidence, the Republicans have to resort to attacking the process as well as deflecting and diverting public attention. They're like creationists in that if they had any good arguments to present then they would, but they don't so all they have to present are really bad arguments and outright lyes.

 
At present we are in the investigative phase in which evidence and testimony is gathered. The main reason for doing that behind closed doors is the same as for a Grand Jury:

  1. To keep witnesses from collaborating with each other to "get their story straight". Rather, by taking each deposition separately, the committee/Grand Jury can get far better testimony as well as being able to find and examine discrepancies.

  2. To protect the reputation of the individual(s) being investigated. If the committee/Grand Jury arrives at the decision of not indicting, then any incriminating or unfavorable information about that individual will remain sealed.
    If instead all that had proceeded out in the public eye, innocent (ie, unindicted) people would have their reputations destroyed.

  3. They get far better testimony behind closed doors than in a public forum, because there is no motivation for anybody to grand-stand. There's no public to play to, so everybody can keep to the business of getting testimony.

I find that last one to ring particularly true. The description given of Republicans in these committees is that they are all business-like as they perform their committee duties in a professional manner -- basically what we would want to expect of our congressmen. But get them in a public hearing in front of the cameras and they go batshit. In all the public hearings that I've seen in this administration, the Democrats would direct their questions to the witness to the subject matter being testified about, whereas it seems that every single Republican would grand-stand with complaints about the process, etc, which matched the administrations BS lyes to the letter. IOW, all the Republicans would do would be to play their audience-of-one, Trump, to demonstrate their personal loyalty to him and the country be damned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 10-25-2019 2:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019