and now it begins, BREAKING: Review Into Origins of the Russia Investigation Is Now A Criminal Inquiry

[JimZipCode]

No! Stay! We enjoy your MediaMatters articles!

That DailyKos link on the previous page is going to have to tide you over.

[ravenmaniac4life]

That DailyKos link on the previous page is going to have to tide you over.

[blah3]

Yeah, that's bullshit. There has never been any such procedural requirement. Nothing in the House rules and nothing in the Constitution.

The full House did vote to authorize impeachment inquiries in the cases of Nixon & Clinton. They did not in the case of Andrew Johnson, I don't think (check me there).


It is doing precisely that.

No I'm sorry, that's imprecise. Instructing people not to comply with a subpoena is not "ignoring" it: they're certainly acknowledging the existence of those subpeonas, and responding to them. Just not cooperating with them. But "stonewalling" is not "Ignoring".

Current House rules give the committees subpoena power and other investigatory tools:

[ws?

So when the constitution says the House of Representatives, that means just the speaker of the house? Or speaker and committee chairs? Nope, it means the whole of the house.
Those rules are for legitimate oversight function, which this is clearly not. And before you ask why it’s clearly not, it’s plan as day because the house didn’t vote on an impeachment inquiry.



Now, I was mistaken about republicans not being allowed in, I should have said members of Congress (and quite honestly the press) not allowed in. But I’ll stand by banana republic inquiry, because behind closed doors for no good reason is where ‘trials’ take place there. Oh and only selective transcripts are allowed to be reviewed.

[steelerhater]

Such bullshit.


Hmm: but I guess I will agree with you that by contrast, the Trump administration looks like disorganized crime. These clowns generally seem like they couldn't organize a dog wash.

Let’s take a look at Obama’s Justice Department. I guess Loretta Lynch never met Bill Clinton on the tarmac and the next day pretty much ordered the investigation (I mean matter) into Hillary stopped. I guess Peter Strozk never sent those texts to Lisa Paige about the insurance plan in place if Trump won the election. I guess Andrew McCabe was being truthful about everything, even though the IG found otherwise. I guess it’s routine procedure during an investigation (matter) to allow evidence to be destroyed. I guess the FISA warrant was warranted under some kind of legal base. I could probably go on for hours.

[steelerhater]

Don´t you mean state crime? Since, according to you, Obama had his own Gestapo?

Not according to me - according to the actions of Lynch, McCabe, Comey, Strozk,...

[JimZipCode]

Let’s take a look at Obama’s Justice Department. I guess Loretta Lynch never met Bill Clinton on the tarmac and the next day pretty much ordered the investigation (I mean matter) into Hillary stopped. I guess Peter Strozk never sent those texts to Lisa Paige about the insurance plan in place if Trump won the election. I guess Andrew McCabe was being truthful about everything, even though the IG found otherwise. I guess it’s routine procedure during an investigation (matter) to allow evidence to be destroyed. I guess the FISA warrant was warranted under some kind of legal base. I could probably go on for hours.

No doubt you could go on for hours, repeating your "There must be smoke here somewhere!" mantra. But I applaud your restraint: you didn't shout "BENGHAZI!!!!" even one time. Well done.

Not sure you saw this table before, given the distracting irrelevancies I padded that post with. Here it is again:

Number of Individuals with Felonies by Presidential Administration (*as of 13 mos ago)

President	Yrs in ofc	#Indicted	#Convicted	#Imprisoned	#convicted-per-yr
Trump	< 2 *	7 [35]	6 [7]	5 [7]	3.5 [4.1]
Obama	8	0	0	0	0
Dubya	8	16	9	9	1.1
Bubba	8	3	2	2	0.25
HW	4	1	1	1	0.25
Ronnie	8	26	16	8	2
Carter	4	1	0	0	0
Ford	2.4	1	1	1	0.4
Nixon	5.6	76	55	15	9.8

*Data from last year, Trump had been in office less than two years.

On Trump's line, the numbers in clear are US citizens only; within brackets are the totals including foreign nationals.

[steelerhater]

No doubt you could go on for hours, repeating your "There must be smoke here somewhere!" mantra. But I applaud your restraint: you didn't shout "BENGHAZI!!!!" even one time. Well done.

Not sure you saw this table before, given the distracting irrelevancies I padded that post with. Here it is again:

Number of Individuals with Felonies by Presidential Administration (*as of 13 mos ago)

President	Yrs in ofc	#Indicted	#Convicted	#Imprisoned	#convicted-per-yr
Trump	< 2 *	7 [35]	6 [7]	5 [7]	3.5 [4.1]
Obama	8	0	0	0	0
Dubya	8	16	9	9	1.1
Bubba	8	3	2	2	0.25
HW	4	1	1	1	0.25
Ronnie	8	26	16	8	2
Carter	4	1	0	0	0
Ford	2.4	1	1	1	0.4
Nixon	5.6	76	55	15	9.8

*Data from last year, Trump had been in office less than two years.

On Trump's line, the numbers in clear are US citizens only; within brackets are the totals including foreign nationals.

Tough to get indictments when the Justice Department is in your back pocket. Are you denying all of the things I mentioned?

[JimZipCode]

Tough to get indictments when the Justice Department is in your back pocket.

And yet strikingly easy when your dealings are as corrupt and criminal as Trump's, and Nixon's.

What is your response to the objective measurement that finds Trump's administration to be the most criminal presidential administration since Nixon?



By the way, that number of indictments is actually just the number of individuals indicted. Not the number of counts on the indictments. That of course would be much, much higher.

[steelerhater]

And yet strikingly easy when your dealings are as corrupt and criminal as Trump's, and Nixon's.

What is your response to the objective measurement that finds Trump's administration to be the most criminal presidential administration since Nixon?



By the way, that number of indictments is actually just the number of individuals indicted. Not the number of counts on the indictments. That of course would be much, much higher.

Again, when the DOJ is stacked in favor of the left (proven) it’s not even debatable.

[JimZipCode]

Again, when the DOJ is stacked in favor of the left (proven) it’s not even debatable.

What is your response to the objective measurement that finds Trump's administration to be the MOST criminal presidential administration since Nixon?

(on a per-year basis)

We're talking about prosecutors and judges (and juries & grand juries) finding people guilty of actual crimes; or defendants taking plea deals.

[darb72]

What is your response to the objective measurement that finds Trump's administration to be the MOST criminal presidential administration since Nixon?

(on a per-year basis)

We're talking about prosecutors and judges (and juries & grand juries) finding people guilty of actual crimes; or defendants taking plea deals.

You mean like the plea deal Flynn took that we're not learning was a set-up by democrats in the FBI who altered evidence to make it look like a crime was committed? Those kind of plea deals?

[WrongBaldy]

Yeah, that's bullshit. There has never been any such procedural requirement. Nothing in the House rules and nothing in the Constitution.

The full House did vote to authorize impeachment inquiries in the cases of Nixon & Clinton. They did not in the case of Andrew Johnson, I don't think (check me there).


It is doing precisely that.

No I'm sorry, that's imprecise. Instructing people not to comply with a subpoena is not "ignoring" it: they're certainly acknowledging the existence of those subpeonas, and responding to them. Just not cooperating with them. But "stonewalling" is not "Ignoring".

Current House rules give the committees subpoena power and other investigatory tools:

116TH CONGRESS REGULATIONS FOR USE OF DEPOSITION AUTHORITY; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 16
(House of Representatives - January 25, 2019)
https://www.congress.gov/congression...rticle/H1216-2

The Trump administration is instructing people not to comply with normal legal Congresisonal subpeonas.


More lies. The full memberships of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight Committees are permitted to attend the closed hearings. That includes the 47 Republican members of those committees; also the two leaders (Majority & Minority) can attend at any time.

In fact, *13* of the lying hypocrite Republicans who staged their walk-in to sessions were members of the three committees and already entitled to attend:

Mo Brooks (R-AL)
Ken Buck (R-CO)
Mark Green (R-TN)
Jody Hice (R-GA)
Jim Jordan (R-OH)
Mark Meadows (R-NC)
Carol Miller (R-WV)
Ralph Norman (R-SC)
Scott Perry (R-PA)
Mark Walker (R-NC)
Steve Watkins (R-KS)
Ron Wright (R-TX)
Lee Zeldin (R-NY)

Some Repub committee members (Steve King R-IA, Duncan Hunter R-CA) have been disallowed because they're under indictment – stripped of their membership on those committees, if I'm not mistaken. But otherwise the full complement of Repub committee members is present (if they show up).

Oct. 16, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...732_story.html

Mark Meadows, quoted above describing in detail how the closed hearings have been conducted, is one of the lying hypocrite Repubs who staged the walk-in at the SCIF.


More lies. White House lawyers are not permitted to attend. But rule #3 from the Congressional Record linked above says:

3. Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by
personal, nongovernmental counsel to advise them of their
rights. Only members, committee staff designated by the chair
or ranking minority member, an official reporter, the
witness, and the witness's counsel are permitted to attend.
Observers or counsel for other persons, including counsel for
government agencies, may not attend.

I don't know which witnesses are or are not bringing attorneys. But they're all entitled.


Doing a quick cursory check of the allegations of "fact" you made in your post, it seems like you literally got every single one of them wrong. Let me guess: you watch Fox News?

hehe.