New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

should republicans testify?

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Now McCarthy has refused...not on any legal grounds...he just doesn't want to make trump look bad.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
Congressional oversight is now a thing of the past unlesss they start putting people in jail for not showing up.

So that leaves the executive and a court system that is sclerotic and takes months (if not years) to render a final verdict; often after the subjects of the law suits have left their government jobS.

sO Really there is no oversight of the executive branch. Absolute power corrupts absolutely...so get ready for a wild ride.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Congressional oversight is now a thing of the past unlesss they start putting people in jail for not showing up.

So that leaves the executive and a court system that is sclerotic and takes months (if not years) to render a final verdict; often after the subjects of the law suits have left their government jobS.

sO Really there is no oversight of the executive branch. Absolute power corrupts absolutely...so get ready for a wild ride.
Stunning isn't it? Terrorists attack the consulate in Benghazi and the republicans hold 8 investigations/hearings in an attempt to pin something on Hillary Clinton....they don't know what, but they're bound and determined to keep it in the headlines....

A president breaks the law by withholding a congressional appropriation and blocking the investigation...but that is ok.

The president invites a mob to DC for a "wild" rally. Motivates their anger with lies about the election. Convinces them that they need to stop the count by fighting like hell and still is not held to any kind of responsibility for it...

And now they argue that the investigation into that riot has no legislative purpose.
 
Last edited:

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
Stunning isn't it? Terrorists attack the consulate in Benghazi and the republicans hold 8 investigations/hearings in an attempt to pin something on Hillary Clinton....they don't know what, but they're bound and determined to keep it in the headlines....

A president breaks the law by withholding a congressional appropriation and blocking the investigation...but that is ok.

The president invites a mob to DC for a "wild" rally. Motivates their anger with lies about the election. Convinces them that they need to stop the count by fighting like hell and still is not held to any kind of responsibility for it...

And now they argue that the investigation into that riot has no legislative purpose.
===

Politics one thing. As distasteful as it is, we can understand why they want to turn the page; the leader of their party is responsible for an unprecedented attack on another branch of government...and they have been trying to downplay it ever since. What really disgusted me more than the naked politics of the situation was that last week--7 days ago--there was a moment of silence for the officers injured and killed in the attack. And they didn't show up. Not one mother f_ _ cker who was a republican showed up. If Antifa or the Feds were behind it...why would they not honor those injured or killed by the left? If it was "just another day" as some pretend...why not honor the injured and dead? So clearly they were lying about all of that Bull sh_ _ it too.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Now McCarthy has refused...not on any legal grounds...he just doesn't want to make trump look bad.
As much as these disgraceful Republicans whine about the January 6 Committee, they don’t even need the Committee to tell Americans what they know about what went down on January 6.

They could just tell the nation. Hold a press conference. But they don’t do that either. They know Trump, their lord and master, would come down on them if they told Americans what they know. So they willingly help him cover things up.

Deplorable!
 
Last edited:

reason10

Governor
Now McCarthy has refused...not on any legal grounds...he just doesn't want to make trump look bad.
There's nothing he could say that would make Trump look bad. After a little over a year of Bare Shelves Biden, right now Trump looks like God by comparison.

In any case, President Trump did nothing wrong on Jan 6. A peaceful assembly is provided by the United States Constitution .

Edited
 
Last edited by a moderator:

middleview

President
Supporting Member
There's nothing he could say that would make Trump look bad. After a little over a year of Bare Shelves Biden, right now Trump looks like God by comparison.

In any case, President Trump did nothing wrong on Jan 6. A peaceful assembly is provided by the United States Constitution .

Edited
140 cops needed medical attention it was so peaceful.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
There's nothing he could say that would make Trump look bad. After a little over a year of Bare Shelves Biden, right now Trump looks like God by comparison.

In any case, President Trump did nothing wrong on Jan 6. A peaceful assembly is provided by the United States Constitution .

Edited
It wasn't peaceful
 

Joe in Tulsa

Council Member
Now McCarthy has refused...not on any legal grounds...he just doesn't want to make trump look bad.
Did he say that, or are you just assuming? Maybe he refuses to be part of this bad joke. How many Republican picks are on the committee vs how many were supposed to be on it? It looks to me like there is no real republican representation, and the main criteria for being on the committee is rabid anti-Trumpism.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Did he say that, or are you just assuming? Maybe he refuses to be part of this bad joke. How many Republican picks are on the committee vs how many were supposed to be on it? It looks to me like there is no real republican representation, and the main criteria for being on the committee is rabid anti-Trumpism.

@middleview needs ask republicans Lawyers
rather than PJ members but remember there
is Nothing middle about his view it's all left.
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
Now McCarthy has refused...not on any legal grounds...he just doesn't want to make trump look bad.
Trump has said:
“If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"
“The mob takes the Fifth."

Translation for Republicans refusing to testify: if you're innocent, you'd testify. Not testifying = guilty.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Did he say that, or are you just assuming? Maybe he refuses to be part of this bad joke. How many Republican picks are on the committee vs how many were supposed to be on it? It looks to me like there is no real republican representation, and the main criteria for being on the committee is rabid anti-Trumpism.
Pelosi rejected two of the five McCarthy picks and for obvious reasons. McCarthy pulled the other three. Jordan isn't a conservative. He's just a loud mouthed Trumpist. He had no intention of participating in an investigation and you know it. He is now refusing to answer questions about his communication with Trump. If your best buddy were accused of a Crime and the court had reason to believe you had spoken on the phone with him during the Crime...you think you could refuse to testify?

Your main criteria for accepting that the members are republicans is blind support for Trump.
 

Joe in Tulsa

Council Member
Pelosi rejected two of the five McCarthy picks and for obvious reasons. McCarthy pulled the other three. Jordan isn't a conservative. He's just a loud mouthed Trumpist. He had no intention of participating in an investigation and you know it. He is now refusing to answer questions about his communication with Trump. If your best buddy were accused of a Crime and the court had reason to believe you had spoken on the phone with him during the Crime...you think you could refuse to testify?

Your main criteria for accepting that the members are republicans is blind support for Trump.
Pelosi rejected two of the five because they aren't rabid anti-Trumpers, like all the others on the committee. The republicans were supposed to pick 5 members, and they didn't get the 5, so I wouldn't give any support to this sham. I would object to a committee investigating Obama kicking out anyone that didn't agree with the KKK.
Is there anyone on the committee that didn't support the failed impeachments?
"Your main criteria for accepting that the members are republicans is blind support for Trump."
You're wrong, my criteria would have been to let republicans choose their members, and let the democrats choose their members. There is no legitimacy to the committee otherwise.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
Did he say that, or are you just assuming? Maybe he refuses to be part of this bad joke. How many Republican picks are on the committee vs how many were supposed to be on it? It looks to me like there is no real republican representation, and the main criteria for being on the committee is rabid anti-Trumpism.
The ones who were withdrawn by the GOP leadership are not on the committee. True.

When the GOP re-takes the House in 2022...it will have no standing to investigate anything Biden is doing....

And thus we end up with an unchecked executive. With Biden--an institutionalist--there is no real danger. When you have Trump...what will happen with no check? Everything will be referred to the courts and (again) thanks largely to Trump, the Supreme Court is now staffed by justices who believe in the concept of "super precedents"; a term that comes from hallowed antiquity right? No--it's been around since 1975. If you're scoring at home, that is the same year Saturday Night Live started--only this concept is funnier.

Justice Amy Comey Barrett subscribes to the theory of super precedents. For an explanation, the ABA writes;

A precedent should not be overruled just because it doesn’t fall on the super precedent list, Barrett said. It just means that the decision isn’t among the cases that no one questions anymore.

Barrett’s 2013 article listed these cases as super precedent:
Marbury v. Madison, upholding judicial review.
• Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, upholding Supreme Court review of state court judgments involving federal law.
Helvering v. Davis, upholding the Social Security Act.
• The legal tender cases, upholding the constitutionality of paper money.
Mapp v. Ohio, holding that the Fourth Amendment applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Brown v. Board of Education, holding the 14th Amendment bans the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools.
• The civil rights cases, holding that the 14th Amendment applies to state action rather than individual acts of discrimination.


I do love the "no one questions anymore" stipulation. Gee, what could change that? Oh yeah, a judicial nominee who does question it!

Anyway, these are the sages who will now be charged with oversight of the executive branch now that nobody is minding the store in Congress--by congressional decree! Its going to be a very dark future regarding executive power going forward. The only hope we have is for the American people to choose wisely...and about 1/2 of the population has ceased to believe in reality. Dark days are coming.
 

EatTheRich

President
Pelosi rejected two of the five McCarthy picks and for obvious reasons. McCarthy pulled the other three. Jordan isn't a conservative. He's just a loud mouthed Trumpist. He had no intention of participating in an investigation and you know it. He is now refusing to answer questions about his communication with Trump. If your best buddy were accused of a Crime and the court had reason to believe you had spoken on the phone with him during the Crime...you think you could refuse to testify?

Your main criteria for accepting that the members are republicans is blind support for Trump.
Yes, you can refuse to testify. It’s your Fifth Amendment right and McCarthy’s too!
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Pelosi rejected two of the five because they aren't rabid anti-Trumpers, like all the others on the committee. The republicans were supposed to pick 5 members, and they didn't get the 5, so I wouldn't give any support to this sham. I would object to a committee investigating Obama kicking out anyone that didn't agree with the KKK.
Is there anyone on the committee that didn't support the failed impeachments?
"Your main criteria for accepting that the members are republicans is blind support for Trump."
You're wrong, my criteria would have been to let republicans choose their members, and let the democrats choose their members. There is no legitimacy to the committee otherwise.
you need to look back at republican investigations of the past...one of which had 11 republicans and no dems.

Jordan is a rabid pro-Trumper.
Why did McConnell withdraw the other three? Is Cheney really a rabid anti-trumper? No.
Did you forget when McConnell blamed Trump for the riot?
 

sensible don

Governor
Supporting Member
It's ok, when the traitor starts talking, McCarthy and the rest of them will have much bigger problems. Wonder how long before that guy gives up the mailing list - if he already hasn't done it :)
maybe a few less posters on here - amiright?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
There's nothing he could say that would make Trump look bad. After a little over a year of Bare Shelves Biden, right now Trump looks like God by comparison.

In any case, President Trump did nothing wrong on Jan 6. A peaceful assembly is provided by the United States Constitution .

Edited
You mean there is nothing he could say that would make Trump look worse.
You asked for proof that Trump thought the British had an airforce in 1775. He also thought Ft McHenry was around during the revolutionary war.

 
Top