Don Jr& Fox Stars begged Meadows to tell Trump to stop riot

LOL, are you even paying attention?? This is NOT a criminal investigation.

 

Go read Meadow's attorney's filings. Refute my opinion that's want we do around here.

 

Of course it is the Dems are desperately looking to refer criminal acts for prosecution, a criminal conspiracy to overthrow the government. To "hold Trump accountable". There is no "legislative purpose here".

 

Unlike as with Trump, there is no plan there to overthrow the government.

 

Actually, it very much agrees with me. The Democrats Kangaroo court only has the 'force' of law by way of the subpoenas, note that not a single such individual has been charged with a crime otherwise. And the subpoenas are literally subjective(as seen in Garland's own press releases.) Given the blatant kangaroo court nature of this process, a real attorney general would have declined to use the power of the State to satisify Pelosi's fetish.

But we don't have a real AG. We have a stooge. We have everything people thought William Barr was.

 

What legislative purpose and since their charter expressly states they are not allowed to go into and write up legislation........

 

What unlike Trump where there was no plan to overthrow the government?

 

Source? And are you seriously going to tell me you can't see a legislative purpose in looking into this? Really? You can't even conceive of it? You can't understand why our legislators would have an interest in our election laws and how they may have been circumvented?

 

That is not what you said. You said that Congress does not have subpoena powers in a criminal investigation. You were then shown that what is currently happening now is a LEGISLATIVE investigation. I don't care what your opinions are regarding it.

Just admit that you are wrong and you are just ultimately sad that your boy is being shown to be even more of an ******* than we all know he is.

 

Read the Eastman memo. The plan was to ignore the elections and have Trump installed as an unelected leader. Which you and your ilk are fine with.

 

A lawyer's filing is not a court ruling, it's whatever the attorney thinks will work even if it's just to delay the inevitable.

 

Sorry, you are wrong. The Rule of Law says so. As for stooges, Barr went as far on the plank as he could without jumping.

 

His filing states the LEGAL reasonings and court cases. But here since you will not do your own research so you can be prepared to discuss it.

"According to the committee’s own enabling resolution, which was passed by the House of Representatives in June of 2021, the purpose of the committee is purely investigatory. None of the three stated purposes mention legislation a single time. Instead, the language of the enabling resolution states that the purpose of the committee is to “investigate and report” the facts surrounding the January 6 riot, “examine” evidence collected, and to “build upon” other investigations.

The three stated functions of the committee, per the resolution, are to “investigate the facts” surrounding the riot, “identify” lessons learned, and “issue a final report” on the committee’s investigation. Not only does the enabling resolution not provide any legislative goals for the committee, it explicitly bans the committee from marking up any legislation whatsoever."
https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/2...-major-court-battle-over-executive-privilege/

As I have cited Congressional subpoenas must be for LEGISLATIVE purposes.

"....may wonder whether Congress had authority to issue that subpoena. Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court shed light on that question in its decision in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, Nos. 19-715 & 19-760.

The Court’s Decision After describing the history of how subpoena-based disputes between Congress and various presidents have been resolved, the Court discussed the basis for—and limits to—Congress’s subpoena power. Specifically, the Court affirmed that Congress’s subpoena power cannot be used for law enforcement purposes. In other words, Congress cannot use its subpoena authority to put someone on trial for a crime or wrongdoing, nor does Congress have the “power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Slip Op. at 12. Indeed, the Court confirmed that congressional investigations used solely to “punish” those investigated would be “indefensible.” Not only that, the Court reinforced the limitations to the subpoena power, including that the subpoena must serve a “valid legislative purpose,” and is proper only if it is “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress.” Slip Op. at 11. In addition, the Court reaffirmed that those subject to a congressional subpoena have both constitutional and common law privileges—including attorney-client privilege—against the subpoena."
https://jenner.com/system/assets/pu...s_Congressional_Subpoena_Power.pdf?1594417043

I got the law and I got precedent what do you have other that partisan wishful thinking?

 

Sure it was a legal memo, as when you ask your lawyer what are ALL the avenues that MIGHT be pursued, on a PROPOSED legal avenue, stating that the premise upon which it is based is unconstitutional, which was not pursued, so what? And it would not have been an "overthrow" of the government, the government of the United States would have still been in standing he believed he had legal standing to challenge and what is proposed in the draft memo is a CONGRESSIONAL PROCESS to have the electors in some states recertified.

It was not very sound reasoning and went no where but he had every right and still retains to have had the right to discuss any and all possible scenarios with his legal team.

Perhaps you don't realize the higher issue here. Who leaked the private and confidentially and legally protected document.

 

I said they do not have the authority to CONDUCT criminal investigations let alone issue subpoenas to engage in a criminal investigation. I just showed you that their charter says NOTHING about a legislative purposed and in fact prohibits them from proposing and legislation. Msg #288. That's not opinion, now refute it with something other than your opinion.

Do you believe Congress is above the law and the Constitution and the rights of the citizens?

 

This is what the WH pressured Pence to do. I'm sorry that you don't think that it is a "high issue" for someone to LITERALLY try to reverse an election, but I do. And, no, if you had bothered to read the memo (which you never will), it had nothing to do with "some states" getting "recertified." Please read the actual memo. It isn't long. They wanted to outright disqualify the ENTIRE VOTES of FIVE STATES. RIGHT THEN AND THERE. And DETERMINE THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT THEM.

 

#288

What legislative purpose are you claiming even though their charters says otherwise? What needs to be legislated that requires these constitutionally protect documents? What legislative process requires these private records of these citizens? And be specific.

 

Trump couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the directions were on the heel!

 

Pence said nope about and that was it. Trump believe HE WON THE ELECTION, he wasn't in his mind trying to "overthrow" the government. The memo was about a CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDURE, that under that view of the law especially the The Electoral Vote Law there was a procedure, at the same time noting that that law was probably unconstitutional too. It went no where but this is just one example of why there is executive privilege and attorney client privilege because such draft memos of possibilities that don't have a chance of coming to fruition get blown out of proportion.

Perhaps you don't realize the higher issue here. Who leaked the private and confidentially and legally protected document.

 

Pence said nope after they tried many attempts to pressure him. Then Trump criticized him for failing to overturn the election while his followers read those tweets over megaphones and chanted for his death. Trump has never forgiven Pence for choosing the Constitution over him, and he never will. I realize you don't care that your beaux tried to overturn the election. I do. I actually kind of like those election things and think they should choose our Presidents instead of unconstitutional bull **** like this.

Perhaps you don't realize that the Constitution actually matters here. You are more concerned that the attacks on the Constitution have been revealed.

 

No factual evidence, no investigation.

 

Yet you want endless investigations into the election without any evidence at all, and you are okay with Trump trying to cancel millions of votes without any evidence. Weird how that works, huh?

 

I said a provisional ballot (or a remote ballot) couldn't be validated w/o said ballot being painstakingly examined by members of both parties. To my knowledge, no remote ballots in the 2020 election were painstakingly examined to determine their authenticity

 

What ballots were not examined by both parties? How did you validate such ballots? You can eyeroll emoji all you want, but it would be a lot cooler if you could discuss facts. Is that too much to ask for?

 

Trump had lunch with the proposals of what would be according to Trump's lawyer a POSSIBLE and LEGAL means was discussed and Pence said no. It went nowhere. I don't believe the the process would have been constitutional. That doesn't mean Trump was trying to overthrow the government anymore than when Gore was trying to change the outcome of the 2000 election with his twisted legal reasonings.