The 01-06-21 Select Committee Thread

[WhatTheBuck 28725]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

There's been a spotlight ON this?

Yeah, the folks who should be paying attention stopped paying attention long ago and the news outlets in their sheltered little bubble aren’t covering it. They’re busy defending Putin’s war on Ukraine. Meanwhile Russia’s assault on the steel plant in Mariupol increases while Republican political ads on the broadcast networks criticize Biden for not doing enough to support Ukraine.

The game is plain to see.

[Sawbonz 27460]

 

[Thrawn 538]

Seems to be quite the shit list, figuratively and literally.

[Satchel 6910]

8 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

 

If Democrats fail to enforce these subpoenas, there will be grounds for everybody to ignore them: Here are the options for making them comply:

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45653.html

Congress gathers much of the information necessary to oversee the implementation of existing laws or to evaluate whether new laws are necessary from the executive branch. While executive branch officials comply with most congressional requests for information, there are times when the executive branch chooses to resist disclosure. 

When Congress finds an inquiry blocked by the withholding of information by the executive branch, or where the traditional process of negotiation and accommodation is inappropriate or unavailing, a subpoena—either for testimony or documents—may be used to compel compliance with congressional demands. The recipient of a duly issued and valid congressional subpoena has a legal obligation to comply, absent a valid and overriding privilege or other legal justification. But the subpoena is only as effective as the means by which it may be enforced. Without a process by which Congress can coerce compliance or deter non-compliance, the subpoena would be reduced to a formalized request rather than a constitutionally based demand for information. 

Congress currently employs an ad hoc combination of methods to combat non-compliance with subpoenas. The two predominant methods rely on the authority and participation of another branch of government. First, the criminal contempt statute permits a single house of Congress to certify a contempt citation to the executive branch for the criminal prosecution of an individual who has willfully refused to comply with a committee subpoena. Once the contempt citation is received, any prosecution lies within the control of the executive branch. Second, Congress may try to enforce a subpoena by seeking a civil judgment declaring that the recipient is legally obligated to comply. This process of civil enforcement relies on the help of the courts to enforce congressional demands. 

But these mechanisms do not always ensure congressional access to requested information. Recent controversies could be interpreted to suggest that the existing mechanisms are at times inadequate—particularly in the instance that enforcement is necessary to respond to a current or former executive branch official who has refused to comply with a subpoena. There would appear to be several ways in which Congress could alter its approach to enforcing committee subpoenas issued to executive branch officials. These alternatives include the enactment of laws that would expedite judicial consideration of subpoena-enforcement lawsuits filed by either house of Congress; the establishment of an independent office charged with enforcing the criminal contempt of Congress statute; or the creation of an automatic consequence, such as a withholding of appropriated funds, triggered by the approval of a contempt citation. In addition, either the House or Senate could consider acting on internal rules of procedure to revive the long-dormant inherent contempt power as a way to enforce subpoenas issued to executive branch officials. Yet, because of the institutional prerogatives that are often implicated in inter-branch oversight disputes, some of these proposals may raise constitutional concerns.

[Dutchrudder 11125]

On 5/2/2022 at 2:40 PM, RomaVicta said:

Hoping the enthusiastically supported traitors will be punished by voters is far more vain than betting on law enforcement. I don't think the mentality that leads to people racing to post "nothing will happen" is a very healthy one. Justice is about the only viable way to head off the end of the republic. 

Beating down the expectations of the knowledgeable opposition is part of Putin's strategy for destroying Western democracy. Seed hoplessness and cynicism everywhere. It doesn't need the reinforcement of idle predictions of same. I wonder if this is part of the sports mentality where fans/posters will declare something absolutely won't happen in the future. Idle forecasts from blind prophets.

 

 

 

So you're saying Brisket is a Russian plant???

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13557]

Accusation/confession eleventy billion

https://www.msn.com/en-US/news/politics/mccarthy-has-nowhere-to-run-after-jan--subpoena-ruling-kirschner/ar-AAXiFSN?ocid=sapphireappshare

""Look, my view on the committee has not changed," McCarthy said. "They're not conducting legitimate investigation. It seems as though they just want to go after their political opponents.""

McCarthy on Benghazi Investigation-

 

[WhatTheBuck 28725]

McCarthy’s hypocrisy is strong even by Republican standards.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13557]

10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

McCarthy’s hypocrisy is strong even by Republican standards.

It's not JUST that McCarthy was casually candid high-fiving himself while openly discussing the political aims of an investigation, it's the wildly different natures of the 2 investigations that illustrate the completely different yardsticks used to determine the legitimacy of an investigation in the heads of the GQP.

Investigation into Dem official to determine whether there was a dereliction of duty during a violent attack on American personnel overseas- legitimate

Investigation into how many Republicans planned and participated in a violent attack on the nation's capitol in an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after an election for the first time in our nation's history- illegitimate

[WhatTheBuck 28725]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

It's not JUST that McCarthy was casually candid high-fiving himself while openly discussing the political aims of an investigation, it's the wildly different natures of the 2 investigations that illustrate the completely different yardsticks used to determine the legitimacy of an investigation in the heads of the GQP.

Investigation into Dem official to determine whether there was a dereliction of duty during a violent attack on American personnel overseas- legitimate

Investigation into how many Republicans planned and participated in a violent attack on the nation's capitol in an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after an election for the first time in our nation's history- illegitimate

Except that the Benghazi investigations were purely politically motivated. There was no evidence that Hillary was to blame. Shit happens. Half a dozen investigations failed to find anything to pin on Hillary and then McCarthy bragged how it affected her polling numbers, thereby giving up the game. And Hillary showed up and testified when asked. The Republicans engage in political witch hunts and assume the Dems are as dirty as they are so they don’t show up, they obstruct and delay and blame the other side for acting the same way they do. Projection is a favorite tactic.

The investigation into the insurrection on Jan 6 is completely legitimate. In the aftermath, McCarthy went on the House floor and angrily declared that Trump bore responsibility. Then he realized that might make his political future untenable so he went down to Mar-a-Lago and kissed the ring. He subjugated himself before Trump and changed his story. This is the same guy we have on tape saying he thought Trump was getting paid by Russia. He’s as much of a spineless, duplicitous, hypocritical, purely political animal as I’ve ever seen. Power for power’s sake. That’s it. He stands for nothing else.

I mean, he’s certainly not alone. Ted Cruz is right there with him. That’s just the way of the current GOP. We could make a long list. But I don’t think anyone can point out a bigger weasel than McCarthy. 

[Brisketexan 104778]

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The investigation into the insurrection on Jan 6 is completely legitimate.

I disagree.

I think it's a complete waste of fucking time.  In response to a violent insurrection, which was the culmination of an open and proudly claimed conspiracy to overturn the results of a legal election, the only "legitimate" move would have been to arrest all the conspirators and hang them.  That's what literally every other country in the history of the world would have done.

We, on the other hand, think that "if we simply get the true facts in front of a bunch of people who have demonstrated that they actively reject all facts, they'll change their mind and get back on board the rule of law train."  We are going to stupid ourselves to extinction.

[WhatTheBuck 28725]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I disagree.

I think it's a complete waste of fucking time.  In response to a violent insurrection, which was the culmination of an open and proudly claimed conspiracy to overturn the results of a legal election, the only "legitimate" move would have been to arrest all the conspirators and hang them.  That's what literally every other country in the history of the world would have done.

We, on the other hand, think that "if we simply get the true facts in front of a bunch of people who have demonstrated that they actively reject all facts, they'll change their mind and get back on board the rule of law train."  We are going to stupid ourselves to extinction.

I think trying to find out the extent to which Republican lawmakers were involved in the planning and coordination of the violence, the extent to which they were engaged in a coup that had nothing to do with the violence, and the reasons for why hours went by before the National Guard was deployed to suppress the attack is completely legitimate. What were they supposed to do? Just say, “Fuck it, the Trumpers will succeed in obstructing justice again so why even bother?” It’s like with Trump’s two impeachments (should’ve been three...actually it should’ve been one and done but that’s beside the point.) Even though they knew they wouldn’t succeed in removing him, they couldn’t just sit there and do nothing. They had to act.

At least get shit on the record and maybe future generations will learn from the past. And let the traitors cement their legacies.

[Brisketexan 104778]

15 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What were they supposed to do? Just say, “Fuck it, the Trumpers will succeed in obstructing justice again so why even bother?” It’s like with Trump’s two impeachments (should’ve been three...actually it should’ve been one and done but that’s beside the point.) Even though they knew they wouldn’t succeed in removing him, they couldn’t just sit there and do nothing. They had to act.

At least get shit on the record and maybe future generations will learn from the past. And let the traitors cement their legacies.

Arrest them all.  The FBI isn't as weak as shit on warrants and subpoenas as Congress is.  Arrest them. Try them.  Convict them.  Toss them in a hole where they belong.

Failure to punish a violent insurrection guarantees a second, successful insurrection.  Anything less is wasted time and effort.  The enemy speaks only terms of pain and suffering.  So, start speaking their language.

[TwiceHorn 31348]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Arrest them all.  The FBI isn't as weak as shit on warrants and subpoenas as Congress is.  Arrest them. Try them.  Convict them.  Toss them in a hole where they belong.

Failure to punish a violent insurrection guarantees a second, successful insurrection.  Anything less is wasted time and effort.  The enemy speaks only terms of pain and suffering.  So, start speaking their language.

I mean, they arrested 800 of them.  Perhaps they weren't charged as you would have them charged, but there are no death penatly offenses for what they did.

And, I'm pretty sure the "best is yet to come."

Edited May 16, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104778]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I mean, they arrested 800 of them. 

Not the leaders.  Actual treasonous elected officials who helped organize and lead a violent attack aimed at decapitating our government.  We should have shot more of them -- MANY more of them -- on the day of the attack.  That's what you do with violent traitors -- you shoot them AS THEY ARE ATTACKING YOU.  It removes all ambiguity and doubt.  "I wasn't there!  I wasn't doing anything!"  Your bleeding corpse in the rotunda, hand wrapped around a club, says otherwise.

Half measures will be the death of us.  I promise you that.  Because the traitors aren't engaging in half measures.  They actually ARE violently attacking our republic.

[WhatTheBuck 28725]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Arrest them all.  The FBI isn't as weak as shit on warrants and subpoenas as Congress is.  Arrest them. Try them.  Convict them.  Toss them in a hole where they belong.

Failure to punish a violent insurrection guarantees a second, successful insurrection.  Anything less is wasted time and effort.  The enemy speaks only terms of pain and suffering.  So, start speaking their language.

Maybe if Biden had appointed someone other than Merrick Garland as AG then we’d jail everyone who ignores a subpoena the day after they refuse to testify. 

[pyrohornIII 4812]

I wonder if they would have pursued Brisket's plan how the rest of the country would have reacted?  I think there was some viable concern the whole thing would have erupted.  I think this course was chosen to give them enough rope to hang themselves.  

I keep thinking that all this will come out in about a 2 or 3 hour special news release, with enough footage from enough different culpable parties to make a serious impression.    Probably September?  

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13557]

8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Not the leaders.  Actual treasonous elected officials who helped organize and lead a violent attack aimed at decapitating our government.  We should have shot more of them -- MANY more of them -- on the day of the attack.  That's what you do with violent traitors -- you shoot them AS THEY ARE ATTACKING YOU.  It removes all ambiguity and doubt.  "I wasn't there!  I wasn't doing anything!"  Your bleeding corpse in the rotunda, hand wrapped around a club, says otherwise.

Half measures will be the death of us.  I promise you that.  Because the traitors aren't engaging in half measures.  They actually ARE violently attacking our republic.

 

[Satchel 6910]

 

[TwiceHorn 31348]

On 5/16/2022 at 9:42 AM, Brisketexan said:

Not the leaders.  Actual treasonous elected officials who helped organize and lead a violent attack aimed at decapitating our government.  We should have shot more of them -- MANY more of them -- on the day of the attack.  That's what you do with violent traitors -- you shoot them AS THEY ARE ATTACKING YOU.  It removes all ambiguity and doubt.  "I wasn't there!  I wasn't doing anything!"  Your bleeding corpse in the rotunda, hand wrapped around a club, says otherwise.

Half measures will be the death of us.  I promise you that.  Because the traitors aren't engaging in half measures.  They actually ARE violently attacking our republic.

Which leaders were those? I mean, we all have some damn good ideas who they were, but we don't know, know. 

Is rule of law and due process important or not? 

And, you entirely bypassed the inconvenient fact that US law doesn't seem to provide the death penalty for what they did. 

I love you man and respect your opinions, but I think this is off base. 

[TwiceHorn 31348]

On 5/16/2022 at 9:51 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

Maybe if Biden had appointed someone other than Merrick Garland as AG then we’d jail everyone who ignores a subpoena the day after they refuse to testify. 

What do you actually know about Merrick Garland that makes you think that he is treating this deal any differently tgan any other reasonable AG pick would have? 

[Brisketexan 104778]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Which leaders were those? I mean, we all have some damn good ideas who they were, but we don't know, know. 

Is rule of law and due process important or not? 

And, you entirely bypassed the inconvenient fact that US law doesn't seem to provide the death penalty for what they did. 

I love you man and respect your opinions, but I think this is off base. 

Should have been more clear.  I want the rule of law to go after the treasonous leaders who actually helped conspire and bring about an attack to violently overthrow our government.  Full investigations, all records, and no-punches-pulled prosecution.  They should face the harshest of legal penalties.

As to the "we should have shot more of them," I'm referring to the violent attackers who were actively attacking the defenders of the Capitol so they could penetrate the space and harm government officials.  Every goddamn one of those fuckers in the actual chambers carrying zip-cuffs should have been dropped cold, if we'd had the firepower.  That ain't the death penalty -- shooting a violent attacker in the act of their crime isn't a penalty at all.  It's self-defense.  In this case, self-defense of the entire goddamned Republic.

 

[WhatTheBuck 28725]

52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What do you actually know about Merrick Garland that makes you think that he is treating this deal any differently tgan any other reasonable AG pick would have? 

Nothing other than as a layperson I get the impression he would make a better judge than he seems to be as an investigator and prosecutor. I don’t think that’s a novel observation. 

[Bullneck 19029]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

 

So, Garland is actually doing something?

[TwiceHorn 31348]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Nothing other than as a layperson I get the impression he would make a better judge than he seems to be as an investigator and prosecutor. I don’t think that’s a novel observation. 

See, I tend to believe all of this is pessimistic speculation.  Are there grounds for pessmism, sure.  But let's not go making stuff up.

Garland has a pretty good record as a prosecutor and led the team that convicted McVeigh.

I think he's old school in the sense that he's not going to indulge in political spectacle-making, even if that spectacle is righteous.

I am somewhat concerned that the Biden administration declines to prosecute for reasons other than the likelihood of conviction/solidity of the case.  But there are signs that that won't happen, namely, the waiver of executive privilege with respect to "presidential records."  

[TwiceHorn 31348]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Should have been more clear.  I want the rule of law to go after the treasonous leaders who actually helped conspire and bring about an attack to violently overthrow our government.  Full investigations, all records, and no-punches-pulled prosecution.  They should face the harshest of legal penalties.

 

Don't disagree.  I think that's happening, though.  Although it appears that some are taking pleas and intend to reduce their sentences by cooperation, so that's probably going to be disappointing.  We'll see what happens with Rhodes et al.

Edited May 17, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Gil Bang 25903]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28725]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Garland has a pretty good record as a prosecutor and led the team that convicted McVeigh.

Was that really much of a challenge? (I was going to phrase it as “a tough nut to crack” but decided maybe that wasn’t the best idea.)  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33853]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

 

how should a dumb fuck like me interpret this?

[WhatTheBuck 28725]

12 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

how should a dumb fuck like me interpret this?

Parallel investigations impede justice?

[TwiceHorn 31348]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Was that really much of a challenge? (I was going to phrase it as “a tough nut to crack” but decided maybe that wasn’t the best idea.)  

A capital case is always a challenge.

[TwiceHorn 31348]

19 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Parallel investigations impede justice?

Ordinarily, I would probably agree with this.  Congress often can't get out of its own way on investigations.  I have been pretty impressed by the work of the Committee.

But this seems bullheaded.  I would have thought they were sharing work product like that all along.

[brakeman 28293]

March to save America guide map.

This piece of evidence was released today as part of a criminal complaint.

Bunch of God damn traitors!

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28725]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A capital case is always a challenge.

Did McVeigh ever deny that he did it?

[Satchel 6910]

Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., indicated Tuesday that his panel wasn't prepared to hand over the transcripts, while suggesting Justice Department officials could still view specific documents in person.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/doj-sends-letter-requesting-jan-6-committee-share-interview-transcript-rcna29321

Thompson told reporters that the committee was willing to talk to DOJ investigators but at this point “we can’t give them full access to our product.”

“That would be premature at this point, because we haven’t completed our work,” Thompson added.

It’s not unprecedented for Justice Department criminal investigations to lean on information unearthed by probes conducted by Congress, which has more leeway in its inquiries. The Justice Department can prosecute individuals charged with lying and obstructing congressional investigations.

Committee members have long been frustrated by what they say is the Justice Department’s focus on comparatively low-level actors who stormed the Capitol. One panel member, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has repeatedly faulted the department for not looking into the pressure that former President Donald Trump applied to Georgia officials who certified President Joe Biden’s victory in the state. Members have also chastised department officials for not acting more swiftly to prosecute some who have refused to comply with congressional subpoenas.

[Hookah Horns 3082]

On 5/16/2022 at 8:54 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

Except that the Benghazi investigations were purely politically motivated. There was no evidence that Hillary was to blame. Shit happens. Half a dozen investigations failed to find anything to pin on Hillary and then McCarthy bragged how it affected her polling numbers, thereby giving up the game. And Hillary showed up and testified when asked. The Republicans engage in political witch hunts and assume the Dems are as dirty as they are so they don’t show up, they obstruct and delay and blame the other side for acting the same way they do. Projection is a favorite tactic.

The investigation into the insurrection on Jan 6 is completely legitimate. In the aftermath, McCarthy went on the House floor and angrily declared that Trump bore responsibility. Then he realized that might make his political future untenable so he went down to Mar-a-Lago and kissed the ring. He subjugated himself before Trump and changed his story. This is the same guy we have on tape saying he thought Trump was getting paid by Russia. He’s as much of a spineless, duplicitous, hypocritical, purely political animal as I’ve ever seen. Power for power’s sake. That’s it. He stands for nothing else.

I mean, he’s certainly not alone. Ted Cruz is right there with him. That’s just the way of the current GOP. We could make a long list. But I don’t think anyone can point out a bigger weasel than McCarthy. 

Re: bolded. You think these ass clowns honestly believe, due to projection, that the Dems play dirty like them and that this committee is all about a political witch hunt? 

That's not the case at all, imo. No, they're fully aware the Dems are pussy cats who suck at this brand of politics, and that this committee is legit and obviously the right thing to do. They just don't give a fuck about what's right or true. All they care about is power. They know there's no way to defend what they've done, so they go back to their bread and butter: gaslighting those of us with even the slightest grasp of the facts, and muddying the water for the even bigger group without it, by a accusing the other side of their own misdeeds and craven motivations. 

[Hookah Horns 3082]

7 hours ago, Bullneck said:

So, Garland is actually doing something?

More like he kind of tried to but is getting the door slammed in his face by the committee for some dumbass reason. Work product? Seriously, what in the fuck is going on?

[Hookah Horns 3082]

4 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Parallel investigations impede justice?

That's not really the case here. The committee has already done like 95% of the investigation and DOJ just wants to see what fruit it's born. And it makes no goddamn sense at all to not share it when the ultimate goal (I thought?) has always been to collect the evidence and forward it to DOJ for prosecution. As far as I can tell, they just don't want their thunder stolen before they can wrap it up in a bow and get their time in the spotlight. Saying they don't want to share their "work product" is deeply regarded. 

[Hookah Horns 3082]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

A capital case is always a challenge.

Not sure I agree. Once they linked it to McVeigh and he started proudly spouting off about the crime and his motivations and lack of remorse, it was about as easy a case as you can get. Capital cases generally add a level of difficulty, but not a whole lot of difficulty when the crime is blowing up 168 civil servants and kids and injuring hundreds more. 

It'd have been pretty hard to fuck that one up as a prosecutor. 

[Bullneck 19029]

3 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

That's not really the case here. The committee has already done like 95% of the investigation and DOJ just wants to see what fruit it's born. And it makes no goddamn sense at all to not share it when the ultimate goal (I thought?) has always been to collect the evidence and forward it to DOJ for prosecution. As far as I can tell, they just don't want their thunder stolen before they can wrap it up in a bow and get their time in the spotlight. Saying they don't want to share their "work product" is deeply regarded. 

The J6 committee said they would be done in summer, I thought?  Maybe they have a few more items to cross of their list.  If the House goes red after the midterms I'm sure the Republicans would vote to have all files deleted or thrown in the Potomac.  Biden will be impeached shortly thereafter, as will Harris.  So, President McCarthy?

I'm guessing all records will be turned over before then.

[TwiceHorn 31348]

4 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

Not sure I agree. Once they linked it to McVeigh and he started proudly spouting off about the crime and his motivations and lack of remorse, it was about as easy a case as you can get. Capital cases generally add a level of difficulty, but not a whole lot of difficulty when the crime is blowing up 168 civil servants and kids and injuring hundreds more. 

It'd have been pretty hard to fuck that one up as a prosecutor. 

The penalty phase is always a challenge.  First, you have the decision to seek the death penalty, which requires some fortitude.  Then the evidence and trial of the phase is always tricky.

Edited May 18, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Bama Chick 28596]

Nothing other than as a layperson I get the impression he would make a better judge than he seems to be as an investigator and prosecutor. I don’t think that’s a novel observation. 

Shoulda been Doug Jones.

[Fudge Nuggets 19164]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Garland has a pretty good record as a prosecutor and led the team that convicted McVeigh.

Is that really something to brag about?  I could have convicted McVeigh.

[Macanudo 12945]

10 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Is that really something to brag about?  I could have convicted McVeigh.

Hell, even Brisket could have done that.

[WhatTheBuck 28725]

13 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Hell, even Brisket could have done that.

That’s cold. You just lost your seat on the ledge, buddy.  

[DigglerontheHoof 21094]

14 hours ago, Bullneck said:

So, Garland is actually doing something?

By the time he gets around to actually doing something, dotard will be potus again.

[DigglerontheHoof 21094]

13 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

But….of course.

[wildcat09 29300]

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ordinarily, I would probably agree with this.  Congress often can't get out of its own way on investigations.  I have been pretty impressed by the work of the Committee.

But this seems bullheaded.  I would have thought they were sharing work product like that all along.

This seems like a pissy response to how slow the DOJ has been at acting on the committee's referrals.

[Hookah Horns 3082]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

See, I tend to believe all of this is pessimistic speculation.  Are there grounds for pessmism, sure.  But let's not go making stuff up.

Garland has a pretty good record as a prosecutor and led the team that convicted McVeigh.

I think he's old school in the sense that he's not going to indulge in political spectacle-making, even if that spectacle is righteous.

I am somewhat concerned that the Biden administration declines to prosecute for reasons other than the likelihood of conviction/solidity of the case.  But there are signs that that won't happen, namely, the waiver of executive privilege with respect to "presidential records."  

There's no excuse for not prosecuting the contempt referrals. Dereliction of duty in my book. Not only because those assholes belong in jail, but also because it makes the J6C's job a hell of a lot harder when you refuse to enforce their subpoena power in the middle of a fucking insurrection investigation. 

Edited May 18, 2022 by Hookah Horns

[jimmyjazz 45620]

7 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

It'd have been pretty hard to fuck that one up as a prosecutor. 

[TwiceHorn 31348]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This seems like a pissy response to how slow the DOJ has been at acting on the committee's referrals.

Could be.  I think the fact that Meadows, Scavino, and Navarro were actual executive branch officials while Bannon was not complicates those prosecutions.  Should DOJ prosecute even with a high likelihood of acquittal?