• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dithering GOP Stalls House’s New Trump-Russia Probe

WHY are House GOP leaders stalling on the appointment of members to the House Intelligence Committee? If the investigations into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia are such a nothing-burger, why not finish up the questioning? GOP Senators found there was collaboration, so why can't House members acknowledge it.



The GOP members have been clinging to the political life vest that is Trump since 2017; now they are seeking that like everything else about Trump, the life vest is meant for one, the rest of them are worried. Now they are seeing weakness, and wondering if, perhaps, their colleague Mueller might have something.

Further is the the matter of sweet politics, what the people perceive. If enough simply believe that Trump is a bad guy, and plaid tricks for cash, they are in trouble. Where lies and denials were greatly effective to date, likely not so anymore.

And so they are a house divided along at least two axis. While Republicans wonder which is worse, standing behind Trump and drowning with him, or break away and have him destroy you.

And all of them are watching that mass, what we call voters, with fear and loathing for the days ahead as either choice could be the end.

Meanwhile in the department of reality, the only one left standing is the Democrats with clearly defined policy they can successfully argue is about what's best for America as opposed to what a bad-tempered childish autocrat thinks he wants.

The best part? He's been brought down by women, especially Pelosi. Mr. Trump might want to reconsider his stand and that women serve a higher purpose than being grabbed and ogled him him.
 
They should stop bothering with the high road. Every time they take it, the GOP takes the low road, kicks them in the nuts, and runs away. There's no point in giving a dirty fighter the advantage gained by fighting dirty, at least not now.

It doesn't matter whether Dems follow precedent. The GOP breaks it every time it's to their advantage to do so.





What's the worst that will happen?

Ardent GOP supporters will say mean things about "liberals"?



I disagree. Trump just got handed his own head. He was forced to sign a deal identical to the one he said he would veto.

Wait, I believe we are about to see a split in the right, and many of them in full panic mode.

in the last Canadian election, where I served as a sometimes speech writer we were being pressured to meet the American-style hate campaign being wage by the conservatives who screamed "Trudeau wants to sell pot to your children. We were given guide lines for rebuttle, but not personal attacks. Stay on the high road.

The liberals went into the election in third place, with 21% support and outlined a spending package and NEVER once directly countered the ads attacking Trudeau

The liberals went on to win one of the greatest electoral upsets in parliamentary history, they lost seats in ones held by the Tories for a century; Canadians punished them for being rude.

This fight has been won by standing by the policies of the party as Pelosi has time and again made clear. But what is also becoming clear is that those who stay out of the **** tend to win.

If I were consulting the Republicans and wanted Trump in office in 2020 I would advise an about face and then race to the middle, steal every plank of the liberals hand book.
 
I disagree. Trump just got handed his own head. He was forced to sign a deal identical to the one he said he would veto.

Wait, I believe we are about to see a split in the right, and many of them in full panic mode.

in the last Canadian election, where I served as a sometimes speech writer we were being pressured to meet the American-style hate campaign being wage by the conservatives who screamed "Trudeau wants to sell pot to your children. We were given guide lines for rebuttle, but not personal attacks. Stay on the high road.

The liberals went into the election in third place, with 21% support and outlined a spending package and NEVER once directly countered the ads attacking Trudeau

The liberals went on to win one of the greatest electoral upsets in parliamentary history, they lost seats in ones held by the Tories for a century; Canadians punished them for being rude.

This fight has been won by standing by the policies of the party as Pelosi has time and again made clear. But what is also becoming clear is that those who stay out of the **** tend to win.

If I were consulting the Republicans and wanted Trump in office in 2020 I would advise an about face and then race to the middle, steal every plank of the liberals hand book.

I would be very happy to be proven wrong by what comes next.


The trouble seems to be that if they always take the high road, we should expect the future to be full of shenanigans like the ones they played in refusing to vote on Garland's nomination because a justice had not happened to need replacement in a little under a full year from the next election. They've gotten two justices when they should have had one. And that's an outcome that extends their arm over decades.

If the Dems can work out a way to succeed at a reasonable rate taking the high road, I would prefer that greatly. But I am also quite sick of shaking my head in disbelief when the GOP does some new slimey thing the Dems hadn't done to get an advantage, or when it does something the Dems have done but at a far higher rate, then gets away with it. It looks like a balance between acting on the principles one believes in, or taking actions that maintains those principles in law for others.
 
WHY are House GOP leaders stalling on the appointment of members to the House Intelligence Committee? If the investigations into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia are such a nothing-burger, why not finish up the questioning? GOP Senators found there was collaboration, so why can't House members acknowledge it.

Because Adam literally can't release the 115th Congress House Intel. Cmte's hearing transcripts to Mueller until a Republican is named to the committee.
 

I don't know beyond beyond being able to say that it's a House rule/procedural requirement that someone from both parties be on a committee before the committee in question can commence its business. I hazard the reason for the requirement is because someone from both parties must be party to whatever a committee does; the committee couldn't be said to be representative if that weren't so.
 
WHY are House GOP leaders stalling on the appointment of members to the House Intelligence Committee? If the investigations into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia are such a nothing-burger, why not finish up the questioning? GOP Senators found there was collaboration, so why can't House members acknowledge it.

Obstruction and a time proven McConnell tactic used in the House and the Senate.
\/
 
Just release them. It would set a precedent, but what's the downside compared to the GOP stalling release forever?
 
I don't know beyond beyond being able to say that it's a House rule/procedural requirement that someone from both parties be on a committee before the committee in question can commence its business. I hazard the reason for the requirement is because someone from both parties must be party to whatever a committee does; the committee couldn't be said to be representative if that weren't so.

So IOW, the House can change that rule by majority vote.
 
So IOW, the House can change that rule by majority vote.
If there be some "other words" for summarizing what I wrote, they aren't known to me and yours quoted above are none I'd utter as such.

I don't know what be the process that can alter that provision, nor do I know that any procedure can alter it.
 
Yes, but at this point we don't even know if Mueller's findings will be made public, or what part of them will be. So long as they don't jeopardize the investigation, the House still has an obligation to do their own investigation as part of their oversight role. The GOP did it with 87 hearings on Benghazi (I think...could be off on my count a bit), which was fully investigated by multiple executive branch agencies.
Shame there wasnt a special counsel appointed for Benghazi. Fact is there would have only needed to be 1 if the Clinton team and the corrupt Obama justice department hadnt ****ing lied their asses off, destroyed evidence,etc.

But none of that matters to you.
 
If there be some "other words" for summarizing what I wrote, they aren't known to me and yours quoted above are none I'd utter as such.

I don't know what be the process that can alter that provision, nor do I know that any procedure can alter it.
.....
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
 
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

The point of having committees staffed by both parties is to make sure the process is defined by bipartisanship. Who honestly believes that's a thing anymore?
 
Last edited:
Shame there wasnt a special counsel appointed for Benghazi. Fact is there would have only needed to be 1 if the Clinton team and the corrupt Obama justice department hadnt ****ing lied their asses off, destroyed evidence,etc.

But none of that matters to you.

There were 10 Congressional investigations into Clinton on Benghazi and the final report by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (GOP led , btw) ruled there was no cover up destruction of evidence, lying.
Considering the House and Senate were GOP majorities they had every opportunity to open any inquiry they wanted to, then why didn't they?
 
There were 10 Congressional investigations into Clinton on Benghazi and the final report by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (GOP led , btw) ruled there was no cover up destruction of evidence, lying.
Considering the House and Senate were GOP majorities they had every opportunity to open any inquiry they wanted to, then why didn't they?
10 and we still dont have the answers because Hillary sat there and lied, the FBI and JD covered her ass, and idiot leftists cheered them all on.
 
WHY are House GOP leaders stalling on the appointment of members to the House Intelligence Committee? If the investigations into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia are such a nothing-burger, why not finish up the questioning? GOP Senators found there was collaboration, so why can't House members acknowledge it.
Isn't there already an investigation on that very subject happening already. Does the name Mueller ring a bell?
 
10 and we still dont have the answers because Hillary sat there and lied, the FBI and JD covered her ass, and idiot leftists cheered them all on.

The GOP led House and Senate were inept? Incompetent? Stupid? Or were they lying?
 
I’ll bet Democrats feel sort of dumb for not trying this themselves, though even that would be missing the larger point. If Democrats tried pulling this stunt Republicans would have instantly voted to eliminate the requirement that a committee must be fully staffed before it can carry out its duties.

I hope Democratic congressmen are fully aware that one half of the reason we put them in office was to not take any more **** from republicans.

Problem is it isn't the party of the people and the party of wealth and power.

Its two competing teams of wealth and power.

The dems just have a slightly better philosophy as to the care and feeding of the livestock.

And I suspect that is just the money behind dems relies on American paychecks for their profits.

Eg, car insurance companies like for you to be able to afford a car.

The dems are a neoliberal corporatist party. Just less venal than the republicans.
 
Shame there wasnt a special counsel appointed for Benghazi. Fact is there would have only needed to be 1 if the Clinton team and the corrupt Obama justice department hadnt ****ing lied their asses off, destroyed evidence,etc.

But none of that matters to you.

For Benghazi? Okee dokee! Don't want to beat that bloody pulp of a horse in this thread.

It was an example, and of course you ignored the point and moved the goal posts. The point was the Congress has a legitimate role in oversight, independent of the executive branch. Just because DoJ through Mueller is investigating doesn't absolve Congress of their proper duty to investigate what happened.
 
Isn't there already an investigation on that very subject happening already. Does the name Mueller ring a bell?

If Mueller is already investigating whether anyone lied while testifying to the House Intelligence Committee, which super power of his is he using to see the testimony he has not yet been given?
 
Hating Trump and looking for an excuse to offload him yet being afraid of the voters.... we who have generally refused to give him up after daily doses of ANti-TRump propaganda designed to move us in the direction that our self appointed betters wish us to go....is a sticky situation.

The R's need to think about it.
 
WHY are House GOP leaders stalling on the appointment of members to the House Intelligence Committee? If the investigations into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia are such a nothing-burger, why not finish up the questioning? GOP Senators found there was collaboration, so why can't House members acknowledge it.

I see Treasury just lifted sanctions on Putin’s favorite oligarch. Yes, America. Your president is a puppet.

Dems should hold the hearings without Republicans. That will teach them.
 
For Benghazi? Okee dokee! Don't want to beat that bloody pulp of a horse in this thread.

It was an example, and of course you ignored the point and moved the goal posts. The point was the Congress has a legitimate role in oversight, independent of the executive branch. Just because DoJ through Mueller is investigating doesn't absolve Congress of their proper duty to investigate what happened.

Benghazi! E-mails! But....but....Hillary!
 
Back
Top Bottom