Dithering GOP Stalls House’s New Trump-Russia Probe

[Sampson Simpson]

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"?

Yeah, I'm at the point of **** them, every last right wing asshole hypocrite, to hell with them. They have zero credibility and I hope the country as we move forward run right over these assholes

 

[apdst]

Ahhh the GOPs new go to excuse...

Are you ssying you want to prosecute people for non-crimes? :lamo

 

[ludin]

Please Republicans have not given up on Benghazi after eight or nine Republican led investigations that proved no fault.

And you expect Democrats to accept the findings of Nunes and the like.

Stop kidding around..

again 2 house and senate investigations statements by democrats on both committee's stating there was no evidence of anything.
mueller has not turned up 1 single shred of evidence in 2 years. statements from both the FBI and the CIA.

we have cover up after coverup at the highest levels of the FBI. the organization that is supposed to uphold the law.
we have agents plotting and corrupting investigations and nothing done to them.

the entire basis for the warrants to begin with we know were made up and were lied about to a judge no less.
none of the information was verified to be true or accurate.

again the whole thing was a farce from the beginning to try and unseat a duly elected president.
I don't care if you like trump or not. the fact is that government agencies shouldn't be planning coup's on the people's pick of president
and that is clearly what is going on here.

 

[Vern]

again 2 house and senate investigations statements by democrats on both committee's stating there was no evidence of anything.

really? I'm pretty sure "trump stooge 1's" committee report was roundly criticized. And he was already a documented liar where trump was concerned.

All nine Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a scathing and lengthy statement calling the memo incomplete, saying it misrepresents the counterintelligence investigation into Russia’s alleged 2016 election interference and purported links to the Trump campaign.

"The sole purpose of the Republican document is to circle the wagons around the White House and insulate the President," the Democrats wrote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/democrats-condemn-release-nunes-memo-n844146

I'm just not seeing the same thing as you. And some republicans didn't like it either.

mueller has not turned up 1 single shred of evidence in 2 years. statements from both the FBI and the CIA.

I'm guessing you have some "secret" definition of evidence or shred. I see this a lot in conservative responses. And of course the second sentence is incoherent. Which I also see a lot. You have a notion of something to cling to your narrative but it just doesn't translate to something others can understand. So instead of trying to figure out what you're saying, let me post evidence. Trump attacked nato exactly as predicted by the Steele Dossier.

"Parts of the dossier have been stood up and in places it looks prophetic. One Steele memo says the Kremlin was behind the hacking of DNC emails, claiming these were released via WikiLeaks for reasons of “plausible deniability”. In return, Trump agreed to “sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine” as a campaign issue and to raise “US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and eastern Europe” to deflect attention.
This is precisely what happened at the Republican National Convention last July, when language on the US’s commitment to Ukraine was mysteriously softened. Meanwhile, in a series of tweets, Trump questioned whether US allies were paying enough into Nato coffers.
"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-about-alleged-links-between-trump-and-russia

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

Hmm...so the fact that the government has been closed for much of January has nothing to do with it? That there has been more important things on the menu has nothing to do with it?

 

[sangha]

Hmm...so the fact that the government has been closed for much of January has nothing to do with it? That there has been more important things on the menu has nothing to do with it?

Correct on both counts

 

[danarhea]

I have no idea. Could be legitimate reasons, could be that they are just going to drag their feet on everything the way the dems did when they were in the minority. Theres a special prosecutor out there, so don't worry. If there are crimes, he will find them

NOTE: He already has. 37 indictments so far, and a load of guilty pleas, including conspiracy against the US. And now Roger Stone. Next will be Randy Credico, Kushner, and Don Jr. Trump is now circling the wagons at Little Big Horn.

 

[Objective Voice]

It's interesting...

The party that claims to be for truth and justice is doing everything it can (from one chamber of Congress at least) to thwart truth and run afoul of seeing whether or not justice is ever served. I'm sure some would like to equate the stalling tactic being used here with Senate Democrats not voting to affirm many of Pres. Trump's nominees, but at least in that chamber each nominee went through "the process" of either voting to hold a hearing or voting down a nominee. In this case, House Republicans are simply refusing to appoint anyone to the House Intel Committee and that's just plain wrong. Do your duty, dammit! Fill the committee and let it do it's job even if one half doesn't agree with the findings.

 

[Fletch]

It's interesting...

The party that claims to be for truth and justice is doing everything it can (from one chamber of Congress at least) to thwart truth and run afoul of seeing whether or not justice is ever served. I'm sure some would like to equate the stalling tactic being used here with Senate Democrats not voting to affirm many of Pres. Trump's nominees, but at least in that chamber each nominee went through "the process" of either voting to hold a hearing or voting down a nominee. In this case, House Republicans are simply refusing to appoint anyone to the House Intel Committee and that's just plain wrong. Do your duty, dammit! Fill the committee and let it do it's job even if one half doesn't agree with the findings.

But it didnt bother you when democrats dropped the investigation into how the Obama Justice dept and the FBI handled things

 

[Fletch]

NOTE: He already has. 37 indictments so far, and a load of guilty pleas, including conspiracy against the US. And now Roger Stone. Next will be Randy Credico, Kushner, and Don Jr. Trump is now circling the wagons at Little Big Horn.

Number of people indicted for collusion with Russia => 0

 

[Objective Voice]

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.

bingo!

 

[Objective Voice]

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.

Really? No doubting you, but gotta link? I'm merely curious to read that House committee rule for myself.

 

[Objective Voice]

But it didnt bother you when democrats dropped the investigation into how the Obama Justice dept and the FBI handled things

Which investigation are you referring to?

Benghazi or Hillary's use of a private email server?

Personally, I stated in this forum that Hillary's use of a private email server was wrong and that she put classified information at risk. But without clear evidence that any classified information fell into enemy hands, the only thing Hillary was guilty of under the law was violating administrative procedures. No one's going to put her in jail for that. Hell, Gen. Patreaus did worse and only got probation and I highly respect the man!

 

[Vern]

But it didnt bother you when democrats dropped the investigation into how the Obama Justice dept and the FBI handled things

can you please explain what you're posting. And if you do, can you please back up whatever it is you're posting. If you have nothing and were just making stuff up, we'll understand if you don't reply.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

I'm starting to wonder if Russia doesn't have something on many of these republicans as well, especially McConnell

 

[Fletch]

Which investigation are you referring to?

Benghazi or Hillary's use of a private email server?

Personally, I stated in this forum that Hillary's use of a private email server was wrong and that she put classified information at risk. But without clear evidence that any classified information fell into enemy hands, the only thing Hillary was guilty of under the law was violating administrative procedures. No one's going to put her in jail for that. Hell, Gen. Patreaus did worse and only got probation and I highly respect the man!

Neither. The investigation the House was running into the FBI handling of the Dossier, the FISA warrant, Strzok/Page etc. If im not mistaken, the dems dropped that when they took over.

 

[Xelor]

Really? No doubting you, but gotta link? I'm merely curious to read that House committee rule for myself.

I spoke with a person involved with that select committee. The relevant rules are found in:

• H. Res. 6 of the 116th Congress, and because the verbiage of Section 102 uses the "amends 'this and that'" style, you'll also need the Rules of the 115th House of Representatives. The Rules of the 115th are also what you'll need to read because it's there that are found the rules about committee organization/formation.

What specifically is at issue is that the House biennially re-forms; thus every committee also begins afresh. A committee must have its complement of members in order to form because, obviously, a committee sans members is not a committee. Until the the committee is formed, it cannot conduct any business as a committee. Thus even though the Democrat members are named to the committee, because Republicans are not, the committee remains unformed.

• Note: To describe the extant procedural status, I've used the word "form." The official word the House uses in its rules is "organize." The 116th Congress' Permanent House Select Committee on Intelligence does not have rules as of my writing this post. Why not? Because the committee hasn't been formed/organized.

One can conceptualize the committee's ability to commence its business roughly as one might a football team that has an offensive squad but no player on the defensive squad. The team exists, it's various support personnel -- medical staff, logistical staff, management personnel, etc. -- are in place and ready to go, but the team hasn't one player to put on the field when the team must play defense.

As I've expressed earlier in this thread, from what I've read in the Rules of the 115th, it seems as though the Speaker can summarily appoint people to committees.

 

[Objective Voice]

Neither. The investigation the House was running into the FBI handling of the Dossier, the FISA warrant, Strzok/Page etc. If im not mistaken, the dems dropped that when they took over.

I fail to see how that investigation would be relevant at this point considering House Republicans in the 115th Congress already ruled that the dossier wasn't what initiated the issuance of FISA warrants nor was it the basis of the FBI's Russia investigation. That honor goes to George Papadopolos.

Source:
1. TheHill.com. Republican led House Intelligence Committee.
2. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-...ut-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666)

So, it would make perfect sense that they'd end that investigation since the origins of the investigation was previously determined by the previous Congress...not to mention the opposing political party.

 

[Objective Voice]

I spoke with a person involved with that select committee. The relevant rules are found in:

• H. Res. 6 of the 116th Congress, and because the verbiage of Section 102 uses the "amends 'this and that'" style, you'll also need the Rules of the 115th House of Representatives. The Rules of the 115th are also what you'll need to read because it's there that are found the rules about committee organization/formation.

What specifically is at issue is that the House biennially re-forms; thus every committee also begins afresh. A committee must have its complement of members in order to form because, obviously, a committee sans members is not a committee. Until the the committee is formed, it cannot conduct any business as a committee. Thus even though the Democrat members are named to the committee, because Republicans are not, the committee remains unformed.

• Note: To describe the extant procedural status, I've used the word "form." The official word the House uses in its rules is "organize." The 116th Congress' Permanent House Select Committee on Intelligence does not have rules as of my writing this post. Why not? Because the committee hasn't been formed/organized.

One can conceptualize the committee's ability to commence its business roughly as one might a football team that has an offensive squad but no player on the defensive squad. The team exists, it's various support personnel -- medical staff, logistical staff, management personnel, etc. -- are in place and ready to go, but the team hasn't one player to put on the field when the team must play defense.

As I've expressed earlier in this thread, from what I've read in the Rules of the 115th, it seems as though the Speaker can summarily appoint people to committees.

I'll look into both. BTW, you linked to House Rules for 114th Congress, not 115th Congress. Fixed that for you...You're Welcome. :2wave:

 

[Somerville]

Hmm...so the fact that the government has been closed for much of January has nothing to do with it? That there has been more important things on the menu has nothing to do with it?

So the fact you are deflecting from the refusal of the Repubs to name members to the House Intelligence Committee is because you think/believe the shutdown is the reason. Why then have they managed to name members to all other committees?

 

[Xelor]

I'll look into both. BTW, you linked to House Rules for 114th Congress, not 115th Congress. Fixed that for you...You're Welcome. :2wave:

Apologies for the mistake.

 

[Mr Person]

Apologies for the mistake.

^
People need to do that more in general.

 

[Xelor]

^
People need to do that more in general.

Agree.

I think people don't do that more often because, unlike the mistake I made, theirs aren't honest mistakes. Another reason may be that folks' sense of self and self-respect is bound not in their humanity but in the nature and extent of their presumed perfection.

It's easy for me to "own" my mistakes because I don't deliberately, knowingly, etc. misrepresent things. The picture that is, is the picture I try to paint. "Warts and all," as the "old folks" say.

 

[Objective Voice]

Apologies for the mistake.

Not a problem my good man. Glad I could be of help. :mrgreen:

 

[Objective Voice]

Agree.

I think people don't do that more often because, unlike the mistake I made, theirs aren't honest mistakes. Another reason may be that folks' sense of self and self-respect is bound not in their humanity but in the nature and extent of their presumed perfection.

It's easy for me to "own" my mistakes because I don't deliberately, knowingly, etc. misrepresent things. The picture that is, is the picture I try to paint. "Warts and all," as the "old folks" say.

I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong. If I make a mistake or someone points out my error, I'll apologize, admit my mistake (depending on the severity) and move on. People here tend to get locked into their social and/or political positions and refuse to budge. I'm fine with saying, "I got it wrong...my bad." After all, we're all only human.