• 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!

How I would conduct hearing in Congress!

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,305
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think it is way too easy for those who come before Congress from both parties to lie, way to easy. If it were up to me I would simply have those who are going to testify attached to lie detector equipment and have each answer determined for the truth, a lie or undetermined. It would certainly be interesting to see what would happen if this were done. I would bet we would get more truth and even more 5th Amendment chants. Ii know it will never happen, but if I were in Congress I would certainly push for a law to make it legal. What do you think?
 
Congress and the the White are massive jokes on the citizens of America. It's all one huge bleeding sham.

Looks to me that I might be voting third party again.
 

I think your law is stupid.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Congress and the the White are massive jokes on the citizens of America. It's all one huge bleeding sham.

Looks to me that I might be voting third party again.
Click to expand...

Rethink that, vote for the ham sammich!
 
When did Congress become so lame as far as subpoenas and false/misleading testimony?

There seem to be no consequences in flipping them off, imo.

What does “contempt of Congress” mean?

TBH, I hold the bunch in contempt!
 

I honestly don’t understand how they are allowed to get away with it. Why not just have them held in contempt of Congress, and have them arrested by the Master-At-Arms?

Lewendowski can’t claim Executive Privilige, yet they continually just rolled over and took it up the ass.
 
Rexedgar said:
When did Congress become so lame as far as subpoenas and false/misleading testimony?

There seem to be no consequences in flipping them off, imo.

What does “contempt of Congress” mean?

TBH, I hold the bunch in contempt!
Click to expand...

Still no backbone in the Democratic Party. It's Wus Party just as it has always been.

It is shameful and every card carrying Democrat should be embarrassed, outraged and ashamed. But Democrats support a party of ******s otherwise they'd vote the current batch of wimps and frauds out of office. That's not going to happen. Democratic officeholders know that most Democratic voters will never demand real change or the door.

Progressives are not the same old tired party and I could support a progressive ticket. The establishment Democratic Party isn't going to allow progressives to come in and take over. Nope. Change would be too frightening for the Democrat Party just as growing balls and going after people who refuse to actually testify to Congressional committees. Challenge Democrats without fear. They have a long storied history of doing nothing when the **** gets thick.
 
Mycroft said:
I think your law is stupid.
Click to expand...

Why, because the truth would then be out for all of the country to see, hear and know. I think you like it much better when those who come before congress can lie. Why is that by the way?
 
Rexedgar said:
When did Congress become so lame as far as subpoenas and false/misleading testimony? There seem to be no consequences in flipping them off, imo. What does “contempt of Congress” mean? TBH, I hold the bunch in contempt!
Click to expand...
There is remedy, it's got to go to the courts. My understanding is it has/will, and the courts will decide whether or not the claims of executive privileged is legit. Our legal system moves slow...criminals move fast, it's always been the case.
 
Lewandowski pulled down his pants and showed Nadler his front and back-side, metaphorically speaking!

Not a fan of Trump, but I don’t see him losing 2020, at this stage anyway.
 
Mach said:
There is remedy, it's got to go to the courts. My understanding is it has/will, and the courts will decide whether or not the claims of executive privileged is legit. Our legal system moves slow...criminals move fast, it's always been the case.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t DOJ have to forward charges to the Judicial branch?
 
Rexedgar said:
Doesn’t DOJ have to forward charges to the Judicial branch?
Click to expand...

No idea. Your question was the first question sked by the host (Katy in this case) after the first break, apparently everyone is wondering the same.
The response from experts was that of course Lewandoski, who wasn't even employed by the government, cannot hide behind "executive privilege", but it's go to go to the courts for a ruling before he can be further compelled.
Nadler can't rule on it, just as a Republican nutter can't when they are in power.
 
Rexedgar said:
When did Congress become so lame as far as subpoenas and false/misleading testimony?

There seem to be no consequences in flipping them off, imo.

What does “contempt of Congress” mean?

TBH, I hold the bunch in contempt!
Click to expand...

The velvet hammer of enforcement of a Congressional Subpoena is the Justice Dept. Who runs the DOJ these days? Well its Trump political hack, Bill Barr. So now you know why there appears to be no recourse and no apparent penalty to being unresponsive to a Congressional Subpoena. Also the DOJ is the velvet hammer of enforcement of a Contempt of Congress charge. Same problem.

Notice the only guys in these hearings that have shown some personal sensitivity to a Contempt of Congress charge are lawyers called to testify like Bill Barr himself. Bill Barr is an attorney and his longterm personal hope is to come out of this with his reputation as an attorney intact. I would suggest to AG Barr that he has exposed himself to be so much of a political hack that avoiding a Contempt of Congress charge won't spare him in that regard.

Used to be that the Congress could use its Sgt at Arms to deal with unresponsive witnesses. That is no longer the case, though if the Article 2 officers of government are going to continue to ignore the Article 1 officers of government I might suggest that Congress reinstitute its own muscle.
 
Last edited:

I keep confusing you with a lawyer here.........:2wave:
 

I think you both don't know how lie detectors work - all the controlled circumstances needed, to only yes/no questions or very simple answers - nor how they don't work, the unreliability that correctly denies their use as evidence in court, but only as an investigative tool.

I would be fine though with strict prosecution of proven lying to Congress. I don't know why Lewindowski isn't under arrest now if he refused to answer questions without any legal justification, or why administration officials aren't under arrest if they refuse valid subpoenas, and why trump isn't impeached for ordering them to break the law on Congress's oversight power.
 
independentusa said:
Why, because the truth would then be out for all of the country to see, hear and know. I think you like it much better when those who come before congress can lie. Why is that by the way?
Click to expand...

1. We already have laws to deal with those who lie to Congress.

2. A lie detector is not reliable.

3. Forcing someone to submit to a lie detector is likely unconstitutional.

In other words...stupid.
 

Boy, that ship has sailed. I doubt that's his agenda.
 
Craig234 said:
Boy, that ship has sailed. I doubt that's his agenda.
Click to expand...

Good point...There is the chance that Barr worries that we will someday have an actual AG again, one that represents the people of the United States, not the President of the United States and that AG drops the velvet hammer on him were he charged with Contempt of Congress!
 

Hearings are for show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…