• 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!

Post Politics Now: Raskin expects ‘crimes that have not yet been alleged’ in Jan. 6 report

Rawley said:
Nah. Like most folks we're more concerned why it costs us $80 to fill up our cars $300 at the grocery store and the drivel from the partisan circus committee will land with a thud .
Click to expand...
It costs you more to fill up your tank because of covid.. supply and demand, and the price of drilling.

That being said once gas hits a certain point no answer really matters anymore. The president is gonna get the blame.
 
Why do I feel like we’re all trapped in a Ron Popeil infomercial?
 
Bravo for them. We have to stop all the future attempted insurrections and attempted coups.
 
ouch said:
To no surprise to many of us here with a functioning brain, there were more alleged crimes to come out of the 1/6 report. It's up to the DOJ to do their job - not holding my breath.



Post Politics Now: Raskin expects ‘crimes that have not yet been alleged’ in Jan. 6 report

www.msn.com
View attachment 67385449
Today, in a Post Politics Now interview, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said that the House select committee probing the Jan. 6 insurrection will issue a report that will be “profuse in setting forth crimes that have not yet been alleged” and that the panel, on which he sits, is planning public hearings in May and June. The aim, Raskin said, is “to prevent coups and insurrections going forward.” Look for more from Raskin below.
Click to expand...
We heard the same BS from Schiff too and we saw how that panned out. Too bad lying to the public isn't a prosecutable crime.
 
Anthony60 said:
Nancy is not part of the Executive branch.
Click to expand...



Neither is jim jordan yet he refused to testify to the Jan 6th committee.

Neither is steve bannon either. He's facing prosecution for refusing to testify to the Jan 6th committee.

What in the world does the executive branch have to do with the precedence that republicans have already set?
 
Rawley said:
Hmmm. Democrats have alleged murder, sedition, insurrection, conspiracy. What's left? Sodomy, incest, kidnapping ...
Click to expand...

Murder? You’ll have to back up that claim.

Sedition, insurrection and conspiracy. Certainly.

We have plenty of obvious evidence of sedition.

We have the outline of the conspiracy in writing. Peter Navarro described it on live TV, and fingered trump as a co conspirator on live tv too.

And everyone watched the attempted insurrection in live TV.
 
Liberal7360 said:
Neither is jim jordan yet he refused to testify to the Jan 6th committee.

Neither is steve bannon either. He's facing prosecution for refusing to testify to the Jan 6th committee.

What in the world does the executive branch have to do with the precedence that republicans have already set?
Click to expand...
Steve Bannon was part of the executive branch, he could claim executive privilege. They want to put Bannon in jail. I don't know that that's ever been done before. If you support that for him, then the same goes for Pelosi.
 
Anthony60 said:
Steve Bannon was part of the executive branch, he could claim executive privilege. They want to put Bannon in jail. I don't know that that's ever been done before. If you support that for him, then the same goes for Pelosi.
Click to expand...

There is no valid claim of executive privilege in this case. None at all.

Bannon could “claim“ it. But that would only last as long as the first hearing on that claim.

I don’t know where you got the ridiculous idea that prosecuting a former White House official has never been done.

That would have come as a surprise to HR Haldeman, John Erlichman, Oliver North, Scooter Libby, and a host of others.
 
Last edited:
Anthony60 said:
Steve Bannon was part of the executive branch, he could claim executive privilege. They want to put Bannon in jail. I don't know that that's ever been done before. If you support that for him, then the same goes for Pelosi.
Click to expand...
There are several obstacles to your line of reasoning:
  • Bannon was part of the executive branch in the early days. He isn't privileged for what he said as a private citizen.
  • The witness doesn't get to assert executive privilege. The sitting president decides executive privilege and Joe Biden isn't going to do so for Bannon.
  • Plotting an insurrection isn't part of one's normal duties and isn't privileged. United States v. Nixon, established that even a President has a legal duty to provide evidence of one’s communications with his aides when the information is relevant to a criminal case.
 
Anthony60 said:
Steve Bannon was part of the executive branch, he could claim executive privilege. They want to put Bannon in jail. I don't know that that's ever been done before. If you support that for him, then the same goes for Pelosi.
Click to expand...


He was not part of the executive branch during the time of the insurrection.

You know this.

Jim Jordan has never been part of the executive branch of the government yet he refused to show up.

It doesn't matter if the person is part of the executive branch. Way too many of the trump criminals weren't part of the executive branch and being a part of the executive branch has absolutely nothing to do with it.

All Nancy has to do is what the republicans have been doing.

Just refuse to show up.

Deal with reality.

Your replies are ridiculous. I'm done with you.
 
Mycroft said:
That judge just guaranteed that he won't be hearing any criminal case if it goes to trial. He'll have to recuse himself.
Click to expand...
That's your takeaway? Not that John Eastman sought to use attorney-client privilege to shield him from turning over emails showing how Eastman engaged in a plot that was obviously illegal and that Trump knew it at the time, but pushed forward with this plot that would have effectively ended American democracy.
 
MTAtech said:
That's your takeaway? Not that John Eastman sought to use attorney-client privilege to shield him from turning over emails showing how Eastman engaged in a plot that was obviously illegal and that Trump knew it at the time, but pushed forward with this plot that would have effectively ended American democracy.
Click to expand...
No. This judge has prejudged any criminal case that might arise.
 
trouble13 said:
We heard the same BS from Schiff too and we saw how that panned out. Too bad lying to the public isn't a prosecutable crime.
Click to expand...
If that were the case tromps trial would be the longest in history…
 
Rawley said:
Hmmm. Democrats have alleged murder, sedition, insurrection, conspiracy. What's left? Sodomy, incest, kidnapping ...
Click to expand...
Those are actually virtues in the Democratic Party so they won’t allege them.
 
Anthony60 said:
Sure, okay. Keep telling yourself that one.
Click to expand...
Oh, you wanted to read from me that they're doing this to win the mid-term election. Of course, both political parties do that as well. It's just not the #1 reason for which the 1/6 Committee was created.
 
trouble13 said:
We heard the same BS from Schiff too and we saw how that panned out.
Click to expand...
Please help refresh my memory about what Adam Schiff stated that was the same that Rep. Raskin stated in the op.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom