Breaking: Congress refers Comey McCabe Clinton Page Strzok Lynch others for criminal prosecution

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Correct.. In our system of jurisprudence a person is innocent until proven guilty and any charges brought against a person or entity are merely accusation they broke the law.

Confirmation that a law was broke resides with the judge or jury.

Absolutely. And this is just another list of accusations among many that have been tossed around for some time.

It does appear to be political posturing and pandering.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xcathdra

Try again. The Mueller special investigation had bi-partisan support when it was started.

For Trump-Russia collusion from over a year ago..

Ask about the support today and see where it goes.

171 democratic members of the house and senate backed it, led by mad max waters.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus
What makes this one different? Apart from the fact only 11 GOP in Congress out of 248 were even willing to sign it?

and yes it is in fact a criminal referral.

Not according to House Rules.
Neither a committee, nor majority of congress voted on it.
Only 11 GOP out of 248 were willing to embarrass themselves with the stunt.

It's a PR stunt like the dozens of similar letters before it that were toothless and went nowhere.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xcathdra

Try again. The Mueller special investigation had bi-partisan support when it was started.

For Trump-Russia collusion from over a year ago..

Ask about the support today and see where it goes.

171 democratic members of the house and senate backed it, led by mad max waters.

Poll: Americans broadly support Mueller probe, are split on Comey

Post-ABC poll: Majority of Americans support special counsel Mueller's probe of Russia, Trump campaign

Poll: Most Americans want Robert Mueller to complete his Russia probe

Came out 5 days ago. You should be careful about judging ATS' popular opinions as the country's popular opinions. This website is mostly a partisan bubble.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Correct.. In our system of jurisprudence a person is innocent until proven guilty and any charges brought against a person or entity are merely accusation they broke the law.

Confirmation that a law was broke resides with the judge or jury.

Absolutely. And this is just another list of accusations among many that have been tossed around for some time.

It does appear to be political posturing and pandering.

I guess we have to wait and see.

If the OIG / Huber are already investigating all of this stuff then the referral is a moot point.

If they arent and the referral prompts them to look into it then it was worth it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

A criminal referral means nothing... it's like a suggestion. The soap opera continues

a reply to: jadedANDcynical


Surprising, even after you recently learned that Hannity basically has an office at the WH? lol

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus
What makes this one different? Apart from the fact only 11 GOP in Congress out of 248 were even willing to sign it?

and yes it is in fact a criminal referral.

Not according to House Rules.
Neither a committee, nor majority of congress voted on it.
Only 11 GOP out of 248 were willing to embarrass themselves with the stunt.

It's a PR stunt like the dozens of similar letters before it that were toothless and went nowhere.

Good to know all other "referrals" by democrats were worthless as well.

Tell ya what though. You can play the semantics game all on your own over referral and no referral. To me its a criminal referral because it documents potential violations of criminal law.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

ABC - Washington Post polls???

lol the same polls that said Clinton would win. I will elt you believe what you want.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Xcathdra

A criminal referral means nothing... it's like a suggestion. The soap opera continues

and if joe schmoe walks into the FBI HQ and hands them a criminal referral and 11 members of Congress hand them a criminal referral what happens?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Eleven.

Out of five hundred and fifty three.

Yawn...💤

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Krazysh0t

ABC - Washington Post polls???

lol the same polls that said Clinton would win. I will elt you believe what you want.

"Polls are only accurate when they say things I want to hear!"

Heh. I knew you'd say this # anyways and refuse to accept anything counter to your viewpoint. "I will elt(sic) you believe what you want." Back at you. Though I bet you'll never admit you were wrong when this "referral" goes nowhere.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Eleven.

Out of five hundred and fifty three.

Yawn...💤

There are 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate. Reps from commonwealths or territories, while having a rep in government (House anyways) can only vote on committee votes. They cannot vote on anything else in the house.

Not sure if you got the numbers wrong or included reps from territories / commonwealths.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Krazysh0t

ABC - Washington Post polls???

lol the same polls that said Clinton would win. I will elt you believe what you want.

"Polls are only accurate when they say things I want to hear!"

Heh. I knew you'd say this # anyways and refuse to accept anything counter to your viewpoint. "I will elt(sic) you believe what you want." Back at you. Though I bet you'll never admit you were wrong when this "referral" goes nowhere.

and when the entities get caught skewing polls by intentionally polling more people from one party than the other then their polls are suspect and untrustworthy.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You have to prove through the methodology of EACH poll you analyze that it is flawed. Seeing one flawed poll then assuming all are flawed is just poor investigative research and likely letting your confirmation bias speak for you.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus
What makes this one different? Apart from the fact only 11 GOP in Congress out of 248 were even willing to sign it?

and yes it is in fact a criminal referral.

Not according to House Rules.
Neither a committee, nor majority of congress voted on it.
Only 11 GOP out of 248 GOP in Congress were willing to embarrass themselves with the stunt.

It's a PR stunt like the dozens of similar letters before it that were toothless and went nowhere.

Good to know all other "referrals" by democrats were worthless as well.

Correct. Absent either 2/3rds congress or an official committee voting to make a criminal referral, letters from congress to DOJ are useless except for political PR.

Once an official committee votes to make a referral or 2/3rds congress, then it becomes an official "Criminal Referral" that DOJ must at least respond to, but DOJ obviously retains the authority to pursue or say the evidence is lacking to warrant further investigation.

That said,
248 GOP members of congress?
Majorities and leadership over the Intelligence and Judiciary committees where these hypothetical violations occurred?

And the GOP led committees chose not to make any referral?
Only 11 GOP out of 248 in congress even were willing to sign the letter?

It doesn't speak to this letter having any credibility even aside from the issue it is not an official criminal referral.

To me its a criminal referral because it documents potential violations of criminal law.

"To me" being the relevant part there.

Congress? Uh no 11 congressmen.

Wonder how many of those 11 voted to expand fisa powers a few months ago and fully supported Ken star.

originally posted by: ClarkMDevereaux
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


Surprising, even after you recently learned that Hannity basically has an office at the WH? lol

Which is a smal number when you have 65 "journalists" paid by the Clinton campaign to push the articles they want. Not to mention sending their unpublished articles to Podesta to completely "review" them and ok them.

We done with the journalist favoring one side over another pissing contest now?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xcathdra

You have to prove through the methodology of EACH poll you analyze that it is flawed. Seeing one flawed poll then assuming all are flawed is just poor investigative research and likely letting your confirmation bias speak for you.

No really I dont. When they get caught intentionally manipulating one poll im done with them. The goal is to present info in an unbiased manner and let the readers decide. When they place their own bias intentionally into their polls, I am not going to go thru every single poll to make sure they did it right.

Secondly you can only verify the polls if they release the polling info, like they are supposed to do.

They dont.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah it's easier to just believe your confirmation biases right? All that research is hard work and may prove you wrong. Obviously it should be ignored in favor of preset biases.