When Congress Became Illegal - Jan. 6th, 2020

a reply to: TheRedneck

So, if Kevin McCarthy had replaced the 2 appointees Nancy Pelosi rejected, Jorden and Baker, with 2 other Republicans instead of pulling the entire list, or if the Select Commitee was led by Republicans, the Committee would have jurisdiction?

Or, are you saying is, McCarthy pulled the entire list so, "Yea, that too."

Either way it means your assertion that Congress doesn't have jurisdiction to investigate the events of Jan 6th isn't resolved by anything Xcandra has posted. It's just a side hustle of "that too".

Funny, no other Republicans or constitutional scholars have found this jurisdictional loop hole! You should send an Email to John Eastman!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If

• The committee was organized according to the House of Representative's own rules for committee selection
  
• There was a legitimate Congressional oversight power that would benefit from this investigation
  
• The members of the committee actually attempted to determine what happened on January 6th instead of using the investigation as a forum to spread hatred and propaganda

it would be a legitimate congressional hearing and all subpoenas and citations would be prima fascia legal.

However, none of those requirements have been met. Not one... single... one.

Tell me something, Sookie: in your opinion, is there anything... anything... that is beyond the authority of Congress to do?

TheRedneck

Yeah the Jan 6 committee is political and nothing more. Democrats are pissed at the DOJ for the way they are doing their investigations and are pissed because the DOJ declined to prosecute 2 Trump aides.


Signs of tension rise between Justice, Jan. 6 panel

And as lawmakers present compelling evidence of criminality in the effort to overturn the 2020 election, the hearings are adding fuel to the looming question of whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) is adequately investigating those concerns.

In a letter sent Wednesday to the select committee’s chief investigative counsel, the heads of the DOJ’s national security and criminal divisions and the U.S. attorney for D.C. renewed their request for the lawmakers to share transcripts for all of their witness interviews.

“The Select Committee’s failure to grant the Department access to these transcripts complicates the Department’s ability to investigate and prosecute those who engaged in criminal conduct in relation to the January 6 attack on the Capitol,” the letter reads. “Accordingly, we renew our request that the Select Committee provide us with copies of the transcripts of all the interviews it has conducted to date.”

The committee is refusing to turn over transcripts the DOJ needs for prosecution of the Proud Boys. The committee stated the transcripts will be released in September, 2 months from the mid term elections (again political).

From the horses mouth -

The committee has indicated that it plans to release its transcripts in September, and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the panel’s chairman, said this week that he does not intend to disrupt his own investigation by accelerating that timeline.

Why Dems are pissed -

The strained relationship was also apparent as the department for months dragged its feet in acting on the House’s criminal referrals of two former Trump aides — White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and social media director Dan Scavino — for refusing to comply with select committee subpoenas.

The Justice Department ultimately declined to charge Meadows and Scavino with contempt, provoking an angry response from the panel.

Because they are not getting their way.

Parallel investigations?

Now, as the committee is presenting its public case against former President Trump and his inner circle for trying to overturn the 2020 election, the hearings thus far appear designed to pressure the department into taking action by holding the leaders of the schemes accountable.

And for some critics who think the Justice Department has been lagging in investigating the Trump White House’s potential criminal liability, the hearings have shown a stark disparity in the parallel probes.

“In a way, the structure of these hearings, the product of these hearings, has kind of been an indictment of the DOJ,” said Ankush Khardori, a former federal prosecutor who handled major fraud cases at the department. “DOJ could have been doing this stuff itself.”

Legislative and yet dems are hindering prosecution for their political game.

The Justice Department suggested in its letter this week that by denying federal prosecutors access to interview transcripts, the select committee has hindered its ability to conduct the sort of high-level investigations and prosecutions that the lawmakers have been calling for.

While it’s unclear whether the department is pursuing any investigations into the select committee’s most high-profile witnesses, the effort to obtain the transcripts is likely more driven by the ongoing prosecutions implicated by the legislative probe.

Prosecutors said the standoff forced them to agree to delay the criminal trial for the group of Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy.

click link for why the Jan 6th committee is political and why its a sham.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The committee is refusing to turn over transcripts the DOJ needs for prosecution of the Proud Boys.

That is akin to filing a lawsuit but refusing to fill out the complaint. That gets tossed by the courts before it even appears on a docket. The DoJ should simply issue a statement that they cannot proceed with any referred complaints until all evidence is turned over, and this delay means the DoJ is closing the case. It may be reopened in the future when the Special committee complies with DoJ requirements, at the sole discretion of the DoJ at that time. Until then, all potential charges are dropped.

Oh wait... the DoJ operates as part of the Biden administration... nevermind.

You know, I still haven't really made up my mind about the Proud Boys. If I take away all of the political propaganda surrounding them, all I am left with is they are an organization. I don't think it is illegal or immoral in any way to just form an organization.

TheRedneck

a reply to: alexandrae

Yeah I'll reply to me....I just may change my mind and mention names; considering what is going on now...stop or .......

a reply to: TheRedneck

This is where 'Executive Orders' come into play. Exceutive Orders are for the Executive Branch only and to only affect government employees NOT the general public. All President's since the 70s to some degree have abused this feature. Trump wounded up being a pen and paper President because everyone kept yelling BS at him. Now that he is gone we are having all that BS they said HE would immediately do.