Jan 6th Commission About To Issue Invitations To Get Down!

[bripat9643]

People under oath. If you will dismiss that then their is no debating you. You will just believe whatever you want too.

Have fun with your confirmation bias.

We've already seen countless examples of their witnesses lying under oath. That doesn't mean jack shit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Does anyone know what legal authority or legal power a criminal referral to the DoJ by Congress has?

I wouldn't think very much. I mean......I don't think Congress can force the DOJ to look into anything being a separate bureaucracy. But because the DOJ is also corrupt, they will act on the advice of the clowns in the show.

 

[jc456]

I am not talking about Trump.

Who else?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Who else?

People involved in planning to participate in the insurection as noted by the Jan 6th committee and evidence in court.

It is my opinion that Trump ultimately fermented the insurection (or sedition to avoid arguement) with his election lies and propaganda. That said, I have seen no evidence that Trump was directly involved in any planning.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But they were charged and convicted of sedition.

Regardless charges are not a requirement to qualify something as an insurection...at least in any legal definition I can find. Do you have one?

 

[BackAgain]

An insurrection attempt caught in real time and televised nationally is not a conspiracy.

Hey moron. He spoke of the faux 1/6 committee being a conspiracy. And in any event, the events of 1/6 was not an “insurrection,” anyway.

The Mueller investigation was a republican investigation.

No. It wasn’t.

You should expand your news sources because bleating right wing headlines is a bad look and exposes your ignorance.

Be better.

You should be better informed before you give any advice about expanding news sources.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I find it strange you are not aware of this.

Two Leaders of Oath Keepers Found Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy and Other Charges Related to U.S. Capitol Breach

WASHINGTON – Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, and Kelly Meggs, the leader of the Florida chapter of the organization, were found guilty by a jury today of seditious conspiracy and other charges for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6...

www.justice.gov

 

[Catsnmeters]

Hey moron. He spoke of the faux 1/6 committee being a conspiracy. And in any event, the events of 1/6 was not an “insurrection,” anyway.

The Jan 6 committee isn't fake. It is really happening.

According to the legal definition of insurrection it was.

No. It wasn’t.

Yes it was.

You should be better informed before you give any advice about expanding news sources.

I am plenty informed thank you.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why wouldn’t it be acceptable?
Testimony was given under oath. Information uncovered can be used by DOJ in any way they deem necessary to further their investigation or make a case.
It was given to the special prosecutor specifically to take it out of the hands of politicians or their appointees.

Did you have similar objections when this was done?

Rare move by Congress could start another Clinton investigation​

https://amp.kansascity.com/latest-news/article88967217.html

Why wouldn’t it be acceptable?
Testimony was given under oath. Information uncovered can be used by DOJ in any way they deem necessary to further their investigation or make a case.
It was given to the special prosecutor specifically to take it out of the hands of politicians or their appointees.

Because the house committee does not possess the power to conduct criminal investigations. If the house turns all of their information over to the doj and the doj uses it, it would be the same as if the house had conducted the criminal investigation themselves. Otherwise, house committees could get away with conducting criminal investigations on their rivals and then pass it off by just turning it all over to the doj and say "we didn't do the criminal investigation, the doj did" even though it would be based off of the investigation that the house committee had done.

Did you have similar objections when this was done?

Rare move by Congress could start another Clinton investigation​

https://amp.kansascity.com/latest-news/article88967217.html

From your article, it appears as if the house did it properly. They asked the doj to conduct the investigation

Had the house conducted an investigation and then used those findings as the basis of a doj criminal investigation, then yes, that too would be wrong, as the house should not be involved with criminal investigations.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They’re referrals of either specific testimony, documents, information uncovered or all of it.

Why should the DOJ have to start over if the investigating of some aspects was already done?

Because using the house findings is tantamount to the house conducting a criminal investigation themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I wouldn't think very much.

You are correct.
No legal weight, no legal meaning.
It's an "oh, look what we have!" and nothing more.
Political theater.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Because the house committee does not possess the power to conduct criminal investigations. If the house turns all of their information over to the doj and the doj uses it, it would be the same as if the house had conducted the criminal investigation themselves. Otherwise, house committees could get away with conducting criminal investigations on their rivals and then pass it off by just turning it all over to the doj and say "we didn't do the criminal investigation, the doj did" even though it would be based off of the investigation that the house committee had done.



From your article, it appears as if the house did it properly. They asked the doj to conduct the investigation

Had the house conducted an investigation and then used those findings as the basis of a doj criminal investigation, then yes, that too would be wrong, as the house should not be involved with criminal investigations.

They didn’t conduct a criminal investigation. They just investigated. Why should they not foreword any evidence of potential criminality found to the DOJ?
Anyone can refer information of a potential crime to LE.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Because using the house findings is tantamount to the house conducting a criminal investigation themselves.

It’s not. It’s simply information.

 

[BackAgain]

The Jan 6 committee isn't fake. It is really happening.

The shitty committee is happening. Of course, that wasn’t what I was referencing. But their investigation is fake, you petty quibbleR.

According to the legal definition of insurrection it was.

Quite wrong. According to the legal definition, it clearly was NOT an insurrection.

Yes it was.

No. It still wasn’t

I am plenty informed thank you.

You're abysmally ignorant.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Does anyone know what legal authority or legal power a criminal referral to the DoJ by Congress has?

Technically, none. In fact, this whole committee is technically an abuse of power, as realistically, the cotus only gives congress the power to conduct investigations as a part of its legislative responsibility...in other words, they can conduct investigations to help them in the process of making laws.

What the house has done is essentially a criminal investigation of a political rival and appears to have no basis in the legislative process.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Technically, none. In fact, this whole committee is technically an abuse of power, as realistically, the cotus only gives congress the power to conduct investigations as a part of its legislative responsibility...in other words, they can conduct investigations to help them in the process of making laws.

What the house has done is essentially a criminal investigation of a political rival and appears to have no basis in the legislative process.

Hmm.. like strengthening the electoral count act, security for the Capitol and other govt facilities. Laws strengthening election security?

Why are you being so obtuse? Is it deliberate?

 

[ThisIsMe]

It’s not. It’s simply information.

No, you just said it yourself "why should the doj have to start over when much of the investigation has been done?" or something like that.

If the house does all the work and then turns it over to the doj, and the doj says "thanks, well just use all of this in our investigation", how is that different than the house just doing the investigation themselves? If the doj can just use the house information, then why even have the doj conduct an investigation? It's already been done. The house would then just tell the doj "here's the investigation, wrapped up in a bow for you" and the doj could just take that and start handing put indictments.

However, I hope the doj does the investigation, then someone other than dems will have subpoena power. If Trump has committed these crimes, then he needs to answer for them. However, if after 7 years of dem committee investigations, and then a doj criminal investigation, and they STILL can't find anything to pin on Trump, then the dems will be responsible for making Trump the MOST vetted presidential candidate in history...

 

[ThisIsMe]

L

Hmm.. like strengthening the electoral count act, security for the Capitol and other govt facilities. Laws strengthening election security?

Why are you being so obtuse? Is it deliberate?

Let's see if any legislation is produced as a result of the investigation, is so, they're legally in the clear, but you and I both know that wasn't the reason they started this whole thing.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, you just said it yourself "why should the doj have to start over when much of the investigation has been done?" or something like that.

If the house does all the work and then turns it over to the doj, and the doj says "thanks, well just use all of this in our investigation", how is that different than the house just doing the investigation themselves? If the doj can just use the house information, then why even have the doj conduct an investigation? It's already been done. The house would then just tell the doj "here's the investigation, wrapped up in a bow for you" and the doj could just take that and start handing put indictments.

However, I hope the doj does the investigation, then someone other than dems will have subpoena power. If Trump has committed these crimes, then he needs to answer for them. However, if after 7 years of dem committee investigations, and then a doj criminal investigation, and they STILL can't find anything to pin on Trump, then the dems will be responsible for making Trump the MOST vetted presidential candidate in history...

The House did investigate, fool. Just not with the intention of finding criminal activity. They investigate to find out what happened and who was involved and how it can be prevented.
If in the course of that investigation they find information that could potentially be criminal, they refer it to the DOJ to investigate it criminally. There is no reason for the DOJ to not accept that information.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

L

Let's see if any legislation is produced as a result of the investigation, is so, they're legally in the clear, but you and I both know that wasn't the reason they started this whole thing.

You’re like three months late, dope.

The House just passed a bill that would make it harder to overthrow an election​

All that yapping for nothing. You people are worst read and least informed. Always.