Jim Jordan Destroys Democrats at Barr Contempt Hearing. Leaves Nadler stuttering and speechless

[beautress]

I agree .... Jim Jordan is THE American patriot!

and he joins millions of American patriots! GOD Bless them all!


here is another patriot


Rep Doug Collins DESTROYS Jerry Nadler At Mueller Report Hearing 5/2/19

Yes...A patriotic hero.

What a load.

 

[Deno]

May GOD bless this patriot! Jim Jordan is total and absolute patriot!!!!! Bless him and his loved ones!


May all patriots be blessed in America and all over the world ! Our prayers are with you all!

This has got to be a shock to all the Tards....

You know they don’t have a clue since their lying ass media

feeds their heads full of total bull shit and they are

stupid enough to believe it.......

Tic Toc Tards....

This time it’s real..

You got your tit in the ringer now.....

 

[odanny]

May GOD bless this patriot! Jim Jordan is total and absolute patriot!!!!! Bless him and his loved ones!


May all patriots be blessed in America and all over the world ! Our prayers are with you all!

What in the **** are you babbling about? Get up off your knees and wipe your chin.

 

[Oldstyle]

Jim Jordon is a beacon of truth. Everything he stated was not a lie. Barr is following the law precisely as it is written.

Jim Jordan is a liar just like you. Barr is not following the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power of oversight and they have every bright to see the unredacted report.

The Constitution does not give Congress the power to break laws when doing "oversight"! Barr is totally following the law. Has been all along. Nadler isn't doing legitimate "oversight"...he's doing political grandstanding! He knows damn well that Grand Jury testimony can't be made public. He knows that Barr can't provide an unredacted report...just as Mueller couldn't provide an unredacted report. They never could...nor should they!

We've waited two years for Mueller to issue his findings! You liberal shills are simply upset because he didn't give you ANYTHING that you thought he would! He didn't give it to you BECAUSE IT NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

The Constitution overrides any laws and does not make any exceptions to Congressional oversight. You do not get to define what Congressional oversight is. The Constitution overrides laws. By your rationale government can ban guns in this country using a law. Congress is not a part of the public and they can look at anything they want. They will be forced to by the Courts.

The Mueller report showed that Trump helped the Russians help him. It also laid out numerous examples of obstruction.

Oh for God's sake! Where in the Mueller Report does it show that Trump helped the Russians? Where did it do anything but lay out examples of what could possibly be obstruction but state quite clearly that they didn't find anything that PROVED obstruction?

So did you want to back up your previous lies? Or are you just going to keep piling one on top of another?

Try page 140.
"Second, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election.930 That briefing encompassed the Campaign's messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of "battleground" states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.931 Manafort did not refer explicit! to "battlegound" states in his telling of the August 2 discussion, "

Page 136
Gates also reported that Manafort instructed him in April 2016 or early May 2016 to send Kilimnik Campaign internal polling data and other updates so that Kilimnik, in turn, could share it with Ukrainian oligarchs

We also have Roger Stone bragging that he had a backchannel to WikiLeaks and knew about Podesta's hacked e-mails before they hit WikiLeaks. Only 2 groups could know that. Assange or the Russians who hacked the e-mails.

Mueller declared in his report that Trump was not exonerated and urged Congress to continue the investigation. He laid out a number of examples of obstruction of justice.

You are the liar and you will continue to lie because you have no choice. You are stuck with him.

Mueller did not "urge" Congress to continue the investigation! That's one more of your lies!

 

[Oldstyle]

The Congress isn't part of the public? They represent the public!!!! They are not above the law. They don't get to break the law because they "want to".

The Congress' powers are granted by the Constitution. When a law contradicts the Constitution, that law loses.

Show where it is in the Constitution that Congress is above the law?

 

[Oldstyle]

Jordan basically outlined the Barr investigation into the deep state coup attempt.
Pity Trump didn't appoint Barr first, he could have avoided a lot of heartburn.

I always liked Jeff Sessions as a senator but what he allowed to happen as AG was a disgrace. This should have been over a few months after it began. Allowing the collusion hoax to continue has done a lot of damage to society.

I opposed Sessions as AG but he surprised me. He upheld the Constitution as is his duty not to protect Trump. You don't like what Mueller dug up.

As are most democrats, you are incorrect. I love the results of Mueller's probe. No collusion. No obstruction. Democrats losing their tiny little minds. What's not to love?

No exoneration.

It wasn't Mueller's JOB to exonerate Trump! It was his job to investigate him and indict him if the evidence showed that was warranted! Mueller DID investigate and found no collusion. He also found no evidence of obstruction that he thought warranted an indictment! Rod Rosenstein looked at the same evidence and HE also found no reason to indict Trump! That's as close to an exoneration as either of them could have come!

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Shits about to get izzy.
2. Ask Bill Clinton what that means.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Ame®icano]

Bill Barr destroyed himself... He ruined himself when asked for a transcript of his phone call with Mueller, and he simply said no. It's Congress's job to investigate wrong doings. They hold the check of the Executive Branch which includes AG Barr.



If the conversation wouldn't hurt Barr or Trump... why would he NOT share that? It was on speaker phone, it's not like it was some serious national security info.

What exactly is wrongdoing here?

Really? It's not some kind or information that Congress shouldn't be able to get. It's one of Congress responsibilities to oversee the Executive branch from wrong doings... it's in the Constitution.

"It's in Constitution."

This is the part where you cite the text of the constitution you are referring to. I'm sure you can do that, can you?

It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.

"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."

"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."

"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"

The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch

And before you ***** about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.

Your claim is "It's in Constitution".

I asked you to cite the Constitution.

You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.

I can't dumb it down any more...

Quote the constitution. Can you?

 

[Ame®icano]

Jordan basically outlined the Barr investigation into the deep state coup attempt.
Pity Trump didn't appoint Barr first, he could have avoided a lot of heartburn.

I always liked Jeff Sessions as a senator but what he allowed to happen as AG was a disgrace. This should have been over a few months after it began. Allowing the collusion hoax to continue has done a lot of damage to society.

I opposed Sessions as AG but he surprised me. He upheld the Constitution as is his duty not to protect Trump. You don't like what Mueller dug up.

As are most democrats, you are incorrect. I love the results of Mueller's probe. No collusion. No obstruction. Democrats losing their tiny little minds. What's not to love?

"tiny little minds"

There is not much in there that they can lose.

 

[Ame®icano]

Is there anyone who didny destroy Nadler? The guy is a lying ignoramus

Even Nadler destroyed Nadler.

I remember when this socialist asshole had 500 lbs.

 

[Ame®icano]

As are most democrats, you are incorrect. I love the results of Mueller's probe. No collusion. No obstruction. Democrats losing their tiny little minds. What's not to love?

No exoneration.

Not his job to exonerate.

 

[Lewdog]

Bill Barr destroyed himself... He ruined himself when asked for a transcript of his phone call with Mueller, and he simply said no. It's Congress's job to investigate wrong doings. They hold the check of the Executive Branch which includes AG Barr.



If the conversation wouldn't hurt Barr or Trump... why would he NOT share that? It was on speaker phone, it's not like it was some serious national security info.

What exactly is wrongdoing here?

Really? It's not some kind or information that Congress shouldn't be able to get. It's one of Congress responsibilities to oversee the Executive branch from wrong doings... it's in the Constitution.

"It's in Constitution."

This is the part where you cite the text of the constitution you are referring to. I'm sure you can do that, can you?

It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.

"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."

"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."

"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"

The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch

And before you ***** about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.

Your claim is "It's in Constitution".

I asked you to cite the Constitution.

You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.

I can't dumb it down any more...

Quote the constitution. Can you?

It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

• The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
• The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
• The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.

Congressional oversight - Wikipedia

Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.

 

[toobfreak]

Stopped after the first line since it's a lie.

Stopped after the first ten seconds because you already "knew" the entire 6 minutes and 13 seconds would be a lie.

And the Creep has the nerve to talk about other people's "credibility."

We are gonna nail us some Democrats to the Frickin' WALL, brother.

 

[boedicca]

What exactly is wrongdoing here?

Really? It's not some kind or information that Congress shouldn't be able to get. It's one of Congress responsibilities to oversee the Executive branch from wrong doings... it's in the Constitution.

"It's in Constitution."

This is the part where you cite the text of the constitution you are referring to. I'm sure you can do that, can you?

It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.

"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."

"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."

"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"

The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch

And before you ***** about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.

Your claim is "It's in Constitution".

I asked you to cite the Constitution.

You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.

I can't dumb it down any more...

Quote the constitution. Can you?

It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

• The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
• The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
• The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.

Congressional oversight - Wikipedia

Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.

Legislative oversight in public law is no the equivalent of fishing expeditions through individual's personal records.

Just sayin'.

 

[toobfreak]

Jordan has not once mentioned going after Russia for election interference.

Who has? The democrats are FAR more interested in pinning some bullshit rap on Trump than they are fixing election tampering, because THEY are the ultimate tamperers themselves!

 

[Lewdog]

Really? It's not some kind or information that Congress shouldn't be able to get. It's one of Congress responsibilities to oversee the Executive branch from wrong doings... it's in the Constitution.

"It's in Constitution."

This is the part where you cite the text of the constitution you are referring to. I'm sure you can do that, can you?

It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.

"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."

"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."

"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"

The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch

And before you ***** about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.

Your claim is "It's in Constitution".

I asked you to cite the Constitution.

You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.

I can't dumb it down any more...

Quote the constitution. Can you?

It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

• The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
• The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
• The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.

Congressional oversight - Wikipedia

Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.

Legislative oversight in public law is no the equivalent of fishing expeditions through individual's personal records.

Just sayin'.

When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I agree .... Jim Jordan is THE American patriot!

and he joins millions of American patriots! GOD Bless them all!


here is another patriot


Rep Doug Collins DESTROYS Jerry Nadler At Mueller Report Hearing 5/2/19

Yes...A patriotic hero.

What a load.

I agree. Those Senators couldn't be more full of it.

 

[Vel]

"It's in Constitution."

This is the part where you cite the text of the constitution you are referring to. I'm sure you can do that, can you?

It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.

"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."

"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."

"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"

The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch

And before you ***** about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.

Your claim is "It's in Constitution".

I asked you to cite the Constitution.

You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.

I can't dumb it down any more...

Quote the constitution. Can you?

It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

• The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
• The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
• The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.

Congressional oversight - Wikipedia

Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.

Legislative oversight in public law is no the equivalent of fishing expeditions through individual's personal records.

Just sayin'.

When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.

Since Mueller determined that neither Trump nor ANYONE in his campaign conspired with or colluded with any foreign government then we can be pretty damned sure that our President isn't under the thumb of a foreign adversary. This had descended to nothing more than political harassment by way of the legal system.

 

[boedicca]

"It's in Constitution."

This is the part where you cite the text of the constitution you are referring to. I'm sure you can do that, can you?

It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.

"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."

"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."

"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"

The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch

And before you ***** about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.

Your claim is "It's in Constitution".

I asked you to cite the Constitution.

You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.

I can't dumb it down any more...

Quote the constitution. Can you?

It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

• The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
• The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
• The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.

Congressional oversight - Wikipedia

Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.

Legislative oversight in public law is no the equivalent of fishing expeditions through individual's personal records.

Just sayin'.

When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.

After two plus years and $40M, there is No There There.

 

[boedicca]

It's in the very first section. I can't believe we are on a politics forum and in a discussion I have to tell someone about what's in the U.S. Constitution. If people are going to come here to discuss and debate political events, I'd assume you'd educate yourself about the issues and the underlying information... like the U.S. Constitution and the history that does along with the issues, like the decisions of the Supreme Court. The system of checks and Balance is information that kids in the U.S. learn in elementary school.

"Congress’ power to investigate is implied from its enumerated powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause, all found in Article 1, Section 8."

"The Supreme Court first placed limits on congressional investigations in 1821 [Anderson v. Dunn] (id. p.4). The Court upheld Congress’ power to hold people in contempt, but said Congress must use the least onerous means to achieve its legislative objectives and no term of imprisonment Congress imposed could extend beyond a Congressional term."

"The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress’ power to issue subpoenas as “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.” (id. p.6)"

The Origins of Congress’ Power to Investigate the Executive Branch

And before you ***** about the site, feel free to use your own time to search and investigate on your own to find websites YOU agree with and educate yourself there.

Your claim is "It's in Constitution".

I asked you to cite the Constitution.

You cited the website that "explains" what you avoid to cite. I didn't ask for explanation, I asked you to post the text of the constitution that gives Congress power of oversight over executive branch.

I can't dumb it down any more...

Quote the constitution. Can you?

It list the exact place it is in the Constitution. The fact you don't already know the system of checks and balances is dumbfounding. How old are you? Did you go to school?

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

"In Anderson v. Dunn (1821),[1] the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."[1] "

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

• The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
• The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
• The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.

Congressional oversight - Wikipedia

Now this is where you say everything I posted is bullshit because Judge Jeanine Pirro said it is all wrong. Then you go on to post some opinion piece from a far right source to back it up, despite the fact that the Constitution and Supreme Court has made it so.

Legislative oversight in public law is no the equivalent of fishing expeditions through individual's personal records.

Just sayin'.

When you are investigating if a President is under the thumb of a foreign adversary, personal records, very much including tax returns and other important financial information is critical. Finances is one of the most critical areas that determines if a person is vulnerable, and quite often prevents people from getting a deep security clearance. Ask anyone that has gone through the process.

Since Mueller determined that neither Trump nor ANYONE in his campaign conspired with or colluded with any foreign government then we can be pretty damned sure that our President isn't under the thumb of a foreign adversary. This had descended to nothing more than political harassment by way of the legal system.

BINGO. This is a Beria-esque maneuvre to try to manufacture a crime to justify destroying Trump.