Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
By your logic…they shouldn’t have spent all that time Hilary’s emails.
nope, you'd post it if you had it. why haven't you?
What am I looking for?
The day before the House vote, McCarthy surprised his caucus by citing the proposed panel’s "political misdirection,” "counterproductive nature,” and its supposed failure to examine "interrelated forms of political violence," for his abrupt 11th hour rejection. In other words, McCarthy is trying to save his neck, and Trump’s, by attempted murder of the 1/6 Commission.
It’s attempted because McCarthy might not succeed. The whitewash of Jan. 6 that Liz Cheney warned of could be foiled by Democrats if their slim majority holds or they’re joined by those nine Republicans who voted against McCarthy in favor of resuming the electoral college count after the riot. That number includes Cheney, who no longer has a title but does have a vote.
The compromise that Republican Representative Katko called “a solid, fair agreement that is a dramatic improvement over previous proposals" provided for a 50-50 split of the parties on the panel, no subpoenas unless both sides agreed, and a strict deadline of Dec. 31. Of working with his Democratic counterpart, Katko said, “We both dispensed with our politics to do what the greater good is.” At first, McCarthy was going to let his caucus vote their consciences but by afternoon he ordered another of his allies, Steve Scalise, to ignore Katko and tell the caucus to vote with their leader.
It’s been quite a week. McCarthy, who likes to be liked, turned his back on two friends, Cheney first and then Katko. Scalise may want to have someone watch his back. Katko’s first mistake was to go for “fair” when McCarthy has a white can of paint under his desk that says “cover-up.”
McCarthy voting no is all the more peculiar in that Katko accomplished all McCarthy asked of him, with one small exception. The GOP argued for expanding the investigation beyond the fatal insurrection in Washington to delve into an examination of every protest everywhere. Instead Democrats offered up a separate commission to look at the demonstrations after George Floyd's murder that presumably McCarthy agreed to. Trump could even have gung-ho pal Matt Gaetz officiate if he likes.
Katko was used: There could never be a commission that meets McCarthy’s desire to pretend Jan 6 is behind us and it’s time to move along—especially after Cheney said on Sunday that he should have to testify about what Trump told him that day or presumably be subpoenaed as part of a wide-open investigation.
You’re too ignorant to understand the differenceBy your logic…they shouldn’t have spent all that time Hilary’s emails.
They could have had an independent 911 style commission. Equal numbers. But they refused.
I think this was serious enough to warrant an investigation.
Follow the links, YOU asked for proof.... What were YOU asking for?What am I looking for?
Victims. McCarthy attempted to murder the 1/6 commission......or something. lolWhat am I looking for?
If it was thoroughly done twice, then why weren't all the witnesses interviewed and questioned?Another Democrat witch hunt.
I wish I had all the tax dollars Democrats have wasted trying to impeach and convict Trump.
It's all for show because it's already been done twice.
Just a waste of time and tax dollars. 1/6 has already been investigated to death. The FBI found no sign of a planned anything by anyone.
More wasted time and tax dollars. What idiots they all are.
Both party's were offered to participate at 50% of participants being Republicans & 50% Democrat's. The Republicans refused this offer was my understanding? explain the reasoning.
Hillary Clinton testified before Congress for 11 hours.
Ya kinda forgot that huh?
I don't see anything from Trump.Follow the links, YOU asked for proof.... What were YOU asking for?
and then peloser ignored that.not entirely true -
the FBI found that the FBI had a hand in it.
then said - never mind
TraitorThe January 6th House Committee may be filing criminal contempt charges against Mark Meadows if he continues to refuse to cooperate with their investigation. If Meadows is truly innocent then it shouldn't be a problem for him to come forward and lay out that case. The people have a right to know if malfeasance truly occurred or not.
Mark Meadows' lawyer argues against contempt charges ahead of Jan. 6 committee vote
The lawyer said a criminal contempt referral would violate the "long-held and well-established separation of powers principles."www.nbcnews.com
Horse shitAnd admitted to at least 110 felonies.
They used to literaaly have a special jail operated by the capital police, who answer only to congress, where people held in contempt were held. Actual criminal charges are a relatively ne thing. Back then, if you were found in contempt, the SAA could actually come to you house and arrest you. Now days the SAA is a ceremonial role, but it used to be a federal LE officer under congress. Congress could find someone in contempt, have the SAA arrest them, and they could be held until either they agreed to testify, or a federal judge found in their favor and ordered their release. Fines could also be levied for contempt. Just like judges can have people put in jail for contempt, without actual charges.Not quite. Congress cannot indict or charge anyone. They have to ask the Justice dept to do that and even if Justice does, Meadows has to be charged, arrested and tried, which will take months. Steve Bannon's trial is not until next July.The FBI already investigated Jan 6 and found nothing on him.
Not today! They are just PeeWee Herman show, PlayhouseThey used to literaaly have a special jail operated by the capital police, who answer only to congress, where people held in contempt were held. Actual criminal charges are a relatively ne thing. Back then, if you were found in contempt, the SAA could actually come to you house and arrest you. Now days the SAA is a ceremonial role, but it used to be a federal LE officer under congress. Congress could find someone in contempt, have the SAA arrest them, and they could be held until either they agreed to testify, or a federal judge found in their favor and ordered their release. Fines could also be levied for contempt. Just like judges can have people put in jail for contempt, without actual charges.
