The Biden Department of Justice

[old salt]

We learned all we'll ever need to know about "political show trials" from Trey Gowdy, Darrell Issa, Devin Nunes, many others and the GOP leadership that goaded them on in their various congressional "investigations" read: actual show trials. Kevin McCarthy publicly copped to such behavior in re Benghazi.

That's what the GOP does. Conducts ludicrously incompetent, politically driven "hearings" and then scream like stuck pigs when their activity gets legitimately investigated. OS bleating about political show trials shows us all, once again, how bankrupt his thoughts about this subject are.

For more along these lines: Steve Bannon Just Might Be Accidentally Saving America

Yeah. HRC (& Sid Vicious) did a great job gathering all the intel on Libya (& Andrea Mitchell saw it)
That's why HRC was sending our people into Benghazi (to set up a campaign event for her), while the Brits & our other allies were passing us on their way out.

Had Gowdy not persisted, we'd never had heard from our people who were actually on the ground in Benghazi & Tripoli. They were squelched & still had their careers damaged for testifying to what really happened.

[seacoaster]

We learned all we'll ever need to know about "political show trials" from Trey Gowdy, Darrell Issa, Devin Nunes, many others and the GOP leadership that goaded them on in their various congressional "investigations" read: actual show trials. Kevin McCarthy publicly copped to such behavior in re Benghazi.

That's what the GOP does. Conducts ludicrously incompetent, politically driven "hearings" and then scream like stuck pigs when their activity gets legitimately investigated. OS bleating about political show trials shows us all, once again, how bankrupt his thoughts about this subject are.

For more along these lines: Steve Bannon Just Might Be Accidentally Saving America

Yeah. HRC (& Sid Vicious) did a great job gathering all the intel on Libya (& Andrea Mitchell saw it)
That's why HRC was sending our people into Benghazi (to set up a campaign event for her), while the Brits & our other allies were passing us on their way out.

Had Gowdy not persisted, we'd never had heard from our people who were actually on the ground in Benghazi & Tripoli. They were squelched & still had their careers damaged for testifying to what really happened.

Yeah, and you always hate it when careers are derailed by truthful testimony. All those Vindman defenses you made…wait….

[old salt]

We learned all we'll ever need to know about "political show trials" from Trey Gowdy, Darrell Issa, Devin Nunes, many others and the GOP leadership that goaded them on in their various congressional "investigations" read: actual show trials. Kevin McCarthy publicly copped to such behavior in re Benghazi.

That's what the GOP does. Conducts ludicrously incompetent, politically driven "hearings" and then scream like stuck pigs when their activity gets legitimately investigated. OS bleating about political show trials shows us all, once again, how bankrupt his thoughts about this subject are.

For more along these lines: Steve Bannon Just Might Be Accidentally Saving America

Yeah. HRC (& Sid Vicious) did a great job gathering all the intel on Libya (& Andrea Mitchell saw it)
That's why HRC was sending our people into Benghazi (to set up a campaign event for her), while the Brits & our other allies were passing us on their way out.

Had Gowdy not persisted, we'd never had heard from our people who were actually on the ground in Benghazi & Tripoli. They were squelched & still had their careers damaged for testifying to what really happened.

https://theweek.com/articles/464575/7-r ... er-hearing

[old salt]

We learned all we'll ever need to know about "political show trials" from Trey Gowdy, Darrell Issa, Devin Nunes, many others and the GOP leadership that goaded them on in their various congressional "investigations" read: actual show trials. Kevin McCarthy publicly copped to such behavior in re Benghazi.

That's what the GOP does. Conducts ludicrously incompetent, politically driven "hearings" and then scream like stuck pigs when their activity gets legitimately investigated. OS bleating about political show trials shows us all, once again, how bankrupt his thoughts about this subject are.

For more along these lines: Steve Bannon Just Might Be Accidentally Saving America

Yeah. HRC (& Sid Vicious) did a great job gathering all the intel on Libya (& Andrea Mitchell saw it)
That's why HRC was sending our people into Benghazi (to set up a campaign event for her), while the Brits & our other allies were passing us on their way out.

Had Gowdy not persisted, we'd never had heard from our people who were actually on the ground in Benghazi & Tripoli. They were squelched & still had their careers damaged for testifying to what really happened.

Yeah, and you always hate it when careers are derailed by truthful testimony. All those Vindman defenses you made…wait….

Too bad Vindman didn't stay in the Army. He'd be a War College grad & full bird Colonel now.

Colin Powell taunted him by saying he got out because he was afraid he'd be bullied.

[dislaxxic]

Thought we'd been discussing the Jan 6th investigation and how Merrick Garland will respond to it. Is that wrong? Not sure what you mean about a discussion "about the people and their representatives"...

Since you asked, i was sorry you couldn't mount a cogent "comeback" to A Fan's dialog with you about how red states "take" so much from the feds that they'd be up chit's creek without federal support. You attempted to call him out for making it a "binary" discussion, when in fact he was and has long, pointed out that "taker red states" are hypocritical for railing against the federal government and their handouts but would positively implode without federal government support. Your answer was in English, but was quite difficult to understand. Could you clarify, or find time for a response you previously eschewed?

For the record, i was interested to know what name you posted under on the LP Forum as i had many spirited debates with fellow posters in that venue. I honestly do not remember the avatar you identified as yours and i don't believe we ever had any back-n-forth at LP. Case closed.

..

[MDlaxfan76]

Painfully, Salty's so deep down his rat hole, he simply can't find his way back up.

I guess what bothers me most is the open, blatant disregard for the Rule of Law and the Constitutional balance of power.

But it's actually worse than simply "disregard"; it's an actual yearning for an authoritarian system in which unitary power is the only goal. There are no other real goals, all else is sacrificed to the single goal of unitary power. Integrity, honor, law...all so easily sacrificed on the alter of unitary power; LOYALTY to the Leader is the only value.

This happens to be Red Team, but it could as easily be Blue Team in a future iteration.

But it's the opposite of what the Founders wanted.

[Kismet]

Another overly broad false premise.

Ok. So Congress can investigate these citizens all they want...even using the D of Homeland security Committee, for purely political purposes....

So long as they don't ask them to testify on CSPAN in a Congressional Hearing.

Do I have it now? It's only the Hearing that's a bridge too far for you. That's it?

You're just makin' sh!t up now.

They don't just want a deposition from Bannon. They want to put him in stocks & throw tomatoes at him on tv.
...& it won't just be on Cspan.

Talk about making sh*t up......the committee issued a lawful subpoena for records and for a non-public deposition. If your hero Bannon didn't have such a big mouth and went public on a podcast with a LOT of incriminating material maybe he could have avoided all this. But his goal is to blow up the entire government and country. Hence why they want to speak with him.

That said, you are certainly an expert on stocks and tomatoes because that is what your GOP heroes did for YEARS with Benghazi hearings...and you cheered them on every step of the way using the lame excuse that they were government employees when Bannon is claiming privilege as if he were one.

You're just a blatant hypocrite. Keep digging......maybe you will turn up in Taiwan to help stave off an invasion.

Incriminating material ? ...of what ? If it was incriminating, he'd be testifying under subpoena before a Grand Jury or a Judge, not before a political show trial.

Non-public deposition ? That's just the opener. The subpoena says the US public deserves to hear from him.

Get over the Benghazi hearings. They held govt officials accountable for what they failed to do in their official capacities which lead to the deaths of Americans overseas who were generating a "deliverable" for a political campaign, then abandoned.
You're the hypocrite for whining about the Benghazi hearings if you approve of this Schiff show.
Your ACLU card is about to spontaneously combust.

Not getting over anything as long as you keep up with the fantasy you are selling to yourself. Your goalposts are on wheels to facilitate moving them.

[SCLaxAttack]

Another overly broad false premise.

Ok. So Congress can investigate these citizens all they want...even using the D of Homeland security Committee, for purely political purposes....

So long as they don't ask them to testify on CSPAN in a Congressional Hearing.

Do I have it now? It's only the Hearing that's a bridge too far for you. That's it?

You're just makin' sh!t up now.

They don't just want a deposition from Bannon. They want to put him in stocks & throw tomatoes at him on tv.
...& it won't just be on Cspan.

Talk about making sh*t up......the committee issued a lawful subpoena for records and for a non-public deposition. If your hero Bannon didn't have such a big mouth and went public on a podcast with a LOT of incriminating material maybe he could have avoided all this. But his goal is to blow up the entire government and country. Hence why they want to speak with him.

That said, you are certainly an expert on stocks and tomatoes because that is what your GOP heroes did for YEARS with Benghazi hearings...and you cheered them on every step of the way using the lame excuse that they were government employees when Bannon is claiming privilege as if he were one.

You're just a blatant hypocrite. Keep digging......maybe you will turn up in Taiwan to help stave off an invasion.

Incriminating material ? ...of what ? If it was incriminating, he'd be testifying under subpoena before a Grand Jury or a Judge, not before a political show trial.

Non-public deposition ? That's just the opener. The subpoena says the US public deserves to hear from him.

Get over the Benghazi hearings. They held govt officials accountable for what they failed to do in their official capacities which lead to the deaths of Americans overseas who were generating a "deliverable" for a political campaign, then abandoned.
You're the hypocrite for whining about the Benghazi hearings if you approve of this Schiff show.
Your ACLU card is about to spontaneously combust.

Not getting over anything as long as you keep up with the fantasy you are selling to yourself. Your goalposts are on wheels to facilitate moving them.

So let's see. Congress is investigating if certain government officials failed in their official capacities, i.e. didn't uphold the Constitution and/or fomented insurrection. I guess that means OS really wants these hearings to take place.

At other times OS says Congress has no business investigating; that investigating is the purview of DOJ and other law enforcement organizations. I guess that means Congress should have never investigated Watergate. Law enforcement should have found anything illegal that Nixon and his cronies might have done.

Oh wait, it was the congressional hearings that flushed out the illegal activity beyond breaking and entering.

Old Salt is very confusing.

[a fan]

I can’t do the point by point but pot-kettle doesn’t work and is just angry sounding. I’m giving you your framework and you’re being angry with me.

I'm not the least bit angry! Happier than I've ever been. I'm trying to have a conversation with you, and it's not working.

I told you before, i was trained that when you discuss ideas, you define terms first. Again, that's why I was persnickety with the word socialism. And btw, you DIDN'T "give me my framework"...if you did, you'd agree that yep, that's what the dictionary says socialism is, and then begin a discussion on socialism in America. Instead, you told me that one of the simplest definitions in the political lexicon is too complicated to define.

And that's fine, I don't want to retread that. I'm simply trying to keep backing up, and finding an acceptable starting point for you that's enough of a holistic view for you, since that's important to you.

-----------------

So I'll try again. On the national level, what is the national economic strategy that each part is using to get America back up on top? You can even pick factions in each party, powerless or no, if you like.

So for Dems? The left wing of the party wants to do a few things: single payer health care. Free college tuition. Direct checks to parents of children every two weeks. Investment in green energy through things like carbon credits and fines, subsidies, grants, tax credits for solar panels, etc.

What's the plan for Republicans? I haven't heard one, so you're on the hook here.


And I think it may surprise you that I don't agree with many of the things the left wing of the Dem party wants. This is why I'm frankly desperate for ideas from your party.

[old salt]

Another overly broad false premise.

Ok. So Congress can investigate these citizens all they want...even using the D of Homeland security Committee, for purely political purposes....

So long as they don't ask them to testify on CSPAN in a Congressional Hearing.

Do I have it now? It's only the Hearing that's a bridge too far for you. That's it?

You're just makin' sh!t up now.

They don't just want a deposition from Bannon. They want to put him in stocks & throw tomatoes at him on tv.
...& it won't just be on Cspan.

Talk about making sh*t up......the committee issued a lawful subpoena for records and for a non-public deposition. If your hero Bannon didn't have such a big mouth and went public on a podcast with a LOT of incriminating material maybe he could have avoided all this. But his goal is to blow up the entire government and country. Hence why they want to speak with him.

That said, you are certainly an expert on stocks and tomatoes because that is what your GOP heroes did for YEARS with Benghazi hearings...and you cheered them on every step of the way using the lame excuse that they were government employees when Bannon is claiming privilege as if he were one.

You're just a blatant hypocrite. Keep digging......maybe you will turn up in Taiwan to help stave off an invasion.

Incriminating material ? ...of what ? If it was incriminating, he'd be testifying under subpoena before a Grand Jury or a Judge, not before a political show trial.

Non-public deposition ? That's just the opener. The subpoena says the US public deserves to hear from him.

Get over the Benghazi hearings. They held govt officials accountable for what they failed to do in their official capacities which lead to the deaths of Americans overseas who were generating a "deliverable" for a political campaign, then abandoned.
You're the hypocrite for whining about the Benghazi hearings if you approve of this Schiff show.
Your ACLU card is about to spontaneously combust.

Not getting over anything as long as you keep up with the fantasy you are selling to yourself. Your goalposts are on wheels to facilitate moving them.

So let's see. Congress is investigating if certain government officials failed in their official capacities, i.e. didn't uphold the Constitution and/or fomented insurrection. I guess that means OS really wants these hearings to take place.

At other times OS says Congress has no business investigating; that investigating is the purview of DOJ and other law enforcement organizations. I guess that means Congress should have never investigated Watergate. Law enforcement should have found anything illegal that Nixon and his cronies might have done.

Oh wait, it was the congressional hearings that flushed out the illegal activity beyond breaking and entering.

Old Salt is very confusing.

OS is not interested in Congressional dog & pony shows.

OS is anxious to see indictments & trials where there is probable cause to charge.

OS would prefer the show ponies devote their energy to finding a way to adequately protect & defend federal property from mob violence.

[SCLaxAttack]

Another overly broad false premise.

Ok. So Congress can investigate these citizens all they want...even using the D of Homeland security Committee, for purely political purposes....

So long as they don't ask them to testify on CSPAN in a Congressional Hearing.

Do I have it now? It's only the Hearing that's a bridge too far for you. That's it?

You're just makin' sh!t up now.

They don't just want a deposition from Bannon. They want to put him in stocks & throw tomatoes at him on tv.
...& it won't just be on Cspan.

Talk about making sh*t up......the committee issued a lawful subpoena for records and for a non-public deposition. If your hero Bannon didn't have such a big mouth and went public on a podcast with a LOT of incriminating material maybe he could have avoided all this. But his goal is to blow up the entire government and country. Hence why they want to speak with him.

That said, you are certainly an expert on stocks and tomatoes because that is what your GOP heroes did for YEARS with Benghazi hearings...and you cheered them on every step of the way using the lame excuse that they were government employees when Bannon is claiming privilege as if he were one.

You're just a blatant hypocrite. Keep digging......maybe you will turn up in Taiwan to help stave off an invasion.

Incriminating material ? ...of what ? If it was incriminating, he'd be testifying under subpoena before a Grand Jury or a Judge, not before a political show trial.

Non-public deposition ? That's just the opener. The subpoena says the US public deserves to hear from him.

Get over the Benghazi hearings. They held govt officials accountable for what they failed to do in their official capacities which lead to the deaths of Americans overseas who were generating a "deliverable" for a political campaign, then abandoned.
You're the hypocrite for whining about the Benghazi hearings if you approve of this Schiff show.
Your ACLU card is about to spontaneously combust.

Not getting over anything as long as you keep up with the fantasy you are selling to yourself. Your goalposts are on wheels to facilitate moving them.

So let's see. Congress is investigating if certain government officials failed in their official capacities, i.e. didn't uphold the Constitution and/or fomented insurrection. I guess that means OS really wants these hearings to take place.

At other times OS says Congress has no business investigating; that investigating is the purview of DOJ and other law enforcement organizations. I guess that means Congress should have never investigated Watergate. Law enforcement should have found anything illegal that Nixon and his cronies might have done.

Oh wait, it was the congressional hearings that flushed out the illegal activity beyond breaking and entering.

Old Salt is very confusing.

OS is not interested in Congressional dog & pony shows.

OS is anxious to see indictments & trials where there is probable cause to charge.

OS would prefer the show ponies devote their energy to finding a way to adequately protect & defend federal property from mob violence.

That GD Watergate dog and pony show. What a waste.

[old salt]

Another overly broad false premise.

Ok. So Congress can investigate these citizens all they want...even using the D of Homeland security Committee, for purely political purposes....

So long as they don't ask them to testify on CSPAN in a Congressional Hearing.

Do I have it now? It's only the Hearing that's a bridge too far for you. That's it?

You're just makin' sh!t up now.

They don't just want a deposition from Bannon. They want to put him in stocks & throw tomatoes at him on tv.
...& it won't just be on Cspan.

Talk about making sh*t up......the committee issued a lawful subpoena for records and for a non-public deposition. If your hero Bannon didn't have such a big mouth and went public on a podcast with a LOT of incriminating material maybe he could have avoided all this. But his goal is to blow up the entire government and country. Hence why they want to speak with him.

That said, you are certainly an expert on stocks and tomatoes because that is what your GOP heroes did for YEARS with Benghazi hearings...and you cheered them on every step of the way using the lame excuse that they were government employees when Bannon is claiming privilege as if he were one.

You're just a blatant hypocrite. Keep digging......maybe you will turn up in Taiwan to help stave off an invasion.

Incriminating material ? ...of what ? If it was incriminating, he'd be testifying under subpoena before a Grand Jury or a Judge, not before a political show trial.

Non-public deposition ? That's just the opener. The subpoena says the US public deserves to hear from him.

Get over the Benghazi hearings. They held govt officials accountable for what they failed to do in their official capacities which lead to the deaths of Americans overseas who were generating a "deliverable" for a political campaign, then abandoned.
You're the hypocrite for whining about the Benghazi hearings if you approve of this Schiff show.
Your ACLU card is about to spontaneously combust.

Not getting over anything as long as you keep up with the fantasy you are selling to yourself. Your goalposts are on wheels to facilitate moving them.

So let's see. Congress is investigating if certain government officials failed in their official capacities, i.e. didn't uphold the Constitution and/or fomented insurrection. I guess that means OS really wants these hearings to take place.

At other times OS says Congress has no business investigating; that investigating is the purview of DOJ and other law enforcement organizations. I guess that means Congress should have never investigated Watergate. Law enforcement should have found anything illegal that Nixon and his cronies might have done.

Oh wait, it was the congressional hearings that flushed out the illegal activity beyond breaking and entering.

Old Salt is very confusing.

OS is not interested in Congressional dog & pony shows.

OS is anxious to see indictments & trials where there is probable cause to charge.

OS would prefer the show ponies devote their energy to finding a way to adequately protect & defend federal property from mob violence.

That GD Watergate dog and pony show. What a waste.

Maybe they'll get Trump to leave office & fly home to Mar a Lago. ...oh, wait.

This will just help him wrap up the '24 nomination. Well played.

[SCLaxAttack]

Another overly broad false premise.

Ok. So Congress can investigate these citizens all they want...even using the D of Homeland security Committee, for purely political purposes....

So long as they don't ask them to testify on CSPAN in a Congressional Hearing.

Do I have it now? It's only the Hearing that's a bridge too far for you. That's it?

You're just makin' sh!t up now.

They don't just want a deposition from Bannon. They want to put him in stocks & throw tomatoes at him on tv.
...& it won't just be on Cspan.

Talk about making sh*t up......the committee issued a lawful subpoena for records and for a non-public deposition. If your hero Bannon didn't have such a big mouth and went public on a podcast with a LOT of incriminating material maybe he could have avoided all this. But his goal is to blow up the entire government and country. Hence why they want to speak with him.

That said, you are certainly an expert on stocks and tomatoes because that is what your GOP heroes did for YEARS with Benghazi hearings...and you cheered them on every step of the way using the lame excuse that they were government employees when Bannon is claiming privilege as if he were one.

You're just a blatant hypocrite. Keep digging......maybe you will turn up in Taiwan to help stave off an invasion.

Incriminating material ? ...of what ? If it was incriminating, he'd be testifying under subpoena before a Grand Jury or a Judge, not before a political show trial.

Non-public deposition ? That's just the opener. The subpoena says the US public deserves to hear from him.

Get over the Benghazi hearings. They held govt officials accountable for what they failed to do in their official capacities which lead to the deaths of Americans overseas who were generating a "deliverable" for a political campaign, then abandoned.
You're the hypocrite for whining about the Benghazi hearings if you approve of this Schiff show.
Your ACLU card is about to spontaneously combust.

Not getting over anything as long as you keep up with the fantasy you are selling to yourself. Your goalposts are on wheels to facilitate moving them.

So let's see. Congress is investigating if certain government officials failed in their official capacities, i.e. didn't uphold the Constitution and/or fomented insurrection. I guess that means OS really wants these hearings to take place.

At other times OS says Congress has no business investigating; that investigating is the purview of DOJ and other law enforcement organizations. I guess that means Congress should have never investigated Watergate. Law enforcement should have found anything illegal that Nixon and his cronies might have done.

Oh wait, it was the congressional hearings that flushed out the illegal activity beyond breaking and entering.

Old Salt is very confusing.

OS is not interested in Congressional dog & pony shows.

OS is anxious to see indictments & trials where there is probable cause to charge.

OS would prefer the show ponies devote their energy to finding a way to adequately protect & defend federal property from mob violence.

That GD Watergate dog and pony show. What a waste.

Maybe they'll get Trump to leave office & fly home to Mar a Lago. ...oh, wait.

This will just help him wrap up the '24 nomination. Well played.

Just ignore that the hearings were what flushed out the illegal activity. Protect your guy.

[Farfromgeneva]

I can’t do the point by point but pot-kettle doesn’t work and is just angry sounding. I’m giving you your framework and you’re being angry with me.

I'm not the least bit angry! Happier than I've ever been. I'm trying to have a conversation with you, and it's not working.

I told you before, i was trained that when you discuss ideas, you define terms first. Again, that's why I was persnickety with the word socialism. And btw, you DIDN'T "give me my framework"...if you did, you'd agree that yep, that's what the dictionary says socialism is, and then begin a discussion on socialism in America. Instead, you told me that one of the simplest definitions in the political lexicon is too complicated to define.

And that's fine, I don't want to retread that. I'm simply trying to keep backing up, and finding an acceptable starting point for you that's enough of a holistic view for you, since that's important to you.

-----------------

So I'll try again. On the national level, what is the national economic strategy that each part is using to get America back up on top? You can even pick factions in each party, powerless or no, if you like.

So for Dems? The left wing of the party wants to do a few things: single payer health care. Free college tuition. Direct checks to parents of children every two weeks. Investment in green energy through things like carbon credits and fines, subsidies, grants, tax credits for solar panels, etc.

What's the plan for Republicans? I haven't heard one, so you're on the hook here.


And I think it may surprise you that I don't agree with many of the things the left wing of the Dem party wants. This is why I'm frankly desperate for ideas from your party.

Well you have to be consistent and I never heard you articulate that anything but a dictionary definition is the meaning of a concept. Ergo when I give you a dictionary definition and then a week later in arguing with someone else you repeat a request for a definition of the term, after I fully documented a dictionary definition, it sure appears as though you are cherry picking the framework as you like it. Otherwise you wouldn’t have asked that question again to anyone as to what the term public good means. Seems difficult to believe you forgot I provided that since we made a big discussions around it and you had to that date and still only argued that dictionary definitions are meanings never give in at all to my suggestions that definitions are an essence/platonic ideal and shift with time and writers in the context of understanding. If you came closer to me on that point it was never clearly communicated to me within these discussions or in any other posts of yours that I noticed.

[old salt]

Another overly broad false premise.

Ok. So Congress can investigate these citizens all they want...even using the D of Homeland security Committee, for purely political purposes....

So long as they don't ask them to testify on CSPAN in a Congressional Hearing.

Do I have it now? It's only the Hearing that's a bridge too far for you. That's it?

You're just makin' sh!t up now.

They don't just want a deposition from Bannon. They want to put him in stocks & throw tomatoes at him on tv.
...& it won't just be on Cspan.

Talk about making sh*t up......the committee issued a lawful subpoena for records and for a non-public deposition. If your hero Bannon didn't have such a big mouth and went public on a podcast with a LOT of incriminating material maybe he could have avoided all this. But his goal is to blow up the entire government and country. Hence why they want to speak with him.

That said, you are certainly an expert on stocks and tomatoes because that is what your GOP heroes did for YEARS with Benghazi hearings...and you cheered them on every step of the way using the lame excuse that they were government employees when Bannon is claiming privilege as if he were one.

You're just a blatant hypocrite. Keep digging......maybe you will turn up in Taiwan to help stave off an invasion.

Incriminating material ? ...of what ? If it was incriminating, he'd be testifying under subpoena before a Grand Jury or a Judge, not before a political show trial.

Non-public deposition ? That's just the opener. The subpoena says the US public deserves to hear from him.

Get over the Benghazi hearings. They held govt officials accountable for what they failed to do in their official capacities which lead to the deaths of Americans overseas who were generating a "deliverable" for a political campaign, then abandoned.
You're the hypocrite for whining about the Benghazi hearings if you approve of this Schiff show.
Your ACLU card is about to spontaneously combust.

Not getting over anything as long as you keep up with the fantasy you are selling to yourself. Your goalposts are on wheels to facilitate moving them.

So let's see. Congress is investigating if certain government officials failed in their official capacities, i.e. didn't uphold the Constitution and/or fomented insurrection. I guess that means OS really wants these hearings to take place.

At other times OS says Congress has no business investigating; that investigating is the purview of DOJ and other law enforcement organizations. I guess that means Congress should have never investigated Watergate. Law enforcement should have found anything illegal that Nixon and his cronies might have done.

Oh wait, it was the congressional hearings that flushed out the illegal activity beyond breaking and entering.

Old Salt is very confusing.

OS is not interested in Congressional dog & pony shows.

OS is anxious to see indictments & trials where there is probable cause to charge.

OS would prefer the show ponies devote their energy to finding a way to adequately protect & defend federal property from mob violence.

That GD Watergate dog and pony show. What a waste.

Maybe they'll get Trump to leave office & fly home to Mar a Lago. ...oh, wait.

This will just help him wrap up the '24 nomination. Well played.

Just ignore that the hearings were what flushed out the illegal activity. Protect your guy.

Woodward flushed him. History repeats.

[Kismet]

Another overly broad false premise.

Ok. So Congress can investigate these citizens all they want...even using the D of Homeland security Committee, for purely political purposes....

So long as they don't ask them to testify on CSPAN in a Congressional Hearing.

Do I have it now? It's only the Hearing that's a bridge too far for you. That's it?

You're just makin' sh!t up now.

They don't just want a deposition from Bannon. They want to put him in stocks & throw tomatoes at him on tv.
...& it won't just be on Cspan.

Talk about making sh*t up......the committee issued a lawful subpoena for records and for a non-public deposition. If your hero Bannon didn't have such a big mouth and went public on a podcast with a LOT of incriminating material maybe he could have avoided all this. But his goal is to blow up the entire government and country. Hence why they want to speak with him.

That said, you are certainly an expert on stocks and tomatoes because that is what your GOP heroes did for YEARS with Benghazi hearings...and you cheered them on every step of the way using the lame excuse that they were government employees when Bannon is claiming privilege as if he were one.

You're just a blatant hypocrite. Keep digging......maybe you will turn up in Taiwan to help stave off an invasion.

Incriminating material ? ...of what ? If it was incriminating, he'd be testifying under subpoena before a Grand Jury or a Judge, not before a political show trial.

Non-public deposition ? That's just the opener. The subpoena says the US public deserves to hear from him.

Get over the Benghazi hearings. They held govt officials accountable for what they failed to do in their official capacities which lead to the deaths of Americans overseas who were generating a "deliverable" for a political campaign, then abandoned.
You're the hypocrite for whining about the Benghazi hearings if you approve of this Schiff show.
Your ACLU card is about to spontaneously combust.

Not getting over anything as long as you keep up with the fantasy you are selling to yourself. Your goalposts are on wheels to facilitate moving them.

So let's see. Congress is investigating if certain government officials failed in their official capacities, i.e. didn't uphold the Constitution and/or fomented insurrection. I guess that means OS really wants these hearings to take place.

At other times OS says Congress has no business investigating; that investigating is the purview of DOJ and other law enforcement organizations. I guess that means Congress should have never investigated Watergate. Law enforcement should have found anything illegal that Nixon and his cronies might have done.

Oh wait, it was the congressional hearings that flushed out the illegal activity beyond breaking and entering.

Old Salt is very confusing.

OS is not interested in Congressional dog & pony shows.

OS is anxious to see indictments & trials where there is probable cause to charge.

OS would prefer the show ponies devote their energy to finding a way to adequately protect & defend federal property from mob violence.

That GD Watergate dog and pony show. What a waste.

Maybe they'll get Trump to leave office & fly home to Mar a Lago. ...oh, wait.

This will just help him wrap up the '24 nomination. Well played.

Just ignore that the hearings were what flushed out the illegal activity. Protect your guy.

Woodward flushed him. History repeats.

If you don't think that there are folks in DoJ (including FBI) looking into January 6 you're delusional. You can also bet that the committee and DoJ are coordinating exactly for the reason you enumerate that Congress is not in charge of prosecuting criminal activity. Any evidence they discover, they likely promptly turn over to DoJ. This is what occurred during Watergate as well.

Also no surprise that nobody is commenting on an ongoing investigation......after all Jim Comey is long departed.

As for Gowdy/Benghazi - How is Liz Cheney any different in the current context? Her public statement earlier today

"Based on the committee's investigation, it appears that Mr. Bannon had substantial advance knowledge of the plans for January 6 and likely had an important role in formulating those plans. Mr. Bannon was in the war room at the Willard on January 6. He also appears to have detailed knowledge regarding the president's efforts to sell millions of Americans the fraud that the election was stolen...Mr. Bannon's and Mr. Trump's privilege arguments do however appear to reveal one thing: They suggest that President Trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of January 6. And this committee will get to the bottom of that."

[a fan]

I can’t do the point by point but pot-kettle doesn’t work and is just angry sounding. I’m giving you your framework and you’re being angry with me.

I'm not the least bit angry! Happier than I've ever been. I'm trying to have a conversation with you, and it's not working.

I told you before, i was trained that when you discuss ideas, you define terms first. Again, that's why I was persnickety with the word socialism. And btw, you DIDN'T "give me my framework"...if you did, you'd agree that yep, that's what the dictionary says socialism is, and then begin a discussion on socialism in America. Instead, you told me that one of the simplest definitions in the political lexicon is too complicated to define.

And that's fine, I don't want to retread that. I'm simply trying to keep backing up, and finding an acceptable starting point for you that's enough of a holistic view for you, since that's important to you.

-----------------

So I'll try again. On the national level, what is the national economic strategy that each part is using to get America back up on top? You can even pick factions in each party, powerless or no, if you like.

So for Dems? The left wing of the party wants to do a few things: single payer health care. Free college tuition. Direct checks to parents of children every two weeks. Investment in green energy through things like carbon credits and fines, subsidies, grants, tax credits for solar panels, etc.

What's the plan for Republicans? I haven't heard one, so you're on the hook here.


And I think it may surprise you that I don't agree with many of the things the left wing of the Dem party wants. This is why I'm frankly desperate for ideas from your party.

Well you have to be consistent and I never heard you articulate that anything but a dictionary definition is the meaning of a concept. Ergo when I give you a dictionary definition and then a week later in arguing with someone else you repeat a request for a definition of the term, after I fully documented a dictionary definition, it sure appears as though you are cherry picking the framework as you like it

I'll say it again: you want to discuss the dictionary definition of either public good or socialism as it applies to politics in 2021, I'm here for it. Let me know....

[old salt]

Another overly broad false premise.

Ok. So Congress can investigate these citizens all they want...even using the D of Homeland security Committee, for purely political purposes....

So long as they don't ask them to testify on CSPAN in a Congressional Hearing.

Do I have it now? It's only the Hearing that's a bridge too far for you. That's it?

You're just makin' sh!t up now.

They don't just want a deposition from Bannon. They want to put him in stocks & throw tomatoes at him on tv.
...& it won't just be on Cspan.

Talk about making sh*t up......the committee issued a lawful subpoena for records and for a non-public deposition. If your hero Bannon didn't have such a big mouth and went public on a podcast with a LOT of incriminating material maybe he could have avoided all this. But his goal is to blow up the entire government and country. Hence why they want to speak with him.

That said, you are certainly an expert on stocks and tomatoes because that is what your GOP heroes did for YEARS with Benghazi hearings...and you cheered them on every step of the way using the lame excuse that they were government employees when Bannon is claiming privilege as if he were one.

You're just a blatant hypocrite. Keep digging......maybe you will turn up in Taiwan to help stave off an invasion.

Incriminating material ? ...of what ? If it was incriminating, he'd be testifying under subpoena before a Grand Jury or a Judge, not before a political show trial.

Non-public deposition ? That's just the opener. The subpoena says the US public deserves to hear from him.

Get over the Benghazi hearings. They held govt officials accountable for what they failed to do in their official capacities which lead to the deaths of Americans overseas who were generating a "deliverable" for a political campaign, then abandoned.
You're the hypocrite for whining about the Benghazi hearings if you approve of this Schiff show.
Your ACLU card is about to spontaneously combust.

Not getting over anything as long as you keep up with the fantasy you are selling to yourself. Your goalposts are on wheels to facilitate moving them.

So let's see. Congress is investigating if certain government officials failed in their official capacities, i.e. didn't uphold the Constitution and/or fomented insurrection. I guess that means OS really wants these hearings to take place.

At other times OS says Congress has no business investigating; that investigating is the purview of DOJ and other law enforcement organizations. I guess that means Congress should have never investigated Watergate. Law enforcement should have found anything illegal that Nixon and his cronies might have done.

Oh wait, it was the congressional hearings that flushed out the illegal activity beyond breaking and entering.

Old Salt is very confusing.

OS is not interested in Congressional dog & pony shows.

OS is anxious to see indictments & trials where there is probable cause to charge.

OS would prefer the show ponies devote their energy to finding a way to adequately protect & defend federal property from mob violence.

That GD Watergate dog and pony show. What a waste.

Maybe they'll get Trump to leave office & fly home to Mar a Lago. ...oh, wait.

This will just help him wrap up the '24 nomination. Well played.

Just ignore that the hearings were what flushed out the illegal activity. Protect your guy.

Woodward flushed him. History repeats.

If you don't think that there are folks in DoJ (including FBI) looking into January 6 you're delusional. You can also bet that the committee and DoJ are coordinating exactly for the reason you enumerate that Congress is not in charge of prosecuting criminal activity. Any evidence they discover, they likely promptly turn over to DoJ. This is what occurred during Watergate as well.

Also no surprise that nobody is commenting on an ongoing investigation......after all Jim Comey is long departed.

As for Gowdy/Benghazi - How is Liz Cheney any different in the current context? Her public statement earlier today

"Based on the committee's investigation, it appears that Mr. Bannon had substantial advance knowledge of the plans for January 6 and likely had an important role in formulating those plans. Mr. Bannon was in the war room at the Willard on January 6. He also appears to have detailed knowledge regarding the president's efforts to sell millions of Americans the fraud that the election was stolen...Mr. Bannon's and Mr. Trump's privilege arguments do however appear to reveal one thing: They suggest that President Trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of January 6. And this committee will get to the bottom of that."

I've pointed out that the FBI has called this the largest investigation in their history. So why get out ahead of the FBI & DoJ if they are in the process of discovering criminal activity by Trump, Bannon & the others under subpoena ? Was the Willard War Room a crime scene, or not ?

Nobody commenting on the ongoing investigation ? Adam Schiff is dismayed that, "there's a real desire on the part of the Attorney General... not to look backward ...l disagree with it most vehemently ..."

If there is no underlying criminal activity by those under subpoena, what legislation or "legislative process" can Congress produce which will prevent such future mob violence ? Whose political speech must be restricted, by whom & to what standard ?

[Farfromgeneva]

I can’t do the point by point but pot-kettle doesn’t work and is just angry sounding. I’m giving you your framework and you’re being angry with me.

I'm not the least bit angry! Happier than I've ever been. I'm trying to have a conversation with you, and it's not working.

I told you before, i was trained that when you discuss ideas, you define terms first. Again, that's why I was persnickety with the word socialism. And btw, you DIDN'T "give me my framework"...if you did, you'd agree that yep, that's what the dictionary says socialism is, and then begin a discussion on socialism in America. Instead, you told me that one of the simplest definitions in the political lexicon is too complicated to define.

And that's fine, I don't want to retread that. I'm simply trying to keep backing up, and finding an acceptable starting point for you that's enough of a holistic view for you, since that's important to you.

-----------------

So I'll try again. On the national level, what is the national economic strategy that each part is using to get America back up on top? You can even pick factions in each party, powerless or no, if you like.

So for Dems? The left wing of the party wants to do a few things: single payer health care. Free college tuition. Direct checks to parents of children every two weeks. Investment in green energy through things like carbon credits and fines, subsidies, grants, tax credits for solar panels, etc.

What's the plan for Republicans? I haven't heard one, so you're on the hook here.


And I think it may surprise you that I don't agree with many of the things the left wing of the Dem party wants. This is why I'm frankly desperate for ideas from your party.

Well you have to be consistent and I never heard you articulate that anything but a dictionary definition is the meaning of a concept. Ergo when I give you a dictionary definition and then a week later in arguing with someone else you repeat a request for a definition of the term, after I fully documented a dictionary definition, it sure appears as though you are cherry picking the framework as you like it

I'll say it again: you want to discuss the dictionary definition of either public good or socialism as it applies to politics in 2021, I'm here for it. Let me know....

You are the one insisting it has to come from the dictionary. Not me. Why did you deviate from that later on? I don’t understand the inconsistency unless you don’t believe it has to come from the dictionary. Help me understand that inconsistency in your part. Or not but it’s there explicitly as day with table pounding language and strong insistence.

[old salt]

Glenn Greenwald (GG), on the Ingraham Angle tonight, says what I have been trying to convey :

We have a system of the 3 branches of govt that are assigned different powers. It's very important that one not take powers that the Constitution doesn't assign it.

When there are crimes committed, as there obviously were on Jan 6th, the Executive Branch investigates, with the FBI & DoJ as they are doing, & then the Judiciary determines guilt, with all these safeguards.

It's not the job of Congress to investigate private citizens to determine whether or not crimes are being committed,
but what happened here is that they know that the Justice Dept is not going to delver on this narrative that they pedaled for 8 mos,
which was that this was an insurrection, these people were traitors, that they engaged in sedition.

No one is charged with any of those crimes, or attempted murder or kidnapping of AOC, so the Congress wants to put on this political show trial, this theater, & in the process they're hauling before Congress private citizens to interrogate them on their political associations & issuing subpoenas that are very invasive to investigate private citizens & their political acts.

It's a huge transgression of Congressional authority. That's what we had with the McCarthy hearings & the Supreme Court stepped in & said the Congress can't do that. If there are crimes, try people in a court of law & prove their guilt, but that's what Adam Schiff & Liz Cheney are trying to do.

...that's the huge fraud. It is true that Congress has the power to investigate under very limited circumstances, for example if they are considering changing the law.

...What laws could they possibly change by investigating who did what on Jan 6th ? It's already a serious crime to incite an insurrection. It's already a serious felony to threaten Federal officials or to engage in sedition.

They're not trying to consider lawmaking or amending any laws. They just want to drag people into the spotlight to satiate the sadistic liberal thirst for retribution, punishment & vengeance. It's just a political show trial & that's what makes it so dangerous. That's the script those Democratic lawyers gave him (Chairman Thompson) The Supreme Court said you can investigate if it's to help you rewrite laws, but nobody believes that is what this committee is really doing.