LaxPower Back-Up Stick

old salt, you keep using the word “precedent” as if it has substantive significance. It does not. The only thing that is relevant is whether the procedure Nadler has proposed is permitted by House rules. It is. End of story.

I don’t know whether you are correct or not that it is “unprecedented” that a Cabinet Secretary has been questioned at a House hearing by someone other than a Member. But even if you are correct, as long as it is permitted by the rules, neither Barr nor Trump nor you have any valid basis to block the approach.

At a point in time, there may have been a “precedent” that only white male members of Congress asked questions at Congressional hearings. Then women and persons of color got elected. Would that “precedent” preclude them from asking questions?

There is a long “precedent” that male members of Congress wear jackets when asking questions at hearings. Should Jim Jordan be barred from questioning witnesses because he flouts this “precedent”? Wait, maybe I agree with you about precedent on this one.

njbill wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 pm old salt, you keep using the word “precedent” as if it has substantive significance. It does not. The only thing that is relevant is whether the procedure Nadler has proposed is permitted by House rules. It is. End of story.

I don’t know whether you are correct or not that it is “unprecedented” that a Cabinet Secretary has been questioned at a House hearing by someone other than a Member. But even if you are correct, as long as it is permitted by the rules, neither Barr nor Trump nor you have any valid basis to block the approach.

At a point in time, there may have been a “precedent” that only white male members of Congress asked questions at Congressional hearings. Then women and persons of color got elected. Would that “precedent” preclude them from asking questions?

There is a long “precedent” that male members of Congress wear jackets when asking questions at hearings. Should Jim Jordan be barred from questioning witnesses because he flouts this “precedent”? Wait, maybe I agree with you about precedent on this one.

Too cute by half.

CONGRESsmen and women were ELECTED not their staff. Barr was voted on by CONGRESSmen and women not their staff. Let the elected wholes ask anything they want. Not their staff. Not sn outside prosecutor.

old salt wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 6:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 am Salty,

Here's the limited aspect on which you and I appear to agree.

This isn't "routine" oversight.

Very serious stuff when you're looking at corruption in the Administration.

Whether corruption in the form of emoluments, or kompromat with a foreign adversary, or obstruction of justice, or the issuance of inappropriate security clearances, or any number of other forms of potential corruption or abuse of power, these are far from "routine" matters.

Impeachment is one remedy, but so too is sunlight.

Our system depends upon sunlight, whereas authoritarianism depends upon the suppression of truth and the total intimidation of opposition.

Nadler is calling Barr to tesify before his committee under their normal power of oversight for his department.
Questioning of Cabinet officers by staff, rather than by members, in such hearings, is without precedent,
To comply would be establishing new precedent, which will surely be abused again in the future.

If it's necessary to have Cabinet officials questioned by staff lawyers, (D) leadership needs to establish a select committee to investigate, or convene impeachment proceedings, where there is precedent for such questioning.

The premise for this is ridiculous. Barr has turned over much more than he is required to provide, To disclose more would be unlawful.
The (D)'s haven't even read the redacted portions which are available to them. They have access to 98 % of the report.
This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make Barr the boogeyman.
You're too smart to fall for this stuff.

Again, the notion that you and the various Trumpists pretend that 'precedent' in any way constrains anyone in this arena is immensely hypocritical.

There are absolutely no rules requiring the process to not utilize staff counsel, or any other format the chairman wishes.

Yes, they want the Administration to face public scrutiny under oath on camera and with a coherent line of questioning.

The Administration wants to bury it all, face no cameras, no questioning in public.

Sure, they're offering a less redacted version to be read by a couple of congressional officials, but no notes and no ability to describe anything of what they read. Again, they want to keep it from the public.

So, here's the kicker, they don't want Mueller to be on camera answering questions. None of his staff. None of the key witnesses from the Report.

Bury it, lie about it. That's the Trump strategy...and you know it.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 9:42 am

njbill wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 pm old salt, you keep using the word “precedent” as if it has substantive significance. It does not. The only thing that is relevant is whether the procedure Nadler has proposed is permitted by House rules. It is. End of story.

I don’t know whether you are correct or not that it is “unprecedented” that a Cabinet Secretary has been questioned at a House hearing by someone other than a Member. But even if you are correct, as long as it is permitted by the rules, neither Barr nor Trump nor you have any valid basis to block the approach.

At a point in time, there may have been a “precedent” that only white male members of Congress asked questions at Congressional hearings. Then women and persons of color got elected. Would that “precedent” preclude them from asking questions?

There is a long “precedent” that male members of Congress wear jackets when asking questions at hearings. Should Jim Jordan be barred from questioning witnesses because he flouts this “precedent”? Wait, maybe I agree with you about precedent on this one.

Too cute by half.

CONGRESsmen and women were ELECTED not their staff. Barr was voted on by CONGRESSmen and women not their staff. Let the elected wholes ask anything they want. Not their staff. Not sn outside prosecutor.

Again, so what?
You're free to be mad at your own Congressperson if they don't ask questions, but that's between the Congressperson and his/her voters.

The Chairman sets the process, not anyone else.

Again, Barr is simply afraid to be questioned by a professional with a coherent line of questioning.
Trumpists are afraid Barr would find himself flailing badly if he can't filibuster the questioner's 5 minutes, that a pro would tear him a new one. Would they be so scared if they knew he was telling the truth and not misrepresenting the Report? No way.

They want to bury it.

Again, the proof is that they don't want Mueller to testify.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 9:48 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 9:42 am

njbill wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 pm old salt, you keep using the word “precedent” as if it has substantive significance. It does not. The only thing that is relevant is whether the procedure Nadler has proposed is permitted by House rules. It is. End of story.

I don’t know whether you are correct or not that it is “unprecedented” that a Cabinet Secretary has been questioned at a House hearing by someone other than a Member. But even if you are correct, as long as it is permitted by the rules, neither Barr nor Trump nor you have any valid basis to block the approach.

At a point in time, there may have been a “precedent” that only white male members of Congress asked questions at Congressional hearings. Then women and persons of color got elected. Would that “precedent” preclude them from asking questions?

There is a long “precedent” that male members of Congress wear jackets when asking questions at hearings. Should Jim Jordan be barred from questioning witnesses because he flouts this “precedent”? Wait, maybe I agree with you about precedent on this one.

Too cute by half.

CONGRESsmen and women were ELECTED not their staff. Barr was voted on by CONGRESSmen and women not their staff. Let the elected wholes ask anything they want. Not their staff. Not sn outside prosecutor.

Again, so what?
You're free to be mad at your own Congressperson if they don't ask questions, but that's between the Congressperson and his/her voters.

The Chairman sets the process, not anyone else.

Again, Barr is simply afraid to be questioned by a professional with a coherent line of questioning.
Trumpists are afraid Barr would find himself flailing badly if he can't filibuster the questioner's 5 minutes, that a pro would tear him a new one. Would they be so scared if they knew he was telling the truth and not misrepresenting the Report? No way.

They want to bury it.

Again, the proof is that they don't want Mueller to testify.

You really think Barr is "afraid" of anyone on the hill?

Barr is not "afraid" of anyone on the hill - he is just doing the job the president wants - delay, delay, delay until things are too close to the election and Trump/Trumpists then claim you can no longer investigate because it is interfering with the election.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 10:08 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 9:48 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 9:42 am

njbill wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 pm old salt, you keep using the word “precedent” as if it has substantive significance. It does not. The only thing that is relevant is whether the procedure Nadler has proposed is permitted by House rules. It is. End of story.

I don’t know whether you are correct or not that it is “unprecedented” that a Cabinet Secretary has been questioned at a House hearing by someone other than a Member. But even if you are correct, as long as it is permitted by the rules, neither Barr nor Trump nor you have any valid basis to block the approach.

At a point in time, there may have been a “precedent” that only white male members of Congress asked questions at Congressional hearings. Then women and persons of color got elected. Would that “precedent” preclude them from asking questions?

There is a long “precedent” that male members of Congress wear jackets when asking questions at hearings. Should Jim Jordan be barred from questioning witnesses because he flouts this “precedent”? Wait, maybe I agree with you about precedent on this one.

Too cute by half.

CONGRESsmen and women were ELECTED not their staff. Barr was voted on by CONGRESSmen and women not their staff. Let the elected wholes ask anything they want. Not their staff. Not sn outside prosecutor.

Again, so what?
You're free to be mad at your own Congressperson if they don't ask questions, but that's between the Congressperson and his/her voters.

The Chairman sets the process, not anyone else.

Again, Barr is simply afraid to be questioned by a professional with a coherent line of questioning.
Trumpists are afraid Barr would find himself flailing badly if he can't filibuster the questioner's 5 minutes, that a pro would tear him a new one. Would they be so scared if they knew he was telling the truth and not misrepresenting the Report? No way.

They want to bury it.

Again, the proof is that they don't want Mueller to testify.

You really think Barr is "afraid" of anyone on the hill?

Actually, yes, I think he's quaking in his boots at the prospect of being under the public microscope in a coherent, persistent, professional line of extended questioning...in front of the camera and under oath. Or he sure as heck should be, as it's already clear that he can fumble and lie under oath as it is. But, without the full line of persistent, coherent questioning with follow-up, he skates around the meaning of words later, when he's not under oath.

Conversely, I think he's reasonably confident he could filibuster and obfuscate his way out of any the Congressperson's 5 minute stints, especially given most politician's predilection for making speeches. When he stumbles, he is able to spin it later that he meant something different than the plain meaning of his words.

But he's not super quick on his feet, and he's no longer going to be shown any deference or presumption of telling the truth the way he's previously been treated. He knows he'll be walking into a situation where they know he misrepresented the Report and they're now far better prepared to examine him about it. Do that with a professional and, yeah, he's got a lot to be afraid of that day.

Red is certainly correct that it's also a delaying tactic, all part of the deny all requested information, all witnesses, in all investigations of the corruption of the current POTUS and his minions.

But what the Trumpists including Barr are really afraid of is having Mueller and his staff publicly testify as to what they found, their process and their actual views as to the facts and law. They're afraid of McGahn and numerous other key witnesses testifying publicly.

So, delay, lie, delay again is going to be the Trumpist strategy.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 9:13 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 6:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 am Salty,

Here's the limited aspect on which you and I appear to agree.

This isn't "routine" oversight.

Very serious stuff when you're looking at corruption in the Administration.

Whether corruption in the form of emoluments, or kompromat with a foreign adversary, or obstruction of justice, or the issuance of inappropriate security clearances, or any number of other forms of potential corruption or abuse of power, these are far from "routine" matters.

Impeachment is one remedy, but so too is sunlight.

Our system depends upon sunlight, whereas authoritarianism depends upon the suppression of truth and the total intimidation of opposition.

Nadler is calling Barr to tesify before his committee under their normal power of oversight for his department.
Questioning of Cabinet officers by staff, rather than by members, in such hearings, is without precedent,
To comply would be establishing new precedent, which will surely be abused again in the future.

If it's necessary to have Cabinet officials questioned by staff lawyers, (D) leadership needs to establish a select committee to investigate, or convene impeachment proceedings, where there is precedent for such questioning.

The premise for this is ridiculous. Barr has turned over much more than he is required to provide, To disclose more would be unlawful.
The (D)'s haven't even read the redacted portions which are available to them. They have access to 98 % of the report.
This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make Barr the boogeyman.
You're too smart to fall for this stuff.

Like Benghazi

That was a select committee, formed to investigate a specific incident in depth.

It was not routine Congressional oversight of an Exec Branch Dept, which is what Nadler's committee is.

This is unprecedented. It's Congressional overreach & should be resisted.
The (D) leadership should establish a select committee for a specific investigation or convene impeahment hearings if it's necessary for staff lawyers to question Barr.

The Trump Admin is right to resist. Let the (D)'s charge Barr with contempt & the Courts can decide.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:49 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 9:13 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 6:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 am Salty,

Here's the limited aspect on which you and I appear to agree.

This isn't "routine" oversight.

Very serious stuff when you're looking at corruption in the Administration.

Whether corruption in the form of emoluments, or kompromat with a foreign adversary, or obstruction of justice, or the issuance of inappropriate security clearances, or any number of other forms of potential corruption or abuse of power, these are far from "routine" matters.

Impeachment is one remedy, but so too is sunlight.

Our system depends upon sunlight, whereas authoritarianism depends upon the suppression of truth and the total intimidation of opposition.

Nadler is calling Barr to tesify before his committee under their normal power of oversight for his department.
Questioning of Cabinet officers by staff, rather than by members, in such hearings, is without precedent,
To comply would be establishing new precedent, which will surely be abused again in the future.

If it's necessary to have Cabinet officials questioned by staff lawyers, (D) leadership needs to establish a select committee to investigate, or convene impeachment proceedings, where there is precedent for such questioning.

The premise for this is ridiculous. Barr has turned over much more than he is required to provide, To disclose more would be unlawful.
The (D)'s haven't even read the redacted portions which are available to them. They have access to 98 % of the report.
This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make Barr the boogeyman.
You're too smart to fall for this stuff.

Like Benghazi

That was a select committee, formed to investigate a specific incident in depth.

It was not routine Congressional oversight of an Exec Branch Dept, which is what Nadler's committee is.

Most deplorables don't know that...

This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make [Clinton] the boogeyman.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:51 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:49 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 9:13 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 6:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 am Salty,

Here's the limited aspect on which you and I appear to agree.

This isn't "routine" oversight.

Very serious stuff when you're looking at corruption in the Administration.

Whether corruption in the form of emoluments, or kompromat with a foreign adversary, or obstruction of justice, or the issuance of inappropriate security clearances, or any number of other forms of potential corruption or abuse of power, these are far from "routine" matters.

Impeachment is one remedy, but so too is sunlight.

Our system depends upon sunlight, whereas authoritarianism depends upon the suppression of truth and the total intimidation of opposition.

Nadler is calling Barr to tesify before his committee under their normal power of oversight for his department.
Questioning of Cabinet officers by staff, rather than by members, in such hearings, is without precedent,
To comply would be establishing new precedent, which will surely be abused again in the future.

If it's necessary to have Cabinet officials questioned by staff lawyers, (D) leadership needs to establish a select committee to investigate, or convene impeachment proceedings, where there is precedent for such questioning.

The premise for this is ridiculous. Barr has turned over much more than he is required to provide, To disclose more would be unlawful.
The (D)'s haven't even read the redacted portions which are available to them. They have access to 98 % of the report.
This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make Barr the boogeyman.
You're too smart to fall for this stuff.

Like Benghazi

That was a select committee, formed to investigate a specific incident in depth.

It was not routine Congressional oversight of an Exec Branch Dept, which is what Nadler's committee is.

Most deplorables don't know that...

This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make [Clinton] the boogeyman.

Most deplorables aren't proctologists but they know an a**hole when they see one.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:16 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:51 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:49 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 9:13 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 6:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 am Salty,

Here's the limited aspect on which you and I appear to agree.

This isn't "routine" oversight.

Very serious stuff when you're looking at corruption in the Administration.

Whether corruption in the form of emoluments, or kompromat with a foreign adversary, or obstruction of justice, or the issuance of inappropriate security clearances, or any number of other forms of potential corruption or abuse of power, these are far from "routine" matters.

Impeachment is one remedy, but so too is sunlight.

Our system depends upon sunlight, whereas authoritarianism depends upon the suppression of truth and the total intimidation of opposition.

Nadler is calling Barr to tesify before his committee under their normal power of oversight for his department.
Questioning of Cabinet officers by staff, rather than by members, in such hearings, is without precedent,
To comply would be establishing new precedent, which will surely be abused again in the future.

If it's necessary to have Cabinet officials questioned by staff lawyers, (D) leadership needs to establish a select committee to investigate, or convene impeachment proceedings, where there is precedent for such questioning.

The premise for this is ridiculous. Barr has turned over much more than he is required to provide, To disclose more would be unlawful.
The (D)'s haven't even read the redacted portions which are available to them. They have access to 98 % of the report.
This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make Barr the boogeyman.
You're too smart to fall for this stuff.

Like Benghazi

That was a select committee, formed to investigate a specific incident in depth.

It was not routine Congressional oversight of an Exec Branch Dept, which is what Nadler's committee is.

Most deplorables don't know that...

This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make [Clinton] the boogeyman.

Most deplorables aren't proctologists but they know an a**hole when they see one.

Me too!

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:16 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:51 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:49 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 9:13 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 6:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 am Salty,

Here's the limited aspect on which you and I appear to agree.

This isn't "routine" oversight.

Very serious stuff when you're looking at corruption in the Administration.

Whether corruption in the form of emoluments, or kompromat with a foreign adversary, or obstruction of justice, or the issuance of inappropriate security clearances, or any number of other forms of potential corruption or abuse of power, these are far from "routine" matters.

Impeachment is one remedy, but so too is sunlight.

Our system depends upon sunlight, whereas authoritarianism depends upon the suppression of truth and the total intimidation of opposition.

Nadler is calling Barr to tesify before his committee under their normal power of oversight for his department.
Questioning of Cabinet officers by staff, rather than by members, in such hearings, is without precedent,
To comply would be establishing new precedent, which will surely be abused again in the future.

If it's necessary to have Cabinet officials questioned by staff lawyers, (D) leadership needs to establish a select committee to investigate, or convene impeachment proceedings, where there is precedent for such questioning.

The premise for this is ridiculous. Barr has turned over much more than he is required to provide, To disclose more would be unlawful.
The (D)'s haven't even read the redacted portions which are available to them. They have access to 98 % of the report.
This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make Barr the boogeyman.
You're too smart to fall for this stuff.

Like Benghazi

That was a select committee, formed to investigate a specific incident in depth.

It was not routine Congressional oversight of an Exec Branch Dept, which is what Nadler's committee is.

Most deplorables don't know that...

This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make [Clinton] the boogeyman.

Most deplorables aren't proctologists but they know an a**hole when they see one.

Too bad they aren't urologists...it would help them identify Trump

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:22 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:16 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:51 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:49 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 9:13 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 6:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 am Salty,

Here's the limited aspect on which you and I appear to agree.

This isn't "routine" oversight.

Very serious stuff when you're looking at corruption in the Administration.

Whether corruption in the form of emoluments, or kompromat with a foreign adversary, or obstruction of justice, or the issuance of inappropriate security clearances, or any number of other forms of potential corruption or abuse of power, these are far from "routine" matters.

Impeachment is one remedy, but so too is sunlight.

Our system depends upon sunlight, whereas authoritarianism depends upon the suppression of truth and the total intimidation of opposition.

Nadler is calling Barr to tesify before his committee under their normal power of oversight for his department.
Questioning of Cabinet officers by staff, rather than by members, in such hearings, is without precedent,
To comply would be establishing new precedent, which will surely be abused again in the future.

If it's necessary to have Cabinet officials questioned by staff lawyers, (D) leadership needs to establish a select committee to investigate, or convene impeachment proceedings, where there is precedent for such questioning.

The premise for this is ridiculous. Barr has turned over much more than he is required to provide, To disclose more would be unlawful.
The (D)'s haven't even read the redacted portions which are available to them. They have access to 98 % of the report.
This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make Barr the boogeyman.
You're too smart to fall for this stuff.

Like Benghazi

That was a select committee, formed to investigate a specific incident in depth.

It was not routine Congressional oversight of an Exec Branch Dept, which is what Nadler's committee is.

Most deplorables don't know that...

This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make [Clinton] the boogeyman.

Most deplorables aren't proctologists but they know an a**hole when they see one.

Me too!

So you're looking in the mirror then!

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:35 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:22 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:16 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:51 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:49 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 9:13 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 6:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 am Salty,

Here's the limited aspect on which you and I appear to agree.

This isn't "routine" oversight.

Very serious stuff when you're looking at corruption in the Administration.

Whether corruption in the form of emoluments, or kompromat with a foreign adversary, or obstruction of justice, or the issuance of inappropriate security clearances, or any number of other forms of potential corruption or abuse of power, these are far from "routine" matters.

Impeachment is one remedy, but so too is sunlight.

Our system depends upon sunlight, whereas authoritarianism depends upon the suppression of truth and the total intimidation of opposition.

Nadler is calling Barr to tesify before his committee under their normal power of oversight for his department.
Questioning of Cabinet officers by staff, rather than by members, in such hearings, is without precedent,
To comply would be establishing new precedent, which will surely be abused again in the future.

If it's necessary to have Cabinet officials questioned by staff lawyers, (D) leadership needs to establish a select committee to investigate, or convene impeachment proceedings, where there is precedent for such questioning.

The premise for this is ridiculous. Barr has turned over much more than he is required to provide, To disclose more would be unlawful.
The (D)'s haven't even read the redacted portions which are available to them. They have access to 98 % of the report.
This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make Barr the boogeyman.
You're too smart to fall for this stuff.

Like Benghazi

That was a select committee, formed to investigate a specific incident in depth.

It was not routine Congressional oversight of an Exec Branch Dept, which is what Nadler's committee is.

Most deplorables don't know that...

This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make [Clinton] the boogeyman.

Most deplorables aren't proctologists but they know an a**hole when they see one.

Me too!

So you're looking in the mirror then!

isn't a colon 6ft?

Coffee out the nose!

..

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:54 am

Coffee out the nose!

..

peeking out from under the bed again.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:39 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:35 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:22 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 9:16 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:51 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 2:49 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 9:13 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 6:07 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 am Salty,

Here's the limited aspect on which you and I appear to agree.

This isn't "routine" oversight.

Very serious stuff when you're looking at corruption in the Administration.

Whether corruption in the form of emoluments, or kompromat with a foreign adversary, or obstruction of justice, or the issuance of inappropriate security clearances, or any number of other forms of potential corruption or abuse of power, these are far from "routine" matters.

Impeachment is one remedy, but so too is sunlight.

Our system depends upon sunlight, whereas authoritarianism depends upon the suppression of truth and the total intimidation of opposition.

Nadler is calling Barr to tesify before his committee under their normal power of oversight for his department.
Questioning of Cabinet officers by staff, rather than by members, in such hearings, is without precedent,
To comply would be establishing new precedent, which will surely be abused again in the future.

If it's necessary to have Cabinet officials questioned by staff lawyers, (D) leadership needs to establish a select committee to investigate, or convene impeachment proceedings, where there is precedent for such questioning.

The premise for this is ridiculous. Barr has turned over much more than he is required to provide, To disclose more would be unlawful.
The (D)'s haven't even read the redacted portions which are available to them. They have access to 98 % of the report.
This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make Barr the boogeyman.
You're too smart to fall for this stuff.

Like Benghazi

That was a select committee, formed to investigate a specific incident in depth.

It was not routine Congressional oversight of an Exec Branch Dept, which is what Nadler's committee is.

Most deplorables don't know that...

This is a transparent stunt, on it's face. A smokescreen to keep the controversy alive & make [Clinton] the boogeyman.

Most deplorables aren't proctologists but they know an a**hole when they see one.

Me too!

So you're looking in the mirror then!

isn't a colon 6ft?

Wrong again. About 5 ft long.

A little bigger than you then.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 1:36 pm

Being called a 'jerk' no sweat, but back in the day being called the c-word would mean bench clearing, post penalty box, gloves dropping.

Well the ladies always get their panties in a wad when the c word is dropped.

Didn't even know I was in a penalty box. I had a nice fight two weeks ago. Seems some guy didn't like being bull dodged over. He decided to get up an engage me in fisticuffs. poor guy ended up with a torn ear and a lump on his forehead, bleeding from both. He also had two black eyes. The ref had the nerve to throw me out of the game and I was the victim. He said I should wait for his 60+ 120lbs to get over there and break it up.

Enjoy boys as I am off to win another playoff game now.

Not just the ladies. Crosses a line.
If you don't know that, we know all we need to about you.

I've always found that the big guys who talk tough tend to be pretty wimpy when facing someone as strong or stronger than themselves. That's when they start whining about being the 'victim'.

In this case, all it took was a guy with a whistle.

Actual 'tough' guys, large and small, don't brag about it.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 9:42 am

njbill wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 10:58 pm old salt, you keep using the word “precedent” as if it has substantive significance. It does not. The only thing that is relevant is whether the procedure Nadler has proposed is permitted by House rules. It is. End of story.

I don’t know whether you are correct or not that it is “unprecedented” that a Cabinet Secretary has been questioned at a House hearing by someone other than a Member. But even if you are correct, as long as it is permitted by the rules, neither Barr nor Trump nor you have any valid basis to block the approach.

At a point in time, there may have been a “precedent” that only white male members of Congress asked questions at Congressional hearings. Then women and persons of color got elected. Would that “precedent” preclude them from asking questions?

There is a long “precedent” that male members of Congress wear jackets when asking questions at hearings. Should Jim Jordan be barred from questioning witnesses because he flouts this “precedent”? Wait, maybe I agree with you about precedent on this one.

Too cute by half.

CONGRESsmen and women were ELECTED not their staff. Barr was voted on by CONGRESSmen and women not their staff. Let the elected wholes ask anything they want. Not their staff. Not sn outside prosecutor.

So you were upset with the questioning of Christine Ford by Rachel Mitchell during the Kavanaugh hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee? She is an attorney and career prosecutor?