Jan. 6 panel to vote on urging DOJ to prosecute Trump on at least three criminal charges

[Stann]

Don't be ridiculous.

As shown in my post, the timestamps are 2:38 p.m. and 3:13 p.m, and I linked directly to the posts which are live on Twitter.

You can click on them - the two Trump tweets at the bottom of my post - and be taken right to them.

Goodness grief. Major fail.

cc: Catsnmeters

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia>wiki timeline of the January 6th United States Capitol attack-Wikipedia. Sorry, but his speech started at noon and only lasted a little more than an hour. The sources you cite are obviously bogus.

 

[lennypartiv]

For what?

Wow, whee have you been for the past decade? She had an illegal server. Plus all that Benghazi crap.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Wow, whee have you been for the past decade? She had an illegal server. Plus all that Benghazi crap.

The server was not illegal if it had no classified material on it. As such, it simply violated policy.

Benghazi? 9 hearings that included hours of Hillary's own testimony (because she wasn't a coward). Move on. Gowdy has, you can too.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Then they have to show ALL THE EVIDENCE!

Videos inside and outside the Capitol building. Documents regarding Epps and any other FBI stooges.

Everything! I watched the hearings and the things they were saying trump was responsible for were totally ludicrous.

Jan. 6 panel to vote on urging DOJ to prosecute Trump on at least 3 criminal charges

The report that the select panel is expected to consider Monday afternoon reflects some recommendations from a subcommittee that evaluated potential referrals.

www.politico.com

I still say the J6 committee turning over all their investigative material to the DOJ for a criminal referral is wrong. If the DOJ uses the J6 material as the basis of, or in any part of its own investigation, then how is that not the same as the J6 committee helping the DOJ conduct a criminal investigation....against their political opposition?

It's the same thing..

 

[Catsnmeters]

I still say the J6 committee turning over all their investigative material to the DOJ for a criminal referral is wrong. If the DOJ uses the J6 material as the basis of, or in any part of its own investigation, then how is that not the same as the J6 committee helping the DOJ conduct a criminal investigation....against their political opposition?

It's the same thing..

Is it to your contention that any information garnered by a congressional committee is not admissable in court?

Would that not mean that the act of Congress investigating potential crimes would itself undermine potential justice since any crimes found would be not admissable by your logic?

Is this based on legal precedent/statute or is this just your opinion?

 

[Stann]

Wow, whee have you been for the past decade? She had an illegal server. Plus all that Benghazi crap.

Update, and she was cleared of it.

 

[task0778]

The server was not illegal if it had no classified material on it

.... according to the FBI, from the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 were determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information Top Secret at the time they were sent, with some labeled as “special access program materials.” Some 36 chains contained Secret information at the time, and eight contained Confidential information. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential. The information in those messages had not been classified at the time they were sent, suggesting they were drafts in progress, in the process of being edited before the ultimate classification assignment.

And that's not counting the classified documents she destroyed to hide any evidence of wrong-doing. And she knew it, everyone in gov't knows the rules for handling classified data, and it ain't that complicated. So why wasn't she prosecuted? By the Obama DOJ? Please.

FBI director James Comey has stuck by his claim that declining to bring charges against Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information was the right call because proof of intent was lacking.

Nowhere in the regulations for handling classified documents does it mention anything about "intent". That was fucking bullshit, if you mishandle classified information then you have commited a crime. Everyone, and I mean everyone has to sign an annual form that says they know the rules for handling classified documents. They are clearly marked and there is no doubts are about it. She damn well knew what she was doing and she knew it was illegal and she didn't care because she thought she would be the next POTUS when Obama's 2nd term was up. IOW, she was guilty as hell and got away with it. Why? One reason and one reason only: she was a democrat.

 

[JoeB131]

I still say the J6 committee turning over all their investigative material to the DOJ for a criminal referral is wrong. If the DOJ uses the J6 material as the basis of, or in any part of its own investigation, then how is that not the same as the J6 committee helping the DOJ conduct a criminal investigation....against their political opposition?

It's the same thing..

Well, you can say that... but the fact is Congress during the Watergate hearings uncovered a lot of material that was handed over to the Special Prosecutor that resulted in criminal charges against the bit players. The only reason why Nixon wasn't one of them was because Ford pardoned him.

 

[JoeB131]

Nowhere in the regulations for handling classified documents does it mention anything about "intent". That was fucking bullshit, if you mishandle classified information then you have commited a crime. Everyone, and I mean everyone has to sign an annual form that says they know the rules for handling classified documents. They are clearly marked and there is no doubts are about it. She damn well knew what she was doing and she knew it was illegal and she didn't care because she thought she would be the next POTUS when Obama's 2nd term was up. IOW, she was guilty as hell and got away with it. Why? One reason and one reason only: she was a democrat.

Or no sensible person would convict someone of getting an email that contained classified material, most of which wasn't categorized as classified when it was sent.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Is it to your contention that any information garnered by a congressional committee is not admissable in court?

Would that not mean that the act of Congress investigating potential crimes would itself undermine potential justice since any crimes found would be not admissable by your logic?

Is this based on legal precedent/statute or is this just your opinion?

Would that not mean that the act of Congress investigating potential crimes

Congress is not supposed to conduct criminal investigations, that's not their role, in fact, the only reason Congress is allowed to conduct any investigation is supposed to be for the purpose of creating legislation.

would itself undermine potential justice since any crimes found would be not admissable by your logic?

In this case, yes, since if the J6 committee does all that work, then takes that work and hands it to the DOJ, it's the same as Congress helping the doj conduct a criminal investigation, worse yet, it is helping them conduct a criminal investigation against an opposing party's president, someone who they've already stated they wanted to see impeached, one of which said it was their mission to make sure Trump never was elected president again.

They should make referrals, and then the doj can conduct its own investigation based on those referrals.

Let's put it like this, when the new congress takes over, and they run their investigation on Biden, and they get all of this evidence, then they make referrals to the doj for a criminal investigation, then they say "here's all of our material that we've acquired during our investigation, and were giving it to you to help in your efforts to indict biden", you're telling me that you'd be fine with that?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, you can say that... but the fact is Congress during the Watergate hearings uncovered a lot of material that was handed over to the Special Prosecutor that resulted in criminal charges against the bit players. The only reason why Nixon wasn't one of them was because Ford pardoned him.

So. You are fine with Congress conducting criminal investigations?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What Trump did was not criminal, any more than a sneeze is when the nasal passages are swollen with a cold virus. What a thespian load of crap the Democrats seem to think that their exaggeration is going to get them votes and destroy President Trump. They project their criminal false witness under oath against Trump who is innocent of wrongdoing imho.
Achoo!!!

We need a speaker of the house with a backbone like Trump and when we take the Senate a majority leader with a backbone like Trump. The mess of the deep state will be cleaned up

 

[Redfish]

Well that's all over now. They did their job despite ( and because of ) all of the extremists. And now it's up to the department of Justice to do their job. Now all your extremists will have to start complaining about the department of Justice, if you haven't already.

a committee of trump haters and liars. The Jan 6 committee was the definition of a kangaroo court. It was a set up from the very beginning, its amazing that there are so many idiots like you that do not understand that.

 

[Redfish]

We need a speaker of the house with a backbone like Trump and when we take the Senate a majority leader with a backbone like Trump. The mess of the deep state will be cleaned up

what you described is the dem/lib/media's worst nightmare. they are scared shitless of a second Trump term because they know he would expose and prosecute their corruption and treason.

 

[Redfish]

Update, and she was cleared of it.

she was guilty but never put on trial, she was not CLEARED.

 

[berg80]

Will the release of the documentary evidence accumulated by the committee on Wednesday put an end to debates about what happened on 1/6 and in the days leading up to it? Of course not. If The Following can ignore video evidence of what happened on that day they can ignore anything.

 

[Redfish]

Will the release of the documentary evidence accumulated by the committee on Wednesday put an end to debates about what happened on 1/6 and in the days leading up to it? Of course not. If The Following can ignore video evidence of what happened on that day they can ignore anything.

evidence created by a biased group of assholes is not proof of anything except their bias and corruption. a kangaroo court is not a real court. But next year the jan 6 committee will be investigated and the real truth will come out.

 

[Catsnmeters]

.... according to the FBI, from the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 were determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information Top Secret at the time they were sent, with some labeled as “special access program materials.” Some 36 chains contained Secret information at the time, and eight contained Confidential information. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential. The information in those messages had not been classified at the time they were sent, suggesting they were drafts in progress, in the process of being edited before the ultimate classification assignment.

And that's not counting the classified documents she destroyed to hide any evidence of wrong-doing. And she knew it, everyone in gov't knows the rules for handling classified data, and it ain't that complicated. So why wasn't she prosecuted? By the Obama DOJ? Please.

FBI director James Comey has stuck by his claim that declining to bring charges against Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information was the right call because proof of intent was lacking.

Nowhere in the regulations for handling classified documents does it mention anything about "intent". That was fucking bullshit, if you mishandle classified information then you have commited a crime. Everyone, and I mean everyone has to sign an annual form that says they know the rules for handling classified documents. They are clearly marked and there is no doubts are about it. She damn well knew what she was doing and she knew it was illegal and she didn't care because she thought she would be the next POTUS when Obama's 2nd term was up. IOW, she was guilty as hell and got away with it. Why? One reason and one reason only: she was a democrat.

Likely Obama declassified all that information with a thought, so your point is moot.

 

[struth]

Likely Obama declassified all that information with a thought, so your point is moot.

while certainly possible, I don't recall him every claiming he did that? I do recall him lying about not knowing she had the illegal server.....

 

[Catsnmeters]

Congress is not supposed to conduct criminal investigations, that's not their role, in fact, the only reason Congress is allowed to conduct any investigation is supposed to be for the purpose of creating legislation.

I didn't say they were conducting a criminal investigation.

Thank goodness for the Jan 6 committee. Now perhaps we can enact legislation that stymies and prepares for future insurrection attempts.

In this case, yes, since if the J6 committee does all that work, then takes that work and hands it to the DOJ, it's the same as Congress helping the doj conduct a criminal investigation, worse yet, it is helping them conduct a criminal investigation against an opposing party's president, someone who they've already stated they wanted to see impeached, one of which said it was their mission to make sure Trump never was elected president again.

So what? Nothing illegal here. The DoJ likely had most of the info already. Again, if Congress conducts an investigation for legislation purposes and comes across criminal activity, certainly that info can be handed to the DoJ right?

You, probably based on a narrative provided you by the right wing media, are trying to make something normal seem nefarious.

Show me where it is illegal for Congress to pass info to the DoJ.

They should make referrals, and then the doj can conduct its own investigation based on those referrals.

I am sure they have.

Let's put it like this, when the new congress takes over, and they run their investigation on Biden, and they get all of this evidence, then they make referrals to the doj for a criminal investigation, then they say "here's all of our material that we've acquired during our investigation, and were giving it to you to help in your efforts to indict biden", you're telling me that you'd be fine with that?

Yes, I would be fine with it.

Why would I want a congressional committee investigation that turned up a crime Biden committed to not be given to the justice department?

It's like you are saying that if Congress found I had committed a crime, that I would subsequently be immune to punishment because that would hurt feelings or be unfair or whatever your reasoning is.

What if a congressional investigation found a murder during an investigation? Is the murderer immune from prosecution?