• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Intel votes to send witness transcripts to Mueller for possible perjury charges

dcsports said:
'Your ilk'? Seriously? You are going off the rails now.
Click to expand...
The self labeled "con" who is defending Drumpf, disavows his associations.
I'm interested in a discussion, not a shouting match.
Click to expand...
Um, no, yer interested debate else you would not be employing rhetorical fallacies.
We've covered all of this. You aren't interested in a reasoned discussion, so this is it.

It's possible there could have been back channel request, under secrecy, but unlikely it would have happened without a leak.
Click to expand...
Brings up MORE speculation, more unknowns, to defend his argument....IN A DEBATE!

Good grief.
Keep in mind that both sides of the committee are advised on everything. Republicans likely would have said if there was a change since December.
Click to expand...
Why would they advertise their foot-dragging?
Democrats would have called 'obstruction' from the rooftops.
Click to expand...
News Flash! They have been, it IS the point we are currently TRYING to debate.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Republicans on the committee are liars so it doesn't matter what they claim.
Click to expand...

If you want to take the position that democrats on the committee are saints and republicans are devils, that's up to you. One of the advantages of the way congress has committees set up is that both sides are looped in, and can comment within the same limitations. I'm certain Schiff would have been very vocal if the points raised on the requests were incorrect.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
While Mr. Mueller MAY have access to the testimony previously, he couldn't admit having access to the testimony because the transcripts were "SECRET" and only the House Intelligence Committee was allowed to have access to them UNTIL the committee voted to make the transcripts public.

IOW, without OFFICIALLY having the transcripts it really didn't matter if someone told Mr. Mueller "A" and told the committee "NOT A" because no one could prove anything (assuming that there is something to prove) NOR could anyone disprove anything (assuming that there was something to disprove).

Any one who told the House Intelligence Committee the same thing as they told Mr. Mueller shouldn't be in the least bit worried that Mr. Mueller now OFFICIALLY has the transcripts of what they told the committee.

Anyone who didn't - well, you know.
Click to expand...

He simply can't file the transcript as evidence without a certified copy. He has access to the transcripts, and I'm sure has reviewed them. When he is ready to file charges, he can request the official copy. There's really shouldn't be any debate on this - they already followed the process with Stone.
 
dcsports said:
If you want to take the position that democrats on the committee are saints and republicans are devils, that's up to you. One of the advantages of the way congress has committees set up is that both sides are looped in, and can comment within the same limitations. I'm certain Schiff would have been very vocal if the points raised on the requests were incorrect.
Click to expand...

I didn't say saints or devils. I said liars. They lie. That's not a value judgment, it's a fact. My value judgment coming from that is that people like Nunes are scumbags. But that is a personal opinion unlike the fact that he is a liar.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
I didn't say saints or devils. I said liars. They lie. That's not a value judgment, it's a fact. My value judgment coming from that is that people like Nunes are scumbags. But that is a personal opinion unlike the fact that he is a liar.
Click to expand...

I got that you have a low opinion of Nunes. I'm sure he lied at some point - he is a politician. What about Schiff? The rest of the committee?

Lying about something like that - which has no benefit to him, is easily verifiable, and where dozens of people would call him on it - is extremely unlikey. Mueller asked nicely for the Stone transcript, and it was provided to him. No reason to think he wouldn't do the same with other requests. Note that if the committee balked at all, he could easily issue a subpoena.
 
dcsports said:
I got that you have a low opinion of Nunes. I'm sure he lied at some point - he is a politician. What about Schiff? The rest of the committee?

Lying about something like that - which has no benefit to him, is easily verifiable, and where dozens of people would call him on it - is extremely unlikey. Mueller asked nicely for the Stone transcript, and it was provided to him. No reason to think he wouldn't do the same with other requests. Note that if the committee balked at all, he could easily issue a subpoena.
Click to expand...

lol remember when he was hyping up his bombshell memo and it turned out to be nothing but a loser ploy to hype up literally nothing? Yeah, he's a lying scumbag
 
dcsports said:
Correction - he can't use the transcript as evidence to bring an indictment without a certified copy. All he had to do to obtain one is to ask for it - and he's only asked for one. The committee provided that one within days, and has told him they would provide anything he needs.

Again, theater.
Click to expand...



So, are you saying that Mr Schiffs statement that, essentially, he was unable to provide precisely that certified copy legally, not until all the seats on the committee that were empty on the R side were filled, you are saying that he was lying, there was no legal (or rule, etc ) basis for this, that he was playing politics ?


Yes, they were finally filled, but repubs slow walked it, that's the heart of this thing.
 
OscarLevant said:
So, are you saying that Mr Schiffs statement that, essentially, he was unable to provide precisely that certified copy legally, not until all the seats on the committee that were empty on the R side were filled, you are saying that he was lying, there was no legal (or rule, etc ) basis for this, that he was playing politics ?


Yes, they were finally filled, but repubs slow walked it, that's the heart of this thing.
Click to expand...

That's actually a left turn. The 'heart of this thing' is the political theater of providing the official transcripts. Mueller has the transcripts, and he he's only requested one official copy. There's no need for this at all, and certainly no urgency. So yes, this is theater.

Good to see 'massive delay' has turned into 'slow walk', which is a little closer to the truth. Republicans took 1-2 weeks, depending on how you ask, to appoint the committee members. That's certainly not a notable delay.
 
HumblePi said:
Intentionally withholding information from Congress is obstruction of justice.

Nov. 5th, 2010

Contempt of Congress Statutory Contempt of Congress Contempt of Congress is punishable by statute and under the inherent powers of Congress.130Congress has not exercised its inherent contempt power for some time.131 The statutory contempt of Congress provision, 2 U.S.C. 192, has been employed only slightly more often and rarely in recent years. Much of what we know of the offense comes from Cold War period court decisions. Parsed to its elements, §192 states that;

I. Every person
II. summoned as a witness
III. by the authority of either House of Congress
IV. to A. give testimony, or B. to produce papers
V. upon any matter under inquiry
VI. before A. either House, B. any joint committee, C. any committee of either House
VII. who willfully A. makes default, or B. refuses 1. to answer any question 2. pertinent to the matter under inquiry shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
Click to expand...

again only since 2016 has this been an issue for democrats. amazing how that works isn't it.
 
dcsports said:
He simply can't file the transcript as evidence without a certified copy. He has access to the transcripts, and I'm sure has reviewed them. When he is ready to file charges, he can request the official copy.
Click to expand...

Which is what I said - isn't it?

dcsports said:
There's really shouldn't be any debate on this - they already followed the process with Stone.
Click to expand...

Of course there SHOULDN'T be.

That, however, doesn't mean that there WILL NOT be. After all, you do have to remember the legal maxim "Quod differt !!!".
 
OscarLevant said:
So, are you saying that Mr Schiffs statement that, essentially, he was unable to provide precisely that certified copy legally, not until all the seats on the committee that were empty on the R side were filled, you are saying that he was lying, there was no legal (or rule, etc ) basis for this, that he was playing politics ?


Yes, they were finally filled, but repubs slow walked it, that's the heart of this thing.
Click to expand...

I could well be off base on this, but my understanding is that there is a mandated period by the end of which the seats MUST be filled. As I understand the situation, if seats are not filled by the end of that mandatory period then the committee may proceed without the (unnamed) members and the fact that there are unnamed members will NOT prevent the named members constituting a quorum.

If I am wrong, I won't take it one bit amiss to have that pointed out (with links/evidence [and not just "That's not true."]).

PS - The general parliamentary rule is that "Quorum is presumed to be present absent a challenge to quorum being present.", which means that those present can "conduct business legally" and that the decisions of those present are "legally binding". The remedy is NOT to have the business conducted under those conditions "struck down" it is a "motion to reconsider". However if that "motion to reconsider" does not pass then the prior actions remain in full force and effect. This means that, if "your guys" are going to end up being in the minority, it is NOT a "Good Idea" NOT to fill (a minimum of one of the) committee seats.
 
ludin said:
again only since 2016 has this been an issue for democrats. amazing how that works isn't it.
Click to expand...

Did you know that "I don't remember clearly, but, as I recall it now, __[fill in the blank]__.", "I think that __[fill in the blank]__, but I might be wrong.", and the like do not qualify as either "making default" or "refusing" to answer questions?

PS - I once spent around half an hour asking a witness the same (word for word) question until the witness finally ran out of circumlocutions and actually answered the question that was actually asked. Not once did the witness produce an answer that was not, in some manner, related to the question actually asked, but only once did they actually answer the question. Once was all I needed.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Did you know that "I don't remember clearly, but, as I recall it now, __[fill in the blank]__.", "I think that __[fill in the blank]__, but I might be wrong.", and the like do not qualify as either "making default" or "refusing" to answer questions?

PS - I once spent around half an hour asking a witness the same (word for word) question until the witness finally ran out of circumlocutions and actually answered the question that was actually asked. Not once did the witness produce an answer that was not, in some manner, related to the question actually asked, but only once did they actually answer the question. Once was all I needed.
Click to expand...

clinton was pretty good at that.
again lying to congress and the FBI wasn't an issue till 2016
for any of these sleeze bags.
 
ludin said:
clinton was pretty good at that.
again lying to congress and the FBI wasn't an issue till 2016
for any of these sleeze bags.
Click to expand...

Only really stupid (or arrogant) people actually lie. The smart ones give responses that look enough like answers that the questioners don't realize that they didn't actually get an answer and are "weasel worded" enough so that the MOST you can say is that they weren't as correct as they would have been if the person providing them had had more information or if the question was better put.

I can recall an occasion when I had to draft some constitutional documents and the body charged with reviewing/approving them asked for an explanation of what one of the key clauses meant. At the end of my explanation their response was "So what you are telling me is that this clause means whatever the people in charge want it to mean at any given time regardless of what they said it meant at some other time, is that correct?". Once I told them that that was EXACTLY what the clause meant AND that was EXACTLY what the clause was INTENDED to mean, the documents were approved without further demur.
 
dcsports said:
That's actually a left turn. The 'heart of this thing' is the political theater of providing the official transcripts. Mueller has the transcripts, and he he's only requested one official copy. There's no need for this at all, and certainly no urgency. So yes, this is theater.

Good to see 'massive delay' has turned into 'slow walk', which is a little closer to the truth. Republicans took 1-2 weeks, depending on how you ask, to appoint the committee members. That's certainly not a notable delay.
Click to expand...


It was a delay to take as long as possible to prevent Mueller getting a certified copy. The "theatre" is on the right.
 
OscarLevant said:
It was a delay to take as long as possible to prevent Mueller getting a certified copy. The "theatre" is on the right.
Click to expand...

In the US today it is NOT allowable to make a "left turn".

However it is quite allowable to make three "right turns".
 
OscarLevant said:
It was a delay to take as long as possible to prevent Mueller getting a certified copy. The "theatre" is on the right.
Click to expand...

That's silly. What difference would a week or so make, especially given that he hasn't actually requested any other official copies transcripts?
 
dcsports said:
That's silly. What difference would a week or so make, especially given that he hasn't actually requested any other official copies transcripts?
Click to expand...



If theatrics really bothers you, then you must hate Donald Trump.
 
OscarLevant said:
If theatrics really bothers you, then you must hate Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of opportunities to discuss actions of President Trump - threads on him are posted with great frequency. This one isn't about him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom