Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are not 2 "criminal investigations." The Jan 6 hearings are just hearings, not a "criminal investigation." Watergate also had similar congressional hearings, but they weren't a "criminal investigation." Just because they're having hearings about potential crimes does not mean they're pretending to have indictment powers or anything like that, their purpose is just to publicly expose what went on surrounding Jan 6. If they find sufficient culpability for any crimes they can make recommendations to the DOJ, but that's all they are, recommendations.
The only actual "criminal investigation" is being pursued by the Department of Justice.
More B.S., if the Congressional hearing is just an oversight, why are they formally accusing a private citizen of crimes in public? Where are they getting the evidence if is not coming from the Executive branch, DOJ?
Don't you need to do a criminal investigation before you can declare a person guilty in public and use the legislative branch to declare it? Why do you keep b.s. yourself?
And now you're claiming Trump is innocent because - TA DA!- he was acquitted by the legislative branch!
Are you this dense? Impeachment is political not a criminal trial. The purpose of impeachment is to remove public officials not to criminally prosecute. The legislative branch only has the power to do impeachments to remove not prosecute.
The term innocent is a brain fart from you. I NEVER said it and is not use in our legal system. Acquitted is not the same thing as "innocence" which is a bogus term in court or the constitution.
Good for them. They got some TV publicly shots. So what???
They were hired by Trump. Their predecessor, also hired by Trump, also testified. As a matter of fact, he was featured near the beginning of the first hearing. Trump apparently never hired anyone who is willing to testify under oath on his behalf.
Perhaps you have a suggestion. Who would you like to hear testify under oath who can contradict the testimony we have already heard? Do they simply not exist, or are they just bashful?
You forget he was impeached and ACQUITTED as President. Or are We impeaching him again over the same matter? Which is it?
Today, he is a private citizen. Anything "new" has to go to the correct branch for criminal investigation to protect due process, and rights and impartiality away from the political clout of the legislative branch that has no power to criminally investigate private citizens.
That's like NEWT opening a "hearing" after Bill Clinton's impeachment and acquittal to find out the "truth" and only putting in the committee people that only found him guilty and then use Congress to formally charge him of crimes. That would be an abuse of power. Why you still defending this says more about you.
The DOJ is conducting its own investigation and that's where any criminal charges will come from if at all. The Committee is not doing what you say they are. Repeating it does not make it so.
The DOJ is conducting its own investigation and that's where any criminal charges will come from if at all. The Committee is not doing what you say they are. Repeating it does not make it so.
So why is Congress declaring criminal guilty a private citizen if you say they never conducted a criminal investigation? Did the legislative branch used information from the executive branch?
Why are there 2 criminal investigations by 2 branches (same party in power) and stop saying the legislative branch isn't doing one when they publicly declared Trump criminally guilty. That exposes the b.s.
So why there are 2 criminal investigations since the legislative branch can't criminally investigate private citizens? That's like the Judicial branch and Legislative branch both having hearings to declare if Roe is constitutional or not. 1 branch has legally constitutional power and the other one doesn't. That's like Congress having their own hearing declaring Roe constitutional over the judicial branch.
1 party in power is conducting 2 criminal investigations on private citizens on 2 different branches. If you don't find this very troublesome than you are part of the problem.
The DOJ actually has at least three different criminal investigations of Trump in progress at this time. Alvin Bragg also has one going on in New York, and Fani Willis in Georgia as well.
More B.S., if the Congressional hearing is just an oversight, why are they formally accusing a private citizen of crimes in public?
As I just pointed out ... the committee is just exposing potential crimes, your use of the term "formally accusing" has no legal meaning. They can put potential crimes out in the open for the public to digest, but ... AGAIN ... they have no powers to indict. All they can do is make recommendations to the DOJ.
Quote:
Where are they getting the evidence if is not coming from the Executive branch, DOJ?
What a ridiculous question. They can subpoena people and ask questions. You don't even need a legal law enforcement entity to ask questions and do an investigation. If you did there'd be no such thing as private investigators.
Quote:
Don't you need to do a criminal investigation before you can declare a person guilty in public and use the legislative branch to declare it? Why do you keep b.s. yourself?
For the zillionth time ... the committee cannot indict people or "declare [them] guilty in public." All it is doing is exposing evidence of potential crimes. If the DOJ decides, based on their own investigation, that there is sufficient evidence to indict Trump or anyone else, then it, and it only, can indict people. Finally, anyone who is indicted will either plead guilty or go to trial. Thus, it is either the defendant who declares themselves guilty, or a jury.
They were hired by Trump. Their predecessor, also hired by Trump, also testified. As a matter of fact, he was featured near the beginning of the first hearing. Trump apparently never hired anyone who is willing to testify under oath on his behalf.
Perhaps you have a suggestion. Who would you like to hear testify under oath who can contradict the testimony we have already heard? Do they simply not exist, or are they just bashful?
The DOJ actually has at least three different criminal investigations of Trump in progress at this time. Alvin Bragg also has one going on in New York, and Fani Willis in Georgia as well.
The DOJ investigates all day. An investigation doesn't mean indictments or convictions. Many investigations helps the citizens not to go forward and protects their rights and due process. That wasn't my point. The legislative branch shouldn't do criminal investigations on private citizens or use the branch to declared them criminally guilty. That is an abuse of power and a big one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
