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.
Nothing you posted has any proof that he caused an insurrection. It simply states that they should try to prove such a thing….same as “planning to argue there’s proof” doesn’t mean there’s proof.
That’s because the investigation to get him is ridiculous. The FBI already cleared him from having anything to do with it.
Well that is false. I think Trump tried to say the same thing with the Russia investigation, but the fact is that FBI doesn't "clear" people. They just investigate. And they NEVER acknowledge whether anyone is under investigation by them or not. These are just their standard procedures.
Well that is false. I think Trump tried to say the same thing with the Russia investigation, but the fact is that FBI doesn't "clear" people. They just investigate. And they NEVER acknowledge whether anyone is under investigation by them or not. These are just their standard procedures.
Well that is false. I think Trump tried to say the same thing with the Russia investigation, but the fact is that FBI doesn't "clear" people. They just investigate. And they NEVER acknowledge whether anyone is under investigation by them or not. These are just their standard procedures.
It is interesting that the very same folks excited about irrationally charging Trump with treason (!) relative to the Trump Russia Collusion (hoax) irrationally now want him charged with insurrection (!) for January 6.
Can’t fault their consistently. Credibility may be a different story.
Jeffrey Rosen was the Acting AG and Donahue was his deputy, Trump liked Jeffrey Clark's idea of sending alternate electors from the states in question and proposed to replace Rosen with Clark. Both Donahue and Rosen indicated they would resign along with other DOJ officials so he backed off. The Attorney in Atlanta, Pak had already resigned because Trump was pressuring him to find election fraud.
Much of this was already discussed in the Senate Committee hearings earlier but not made public.
Quote:
Three days before Congress was slated to certify the 2020 presidential election, a little-known Justice Department official named Jeffrey Clark rushed to meet President Donald Trump in the Oval Office to discuss a last-ditch attempt to reverse the results.
Clark, an environmental lawyer by trade, had outlined a plan in a letter he wanted to send to the leaders of key states Joe Biden won. It said that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns” about the vote and that the states should consider sending “a separate slate of electors supporting Donald J. Trump” for Congress to approve.
As Rosen and Donoghue listened, Clark told Trump that he would send the letter if the president named him attorney general.
“History is calling,” Clark told the president, according to a deposition from Donoghue excerpted in a recent court filing. “This is our opportunity. We can get this done.”
McCarthy withdrew all his appointees to the committee after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rejected two of his five nominees. She refused to seat Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Jim Banks (R-Ind.) because they actively spread disinformation about 2020 — and because Jordan was closely involved in Trump’s efforts to challenge the election.
It’s often forgotten that Pelosi approved McCarthy’s other GOP picks: Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas. None of them could be characterized as liberals, and Nehls had joined Banks and Jordan in objecting to the certification of the 2020 election. McCarthy thought that by walking away entirely, he would be able to discredit the work of the committee as “partisan.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
Is not up to Nancy who the GOP picks to cross examine her evidence and witnesses or ask questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
A majority leader of a party can't control who the minority party picks in how they like to proceed or challenge.
False. Please refer to HR 503, 117th Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
Unless Jim Jordan or Jim Banks broke the law, Nancy just killed a bipartisan hearing to know the whole truth and how to prevent this and the role of the FBI which took the 5th.
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.
