There's no law against lying unless you are under oath in a court of law. The only exception is if your lie leads directly to another crime being committed. So the example would be, "Do you know who killed Kate?" "No." Then the murderer kills Jane, and you knew who did it the entire time, and had you not lied, with intent, they would have caught the murderer prior to the murder of Jane.

This is the part that gets me. Investigators lie all the time. Why? There's no law against lying. In fact, your First Amendment Right protects your freedom to lie. The media relies on that fact.

Flat out, who cares if Flynn lied? Technically, a lie requires intent, and he did not provide a falsehood with intent, he just answered a question to the best of his recollection, which was faulty.

In court, what he did would have been called a perjury trap, and he would only have answered questions to which he was certain of the answer. All other questions would be answered with "I do not recall".

The idea that Flynn should be treated as though he was under oath in a court of law when he wasn't, when you have Presidential Candidates (Clinton, anyone?) on record lying to Congress under oath?

What a joke of a discussion. Why are you even entertaining this?

Whataboutism is probably the most used tactic of the Trumpists. Don't want to defend what Trump and his people did? Talk about how *insert Democrat* also did something bad, and was never sent to jail. And 99% of the time they distort what the Democrat did.

A legitimate legislative purpose, emphasis in italics. Congress has every right to investigate insofar as they might want to change laws to prevent a reoccurrence. That's the point of legislative inquiries. Should we better secure the Capitol? Do we want to clarify that the VP's role is purely ceremonial? Those are good questions, and Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses in an attempt to find the answer.

We've sidetracked from the original conversation, though. If subpoena power should be enforced by law, as you seem to suggest, then what do we make of the Obama DOJ's decision not to prosecute itself?

what is it with these people and crying.

Some serious crocodile tears here, they need to read the story of the Boy who Cried Wolf

Congressional oversight is an important part of the American system. Sure, it's partly to realize legislative purposes, so that they can enact better laws. It's also so that they can reveal to the public facts that the public should know. That's one of the distinctions that Congressional investigations are supposed to have compared to DOJ investigations, where the latter generally does not reveal it's findings, unless it's for a compelling purpose(Russia investigation, IRS investigation, etc).

I view the DOJ withholding documents(especially ones shielded by executive privilege) as standard practice, whereas a former White House advisor refusing to testify about his participation in a coup attempt is not standard practice. You're comparing apples and oranges.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 26 2022 04:51pm

Let's remember, plenty of Republicans in Congress threatened Rosenstein with contempt of Congress for not providing investigative documents on Russiagate. Loony Republicans in Congress have been doing this for years.

Not partly, it's from which their authority is derived. They're not the judicial branch. If Merrick Garland has evidence that there was an attempted coup, he will charge the perpetrators accordingly and try them in court.

To the second point, Navarro is not being charged or accused, by anyone to my knowledge, of participating in a coup attempt. We'll have to stop there, and wait for evidence to the contrary. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If the legislative purpose is present, then what's the issue?

I happen to believe that one of the purposes of Congressional oversight is to reveal wrongdoing of the executive branch... I didn't know some conservatives opposed that. Actually, it goes beyond that. The 9/11 commission wasn't just for fixing laws, it was used to reveal to the American people what happened.

There's evidence that he was involved in the coup attempt, and he's refusing to participate in the Congressional investigation. Congress should have power to investigate legitimate issues, therefore, DOJ is right to charge him. Because they are enforcing a legal statute in an appropriate manner.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 26 2022 05:58pm

dont worry they will get rid of all the actual conservative judges who are not on the payroll of pfizer in due time.
dont forget pfizer argued that they can't be prosecuted even at a corporate non vaxxed level because they are essentially to affiliated w/ big brother:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/pfizer-moves-to-dismiss-lawsuit-from-covid-19-vaccine-trial-citing-prototype-agreement_4481422.html?

Holy derailed topic, Batman!


"Here, Robin, we have no choice but to eat our Bat-Reality pills".



1. Januarygate is just Russiagate 2.0, but they're getting an earlier start this time. Instead of waiting until it was obvious they were gonna lose, they now started right after they stole an election.
2. This ofc was necessary from the left's point of view, because they don't want anyone to look too closely at why 5-6 swing states ALL had vote counting problems on election night.
3. Misdirection has become the left's ONLY response to the American people questioning their ludicrous platforms.
4. It also keeps the American people from looking to closely at how tremendously far Biden's approval rating has dropped.


Back to the topic of this thread...

The Supreme Court has done an excellent job in one of the most dangerous political climates I've ever seen.
We even have three major lefty politicians ASKING for riots and the defying of the Supreme Court. The same thing they are falsely accusing Trump of in Januarygate.
A method I might add that has been employed by every political crook throughout history: "Accuse the other side of that which you are doing".

We have here an interesting situation. Our Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, rights a legal hiccough from 1973, which should solicit praise.
Yet, a large portion of the country, not only doesn't even SEE what has occurred, but have been so brainwashed, they can only come to the conclusion, that they have been cheated somehow.

The antics employed this last decade, and still being employed will give future political analysts a free ride on the money train. It will encompass chapters, nay entire books, pointing out the way NOT to do things,
if you want to be able to claim any shred of honor, down the road.



Rock on lefties, be an ultra-clear example to future generations of Americans, of the path to take to completely disavow any connection with what it means to be... human.