Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

I have a question about US Congressional committees and subpoenas. There seem to be a few people who "refuse" to cooperate in either supplying documentation or giving testimony. I don't get that. If authorities demand you do something, don't you kind of have to do it? Why aren't those folks in jail yet then? Or are these not subpoenas as I understand them, that is, are they of a type that have no teeth.


More generally, if these guys thought they were doing the right thing, wouldn't they be jumping at the chance to give testimony in public, make their positions known? I keep reading rumours of them asking for pardons, presumably based on the hope that Trump, or a suitable acolyte, gets into power in the future. Shouldn't we be suspicious of people who lobby for pardons? That doesn't strike me as something innocent heroes would do.

This last question is out of left field. Have there been rumours at any time of Trump "selling" pardons? I don't necessarily mean cash deals, although I don't rule that out. He doesn't strike me as the kind of person who does anything for someone else without a quid pro quo. Not many people do in politics, is my guess, but he seems especially prone.

First you have to understand that most congressional hearings are political in nature.  They are used to embarrass the other party.  So now that Democrats run Congress, they have hearings meant to embarrass Republicans, Trump, etc., and gain traction to help them in the upcoming midterm elections.  So, if you're a republican, you rather not help Democrats.  Of course, Democrats will ask questions meant to embarrass you.  They limit witnesses who would help Republicans.  It’s all fake.

The other rationale for not appearing is Constitutional in nature.   The Presidency and Congress are co-equal branches of government.  Each has its rights that the other may not interfere with.  So, while Congress may be allowed to investigate and have hearings to help them legislate new laws based on their finding, certain things the president does is considered Executive Privilege.  He's allowed to keep his counsel and act in ways he decides, and Congress has no power to tell him what to do or even investigate his doing it.  Of course, witnesses claim executive privilege when there is none hoping to get relieved from testifying.  Then it goes to court and the judge decides if true executive privilege or not.  If the witness losses he has to testify or chance being held in contempt of Congress. 

Accusing Trump of selling pardons is just another rumor that started hoping it gets traction as so many other rumors have started about him that have been proven false.  It’s probably being circulated to take the pressure of real cheating that Biden and his son apparently have been involved in with the Chinses and Ukrainians.  If Republican takeover Congress, they’ll be investigating of that, and Biden and Democrats will be claiming executive privilege. 😉

[PeterAit]

A majority of Americans, about 60% or more,  are now opposed to Biden for lack of good leadership.  They see his many failings as president.  Are they "abysmally ignorant and stupid" too?  Rather than attacking others here, maybe you need to reappraise Biden in light of the current circumstances.  He seems to have failed people's original expectations of him and the many Democrats who approve of his policies as well.

No, disapproving of Biden's leadership does not make one "abysmally ignorant and stupid." I too am disappointed in Biden in many ways. But remember that after 4 years of the Orange Oaf and his venality, lying, dishonesty, racism, and incompetence, Biden is a true breath of fresh air. My "abysmally ignorant and stupid" comment was directed toward people who disapprove of Biden for things he has no control over, such as gas prices, inflation, the southern border, and so on. These are factual matters, not matters of opinion.

[Alan Klein]

No, disapproving of Biden's leadership does not make one "abysmally ignorant and stupid." I too am disappointed in Biden in many ways. But remember that after 4 years of the Orange Oaf and his venality, lying, dishonesty, racism, and incompetence, Biden is a true breath of fresh air. My "abysmally ignorant and stupid" comment was directed toward people who disapprove of Biden for things he has no control over, such as gas prices, inflation, the southern border, and so on. These are factual matters, not matters of opinion.

Buit I and others disagree with you.  We feel and the facts support it, he did have control of the border.  But he shut down the wall and stopped completion of it.  He "invited" people to come in by not stopping them at the border using the agreement we made with the Mexicans.  He's directly responsible for the huge increase in illegal immigration, and criminals entering, as well as a huge increaase in drugs including fentanyl that's killing Americans by the thousands.  He increased deficit spending by the trillions.  Fortunately, Congress and his own Senators prevented him from printing trillions more, which would have made bad inflation worse.

 If that's a breath of fresh air, I need oxygen.

[Robert Roaldi]

First you have to understand that most congressional hearings are political in nature.  They are used to embarrass the other party.  So now that Democrats run Congress, they have hearings meant to embarrass Republicans, Trump, etc., and gain traction to help them in the upcoming midterm elections.  So, if you're a republican, you rather not help Democrats.  Of course, Democrats will ask questions meant to embarrass you.  They limit witnesses who would help Republicans.  It’s all fake.

The other rationale for not appearing is Constitutional in nature.   The Presidency and Congress are co-equal branches of government.  Each has its rights that the other may not interfere with.  So, while Congress may be allowed to investigate and have hearings to help them legislate new laws based on their finding, certain things the president does is considered Executive Privilege.  He's allowed to keep his counsel and act in ways he decides, and Congress has no power to tell him what to do or even investigate his doing it.  Of course, witnesses claim executive privilege when there is none hoping to get relieved from testifying.  Then it goes to court and the judge decides if true executive privilege or not.  If the witness losses he has to testify or chance being held in contempt of Congress. 

Accusing Trump of selling pardons is just another rumor that started hoping it gets traction as so many other rumors have started about him that have been proven false.  It’s probably being circulated to take the pressure of real cheating that Biden and his son apparently have been involved in with the Chinses and Ukrainians.  If Republican takeover Congress, they’ll be investigating of that, and Biden and Democrats will be claiming executive privilege. 😉

I was hoping for answers from people with legal knowledge.

But I am really quite sick to death of your viewing everything through a partisan political lens where anyone vaguely right-wing is a perpetual victim. Change the damn record. You do realize that if things really are as you paint them, that's tantamount to admitting you live in a shit hole banana republic, in which case you need to recalibrate your thinking anyway.

As for the selling of pardons, I was not responding to rumours nor was I starting a rumour. Stop making shit up and putting words into other people's mouths? I was inquiring about whether any accusations had been made that had gotten some traction. It seemed to me like something an investigative press would look at, especially given that some people seem to be proactively asking for pardons, something that seems pretty suspect to me.

[Chris Kern]

I have a question about US Congressional committees and subpoenas. There seem to be a few people who "refuse" to cooperate in either supplying documentation or giving testimony. I don't get that. If authorities demand you do something, don't you kind of have to do it? Why aren't those folks in jail yet then? Or are these not subpoenas as I understand them, that is, are they of a type that have no teeth.

This is a recondite area of U.S. federal law, but in very general terms:

With one obscure exception, not exercised in many years, Congress has no authority to directly enforce a legislative subpoena.  It can initiate a civil proceeding for enforcement in federal court, which entails a potentially lengthy judicial review of whether the subject of the subpoena has a legal obligation to testify, or it can vote to hold the subject in contempt of Congress and request—but not require—the federal Department of Justice to initiate a criminal prosecution.

[Robert Roaldi]

This is a recondite area of U.S. federal law, but in very general terms:

With one obscure exception, not exercised in many years, Congress has no authority to directly enforce a legislative subpoena.  It can initiate a civil proceeding for enforcement in federal court, which entails a potentially lengthy judicial review of whether the subject of the subpoena has a legal obligation to testify, or it can vote to hold the subject in contempt of Congress and request—but not require—the federal Department of Justice to initiate a criminal prosecution.

Thanks very much.

[TechTalk]

I have no business putting words in his mouth, but don't you think that his judgement was based on more than one single opinion of yours? These so-called "political" exchanges have been going on for a while now, plenty of opportunity to judge contributions.

I'm always happy to have your participation. To clarify again, it isn't the right to expression of any opinion to which I have an objection. None. It is the actions and behavior alone I can no longer abide and unrelated to any opinion expressed or the basis on which it is formed.

I've already pointed out the actions and behavior which I find objectionable on many occasions. A good deal of the behavior to which I object involves pretending. That would include pretending that my objections are to some opinion expressed rather than the method and manner in which it is done. It is the character, method, and manner in expressing them that constitute the actions and behavior which I find habitually disingenuous and deceptive — not the opinions.

It's just one more among many examples of deflecting by pretending that a criticism concerns some entirely different objection. This is then followed by pretending to be a victim when confronted with criticism of any kind. It's an act in a play that's been presented many many times here.

[PeterAit]

First you have to understand that most congressional hearings are political in nature.  They are used to embarrass the other party.  So now that Democrats run Congress, they have hearings meant to embarrass Republicans, Trump, etc., and gain traction to help them in the upcoming midterm elections.  So, if you're a republican, you rather not help Democrats.  Of course, Democrats will ask questions meant to embarrass you.  They limit witnesses who would help Republicans.  It’s all fake.

Are you really surprised that pols do things that are political in nature? Duh!! But as for  "limit[ing] witnesses who would help Republicans" please name a single example. You cannot, of course. Many Trump allies have been called to testify and most of them have pled privilege or lawyered up and refused subpoenas. And the Jan 6th commission has uncovered some truly chilling things. But you and many others do not care about the threat to our democracy as your lips are firmly glued to the great orange ass and your view of the real world blocked by the great orange buttocks.

[MattBurt]

 

[Alan Klein]

I'm always happy to have your participation. To clarify again, it isn't the right to expression of any opinion to which I have an objection. None. It is the actions and behavior alone I can no longer abide and unrelated to any opinion expressed or the basis on which it is formed.

I've already pointed out the actions and behavior which I find objectionable on many occasions. A good deal of the behavior to which I object involves pretending. That would include pretending that my objections are to some opinion expressed rather than the method and manner in which it is done. It is the character, method, and manner in expressing them that constitute the actions and behavior which I find habitually disingenuous and deceptive — not the opinions.

It's just one more among many examples of deflecting by pretending that a criticism concerns some entirely different objection. This is then followed by pretending to be a victim when confronted with criticism of any kind. It's an act in a play that's been presented many many times here.

No one here is the arbiter of truth. We do not silence people we disagree with in America. We should attack ideas, not the person.  There's no reason to be rude.

[Alan Klein]

Are you really surprised that pols do things that are political in nature? Duh!! But as for  "limit[ing] witnesses who would help Republicans" please name a single example. You cannot, of course. Many Trump allies have been called to testify and most of them have pled privilege or lawyered up and refused subpoenas. And the Jan 6th commission has uncovered some truly chilling things. But you and many others do not care about the threat to our democracy as your lips are firmly glued to the great orange ass and your view of the real world blocked by the great orange buttocks.

The Democrat-run hearings are political.  And when Republicans have hearings next year investigating the Biden's, you'll claim rightly that they're political too.  And I'll argue that there are enough facts that warrant the hearings.  We all can switch shoes and be proud of how we are protecting the Republic.

[Alan Klein]

 By the way, your insult was not called for.  Don't get like some others here.  I've said over and over I think Trump lost.  I wish he'd go away. Those that broke the law should go to jail. The idea I would put my lips anywhere near him is revolting.  How can you even imagine such a thing?  Yeach.   

[TechTalk]

No one here is the arbiter of truth. We do not silence people we disagree with in America.

Do you really NOT understand or are you pretending to NOT understand anything that I've written? I'm all for free, open, and HONEST discussion.

I'm NOT talking about the truth as you see it. I'm NOT talking about the presentation of facts as you see them. I'm NOT talking about disagreement. And I am most certainly NOT talking about any opinions.

I am sick of the TACTICS you use in discussion of them. The disingenuous METHOD of pretending that you're replying to what someone wrote, when your reply is in no way whatever responsive to what they've written. The dishonest REPRESENTATIONS of what others have written when you're replying to them. The deceptive PRETENDING that any and every claim of you making a false assertion or questioning of your judgement is a personal attack. The list is much longer and these issues have been raised many times, but each and every time you act as if you're completely clueless as to the cause and nature of the criticism and react like a victim.

If this isn't all pretending on your part, then for heaven's sake wake up and smell the coffee and at least try to pay some attention to what people actually write and not present some distorted and unrecognizable version of it or simply ignore what they've written completely and go off on some unrelated tangent. These and other things unmentioned ARE what have irritated me and perhaps some others who have lost patience with you. I am not, however, representing that I speak for anyone other than myself.

You likely won't believe me, but I am trying to improve communication by telling you this. As a side benefit, you will also likely see a noticeable reduction in the genuine (as opposed to perceived) insults hurled your way.

On the other hand, if you don't understand what I've written here and still just think that it's all about silencing your opinions with the aim of arbitrating "the truth" then I've wasted my time and yours. I wish you nothing but good health and happiness.

[Alan Klein]

Do you really NOT understand or are you pretending to NOT understand anything that I've written? I'm all for free, open, and HONEST discussion.

I'm NOT talking about the truth as you see it. I'm NOT talking about the presentation of facts as you see them. I'm NOT talking about disagreement. And I am most certainly NOT talking about any opinions.

I am sick of the TACTICS you use in discussion of them. The disingenuous METHOD of pretending that you're replying to what someone wrote, when your reply is in no way whatever responsive to what they've written. The dishonest REPRESENTATIONS of what others have written when you're replying to them. The deceptive PRETENDING that any and every claim of you making a false assertion or questioning of your judgement is a personal attack. The list is much longer and these issues have been raised many times, but each and every time you act as if you're completely clueless as to the cause and nature of the criticism and react like a victim.

If this isn't all pretending on your part, then for heaven's sake wake up and smell the coffee and at least try to pay some attention to what people actually write and not present some distorted and unrecognizable version of it or simply ignore what they've written completely and go off on some unrelated tangent. These and other things unmentioned ARE what have irritated me and perhaps some others who have lost patience with you. I am not, however, representing that I speak for anyone other than myself.

You likely won't believe me, but I am trying to improve communication by telling you this. As a side benefit, you will also likely see a noticeable reduction in the genuine (as opposed to perceived) insults hurled your way.

On the other hand, if you don't understand what I've written here and still just think that it's all about silencing your opinions with the aim of arbitrating "the truth" then I've wasted my time and yours. I wish you nothing but good health and happiness.

I often make my points and then back them up with links to articles that support those beliefs.  Just like you often do.  All you have to do is critique those beliefs and points and make your own and leave it up to the readers' judgments to discern what we're saying and make up their own minds and beliefs.  I'm not using any sort of "tactics" as you claim, whatever that means.

You're assigning some sort of nefarious method on my part doesn't make sense.  I'm sorry you're frustrated and hope you feel better later. 

[TechTalk]

I often make my points and then back them up with links to articles that support those beliefs.  Just like you often do.  All you have to do is critique those beliefs and points and make your own and leave it up to the readers' judgments to discern what we're saying and make up their own minds and beliefs.

Which has [surprise!] no relationship whatsoever to what I wrote. I don't know how much further I could go to make that clear beyond using bold all caps for emphasis.

I'm not using any sort of "tactics" as you claim, whatever that means.

What it means was spelled out in a condensed and concise manner — though that didn't make any difference.

You're assigning some sort of nefarious method on my part doesn't make sense.  I'm sorry you're frustrated and hope you feel better later.

Clearly the effort was a complete waste of time.

[Alan Klein]

I'm sorry you don't like my style of debating. Should I change my style of photography too?

[TechTalk]

Your call. I'm done.

[Peter McLennan]

I'm sorry you don't like my style of debating. Should I change my style of photography too?

Alan, Have you noticed that we ALL disagree with your “method of debating”?

You might want to think about that for a second or two.

[TechTalk]

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1110961285/the-next-jan-6-committee-hearing-will-focus-on-the-role-of-qanon-and-extremists

The next Jan. 6 committee hearing will focus on the role of QAnon and extremists

NPR - July 11, 2022 - Tom Dreisbach - Excerpts Below...

Tuesday's hearing of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol will focus on the role of the pro-Trump conspiracy theory known as QAnon, as well as the role of extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, aides to the committee said. A key area of inquiry for congressional investigators has been possible ties between former President Trump and his allies and far-right extremists. And aides said the committee would present new evidence about how Trump's tweet calling for a "big protest" on Jan. 6th served as a kind of call to arms. "Be there, will be wild!" Trump tweeted...

Extremist groups have been at the forefront of the federal criminal investigation into the Capitol breach. Justice Department prosecutors have brought criminal charges against more than 130 people with apparent ties to extremist groups, including more than three dozen who appear to have expressed support for QAnon, according to NPR's database of charges. Leaders of both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have been charged with seditious conspiracy, the most serious criminal charge stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021 attack. Three defendants have pleaded guilty to that charge, while other defendants are fighting the allegations...

Aides to the Jan. 6 select committee cited longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn as possible conduits between extremist groups and people in Trump's orbit. In 2020, both Stone and Flynn received presidential pardons from Trump. The two men had separately been convicted on charges connected to former Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election...

Already-public information suggests ties between Stone, Flynn and extremists.

Stone, for example, has worked closely with Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio, and the two have appeared at events together. Tarrio was not in Washington, D.C. during the Capitol riot, but prosecutors have alleged that he conspired with members of the group to plan the attack. Tarrio has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Members of the Oath Keepers also acted as part of a security detail for Stone on the morning of Jan. 6, prior to the riot. A week later, Stone said in an Instagram video that he was initially supposed to lead a march from the Ellipse to the Capitol that day, where he would give a speech, but he ultimately "decided that I was not interested in doing any of those things." He said he only supported peaceful protest that day, and "left town while demonstrators were still, to my astonishment, inside the Capitol."

Flynn has also received security help from the Oath Keepers, including at a pro-Trump event in Dec. 2020, according to the group's leader, Stewart Rhodes. At that event, Rhodes said Trump should "drop the hammer" and invoke the Insurrection Act, "because if he does not do it, we'll have to fight a bloody civil war or a bloody revolution to take our country back against a corrupt, illegitimate regime." Rhodes has also pleaded not guilty to charges of seditious conspiracy.

[More at Link Above]

[Alan Klein]

Alan, Have you noticed that we ALL disagree with your “method of debating”?

You might want to think about that for a second or two.

That's because you disagree with my political views.  I get it. If my views matched yours, you'd think my method was great.