Time to investigate

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by tucker6

After you and your buddies get done high fiving each other, the answer is "impeachment". That's your recourse.

But they won't as they know it will end badly for the Dem's

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

You keep quoting stupid shit as if it is enlightening.


Chris Hayes at @MSNBC?


What are your actual thoughts Dan?

He's checking Twitter for them now......

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

A perfect example of the type of crimes uncovered in Congressional hearings. Could it be that the people who lied were led into a perjury trap or that interview notes were tampered with.

Right now there are several investigations going on, an investigation of Comey, an IG investigation of the FBI regarding the FISA warrants, an investigation by prosecutor Huber (unknown subject matter) and now a criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation.

All of which are serious matters, much more serious than lying to Congress.

Let's withhold judgement until we know the results of the afore-mentioned investigations.

He just did that with Mueller - no way he ever does it again!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

A perfect example of the type of crimes uncovered in Congressional hearings. Could it be that the people who lied were led into a perjury trap or that interview notes were tampered with.

Right now there are several investigations going on, an investigation of Comey, an IG investigation of the FBI regarding the FISA warrants, an investigation by prosecutor Huber (unknown subject matter) and now a criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation.

All of which are serious matters, much more serious than lying to Congress.

Let's withhold judgement until we know the results of the afore-mentioned investigations.

You are evading these well known, traditional conressional oversight issues and it only casts overt hypocrisy on previous republican congresses.

You repugs should remember about congress and the DOJ doing investigations in parallel. As I brought up earlier.

Show me, were you practicing then for the REPUG. HOUSE OR SENATE, and if not, how would you explain the repug congress's fishing expedition out to get Clinton?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitew...t_and_his_wife

Parallel to the Independent Counsel track, both houses of the United States Congress had been investigating Whitewater and holding hearings on it. The House Committee on Financial Services had been scheduled to begin hearings in late March 1994, but they were postponed after an unusually angry, written communication from Democratic Banking Committee chair Henry B. Gonzalez to Republican Jim Leach. Gonzalez called Leach "obstinate", "obdurate", "in willful disregard" of House etiquette, and "premeditatedly" plotting a "judicial adventure".[37] The House Banking Committee began its hearings in late July 1994.[38]

The Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee also began hearings on Whitewater in July 1994.[39] These hearings intensified in May 1995, following the Republican gain of control, when the Republican Banking Committee chairman Al D'Amato also became chair of the newly formed Special Whitewater Committee. The Whitewater committee's hearings were much more extensive than those held previously by the Democrats, running for 300 hours over 60 sessions across 13 months, and taking over 10,000 pages of testimony and 35,000 pages of depositions from almost 250 people.[40] The hearings' testimony and senatorial lines of investigation mostly followed partisan lines, with Republicans investigating the President and the Democrats defending him.[40] The Senate Special Whitewater Committee issued an 800-page majority report on June 18, 1996, which only hinted at one possible improper action by President Clinton, but spoke of the Clinton

[hcap]

On e more recent thing.

Judge Skeptical Of Trump Effort To Block Subpoena Of Accounting Firm
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...sight-subpoena

At a hearing on Tuesday in D.C., U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta grilled Trump’s lawyer William Consovoy about his arguments that the subpoena exceeded Congress’ constitutional authorities.

At one point, Mehta asked Consovoy if it was his view that Congress’ investigations into Whitewater and Watergate were beyond the scope of their authority.

Consovoy stammered a bit, before telling the judge he would need to look more closely at the bases of those investigations.

Tuesday’s proceeding was the first public hearing in a matter related to the multi-front showdown between President Trump and House Democrats over Congress’ oversight abilities. But it’s likely to be the first of many.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Another great Buckeye! RIP

How this ended up in here? I have no idea

It was supposed to be in the Tim Conway thread.......

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

You are evading these well known, traditional conressional oversight issues and it only casts overt hypocrisy on previous republican congresses.

You repugs should remember about congress and the DOJ doing investigations in parallel. As I brought up earlier.

Show me, were you practicing then for the REPUG. HOUSE OR SENATE, and if not, how would you explain the repug congress's fishing expedition out to get Clinton?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitew...t_and_his_wife

Congress did do parallel hearings. Both the House and Senate investigated the Russian collusion story, while Mueller investigated.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/us/20...cts/index.html

All the investigations found no collusion with Russia, as did Mueller. However, if they uncovered a crime during the only recourse would be to the DoJ for possible prosecution.

There have been multiple investigations:

A) FBI investigation operation Crossfire Hurricane,

B) Congressional investigations parallel to the Special Counsel, and

C) Special Counsel investigation,

all of which concluded no collusion and Mueller did not make a prosecutorial decision about obstruction. And we have already beaten that discussion to death, about who has the authority to make prosecutorial decisions.

All the investigations have already taken place in the appropriate Congressional committees, as these investigations ran parallel with Mueller's.

The system worked as it should, until congress currently trying to usurp powers of the Executive Branch.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

On e more recent thing.

Judge Skeptical Of Trump Effort To Block Subpoena Of Accounting Firm
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...sight-subpoena

At a hearing on Tuesday in D.C., U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta grilled Trump’s lawyer William Consovoy about his arguments that the subpoena exceeded Congress’ constitutional authorities.

At one point, Mehta asked Consovoy if it was his view that Congress’ investigations into Whitewater and Watergate were beyond the scope of their authority.

Consovoy stammered a bit, before telling the judge he would need to look more closely at the bases of those investigations.

Tuesday’s proceeding was the first public hearing in a matter related to the multi-front showdown between President Trump and House Democrats over Congress’ oversight abilities. But it’s likely to be the first of many.

From an earlier post in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FantasticDan View Post
https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/statu...85663403999234
Not proper because there is no formal impeachment.

The Whitewater investigation had been based on actions prior to Clinton's presidency and involved legitimate Congressional business as Congress legislates banking laws, i.e.savings and loans causing losses to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association was a savings and loan association based in Little Rock, Arkansas. The company operated from 1979 until 1989 when it was shut down by federal regulators as a result of bank failure, leading to a loss of $60 million for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

I reiterate, Whitewater was not an investigation to find criminal acts, but an investigation of banking laws.

Jim and Susan McDougal, also were involved in Madison Guaranty. Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association was a savings and loan association based in Little Rock, Arkansas. The company operated from 1979 until 1989 when it was shut down by federal regulators as a result of bank failure, leading to a loss of $60 million for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

What happened the investigator, who did not have prosecutorial powers, as he did not have the authority to investigate crimes made a criminal referral to the DoJ of the McDougals listing then President Clinton and the First Lady as witnesses for the government.

David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November 1993 that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal.[3] The allegations were regarded as questionable because Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment himself in 1993, did Hale make allegations against the Clintons.[4] A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation resulted in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the Whitewater project. Jim Guy Tucker, Bill Clinton's successor as governor, was convicted of fraud and sentenced to four years of probation for his role in the matter.[5] Susan McDougal served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions relating to Whitewater............

The matter was handled by the Whitewater Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr. The last of these inquiries came from the final Independent Counsel, Robert Ray (who replaced Starr) in 2000.[6] Susan McDougal was granted a pardon by President Clinton before he left office.

In Watergate formal impeachment hearings were instituted by Congress.

Both of the investigations, did not depend on Congress having prosecutorial powers, and both fit in the scope of Congress' authority.

Congress has the authority to impeach and hold investigations about banking laws, to see if changes can be made to prevent FDIC losses.

We will have to wait for Judge Metha's ruling, but one thing is guaranteed, whoever is ruled against will appeal.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I reiterate, Whitewater was not an investigation to find criminal acts, but an investigation of banking laws.

You got to be joking?

Whitewater entailed a huge amount of repugs doing many congressional oversight investigations.

The Whitewater committee's hearings were much more extensive than those held previously by the Democrats, running for 300 hours over 60 sessions across 13 months, and taking over 10,000 pages of testimony and 35,000 pages of depositions from almost 250 people.[40]

100 or 1000 x more than the current Ways and Means Committee wanting to oversee

Trumps financial records, thoroughly stalled buy Trump.
Clinton's banking, Trump's taxes? Not a big difference.

Under 6103, the Ways and Means Committee chairman is entitled to them

[Show Me the Wire]

[quote=Show Me the Wire;2467018]From an earlier post in this thread.


David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November 1993 that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal.[3] The allegations were regarded as questionable because Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment himself in 1993, did Hale make allegations against the Clintons.[4] A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation resulted in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the Whitewater project. Jim Guy Tucker, Bill Clinton's successor as governor, was convicted of fraud and sentenced to four years of probation for his role in the matter.[5] Susan McDougal served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions relating to Whitewater............

The matter was handled by the Whitewater Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr. The last of these inquiries came from the final Independent Counsel, Robert Ray (who replaced Starr) in 2000.[6] Susan McDougal was granted a pardon by President Clinton before he left office.



Correction, I forgot the to cite a source for the above.

[emphasis added]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

You got to be joking?

Whitewater entailed a huge amount of repugs doing many congressional oversight investigations.

100 or 1000 x more than the current Ways and Means Committee wanting to oversee

Trumps financial records, thoroughly stalled buy Trump.
Clinton's banking, Trump's taxes? Not a big difference.

Under 6103, the Ways and Means Committee chairman is entitled to them

The Senate Whitewater Committee, officially the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters, was a special committee convened by the United States Senate during the Clinton administration to investigate the Whitewater scandal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ater_Committee

No, I am not joking the special committee was formed to investigate Whitewater Development corporation and related matters.

The committee was not formed to investigate a sitting President. The committee was formed, by a Senate resolution, to investigate a real estate development company, which caused large FDIC losses and Congress has oversight of federal agencies and the FDIC is federal agency and Congress had a legitimate purpose to investigate loss of taxpayer money by the FDIC caused by Whitewater Development Company.

The resolution establishing the special committee:

Introduced in Senate (05/17/1995)
Establishes the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters to be administered by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Includes as purposes of the Special Committee to investigate, hold public hearings, and report to the Congress on: (1) White House handling of documents in the office of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster following his death; (2) handling of Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) confidential information, criminal referrals, and employees in relation to Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association or such Corporation; (3) disclosure of the Office of Government Ethics report of July 31, 1994,or related transcripts; (4) such Association, such Corporation, and RTC policies, practices, and actions regarding such Association; (5) funding and lending practices of Capital Management Services, Inc.; (6) bond underwriting contracts between Arkansas Development Finance Authority and Lasater & Company; and (7) lending activities of Perry County Bank, Perryville, Arkansas, in connection with the 1990 Arkansas gubernatorial election.

The resolution is clear, the committee was formed to investigate banks, lending practices, underwriting of loans, etc.

The committee was not formed to criminally investigate a sitting president. The only matter which related to the White House is the handling of documents after the death of Vincent foster.

[Show Me the Wire]

Also, unlike Whitewater the current hearing does not make a clear statement defining its scope of investigation.

You may find the Whitewater resolution, I referenced above, here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-...resolution/120


The Judge mentioned the lack of defining scope, in this issue.

Even so, the judge indicated some sympathy for the president’s position, saying that there had not been a clear statement from the committee on the scope of its investigation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1SK13A

I wonder why congress did not define its scope of investigation, as it did in the Whitewater investigation?

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Also, unlike Whitewater the current hearing does not make a clear statement defining its scope of investigation.

You may find the Whitewater resolution, I referenced above, here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-...resolution/120


The Judge mentioned the lack of defining scope, in this issue.

Even so, the judge indicated some sympathy for the president’s position, saying that there had not been a clear statement from the committee on the scope of its investigation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1SK13A

I wonder why congress did not define its scope of investigation, as it did in the Whitewater investigation?

Cause when One is FISHING they can not specify what they will catch.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

Cause when One is FISHING they can not specify what they will catch.

Or perhaps Congress knows it cannot criminally investigate anyone, especially a sitting president, under Congressional "implied powers".

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Also, unlike Whitewater the current hearing does not make a clear statement defining its scope of investigation.

You may find the Whitewater resolution, I referenced above, here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-...resolution/120


The Judge mentioned the lack of defining scope, in this issue.

Even so, the judge indicated some sympathy for the president’s position, saying that there had not been a clear statement from the committee on the scope of its investigation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1SK13A

I wonder why congress did not define its scope of investigation, as it did in the Whitewater investigation?

Once again other legal experts disagree with your analysis. From my earlier post. A specific ruling soon to be finalized by a judge. So whether you or I are correct, we will see.

Originally Posted by hcap

On e more recent thing.

Judge Skeptical Of Trump Effort To Block Subpoena Of Accounting Firm
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...sight-subpoena

At a hearing on Tuesday in D.C., U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta grilled Trump’s lawyer William Consovoy about his arguments that the subpoena exceeded Congress’ constitutional authorities.

At one point, Mehta asked Consovoy if it was his view that Congress’ investigations into Whitewater and Watergate were beyond the scope of their authority.

Consovoy stammered a bit, before telling the judge he would need to look more closely at the bases of those investigations.

Tuesday’s proceeding was the first public hearing in a matter related to the multi-front showdown between President Trump and House Democrats over Congress’ oversight abilities. But it’s likely to be the first of many.

Btw, I agree that the House would be more successful getting documents and witnesses by officially starting impeachment. The courts, where all of the stalling and foot dragging will go, ultimately is where it will be decided, are more prone to help the legislature if impeachment is declared.

However there is no time to finish before the 202 elections. And we all know unless there is a major shift in the Senate, so what?

But politically it still makes sense at the momentfor the dems to wait. Congressional oversight is not as outlandish as you claim, and much will get done uncovering more wrong doings. Just like Judge Amit Mehta, thinks wrong doings are a major concern. Some legal experts seeo past the letter of the law to the spirit.