The findings issued Tuesday show the depths to which the Republican Party is working to reinforce Trump’s desire to seek vengeance on his perceived enemies.
Even going off the final assertions by this report and let’s just toss them a bone and say 100% of what they present is EXACTLY as they say it is presented. None of this rises to criminal liability. None of it is a level that the FBI could really do anything about. Violation of House rules by House members is up to the House to vote on punishment. Violation of the standing rules of the Senate is up to the Senate is also up to the Senate to vote on how to punish. There’s zero ways anyone in the judicial branch would want to take up any of this.
Even Trump diehard justices wouldn’t touch this because doing so would open up ANY rule breaking in the House to prosecution, which is literally something nobody in Congress would want.
But again, that’s just ignoring all the stretch allegations made. Like for example, they’ve indicated that Cheney reached out to Hutchinson and then apply their definition of “it went too far” when that’s exactly how they’ve conducted several of their investigations into Hunter Biden which is exactly why we wanted a hearing in front of cameras as opposed to off-record and then on-record statements.
All of this is just Gentleman’s agreements on how testimony is entered into record, there’s not some “gold standard” to how committees go about this whole affair. And literally every time something like this goes down, once the power dynamic changes, it’s “this is where the other team didn’t do what we believe to be reasonable™”.
I mean, I get it. It looks like they wanted a stronger narrative than they had, but at the same time a lot of people within the office who were loyal to Trump didn’t want to testify. There was a ton of pushback from former members of Trump’s team to the investigation. Remember all those subpoenas that they ignored from the House? So okay, the linkage to Trump and the J6 rioters isn’t strong, but that’s no surprise. I don’t think anyone thought for ten seconds that the House could make a case for incitement, that’s just a massive bar to clear. And the J6 Committee did indeed stop short of calling it an orchestrated coup officially. NOW that didn’t stop them from making that statement in front of cameras, but at no time did the House officially call it a coup. Just “strongly hinted at it”.
Now, that might sound like I’m splitting hairs here. But that’s exactly what Republicans did with the whole Burisma thing. They didn’t outright officially say squat. But goddamn didn’t they strongly hint at it.
All of this gets really old because they are fighting over rules that they themselves skirt at nearly every chance. But none of this reaches “breaking laws” sort of how like “insider trading in Congress isn’t TECHNICALLY breaking any laws.” It’s all silly nonsense because this song and dance is all bad-faith arguments from both sides.
I would love to see what kind of argument the FBI tries to cobble together for conspiracy for former Senator Cheney. Because boy do Congress critters really rely on that Article I Section 6 part of the Constitution that indicates.
and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place
Like that’s a very core, boy do we have thousands of cases to draw precedent on, right of Congress. And gosh, this is starting to look like the 119th session is going to be doing a whole lot of the 118th missteps.
Here’s the entire report.
Even going off the final assertions by this report and let’s just toss them a bone and say 100% of what they present is EXACTLY as they say it is presented. None of this rises to criminal liability. None of it is a level that the FBI could really do anything about. Violation of House rules by House members is up to the House to vote on punishment. Violation of the standing rules of the Senate is up to the Senate is also up to the Senate to vote on how to punish. There’s zero ways anyone in the judicial branch would want to take up any of this.
Even Trump diehard justices wouldn’t touch this because doing so would open up ANY rule breaking in the House to prosecution, which is literally something nobody in Congress would want.
But again, that’s just ignoring all the stretch allegations made. Like for example, they’ve indicated that Cheney reached out to Hutchinson and then apply their definition of “it went too far” when that’s exactly how they’ve conducted several of their investigations into Hunter Biden which is exactly why we wanted a hearing in front of cameras as opposed to off-record and then on-record statements.
All of this is just Gentleman’s agreements on how testimony is entered into record, there’s not some “gold standard” to how committees go about this whole affair. And literally every time something like this goes down, once the power dynamic changes, it’s “this is where the other team didn’t do what we believe to be reasonable™”.
I mean, I get it. It looks like they wanted a stronger narrative than they had, but at the same time a lot of people within the office who were loyal to Trump didn’t want to testify. There was a ton of pushback from former members of Trump’s team to the investigation. Remember all those subpoenas that they ignored from the House? So okay, the linkage to Trump and the J6 rioters isn’t strong, but that’s no surprise. I don’t think anyone thought for ten seconds that the House could make a case for incitement, that’s just a massive bar to clear. And the J6 Committee did indeed stop short of calling it an orchestrated coup officially. NOW that didn’t stop them from making that statement in front of cameras, but at no time did the House officially call it a coup. Just “strongly hinted at it”.
Now, that might sound like I’m splitting hairs here. But that’s exactly what Republicans did with the whole Burisma thing. They didn’t outright officially say squat. But goddamn didn’t they strongly hint at it.
All of this gets really old because they are fighting over rules that they themselves skirt at nearly every chance. But none of this reaches “breaking laws” sort of how like “insider trading in Congress isn’t TECHNICALLY breaking any laws.” It’s all silly nonsense because this song and dance is all bad-faith arguments from both sides.
I would love to see what kind of argument the FBI tries to cobble together for conspiracy for former Senator Cheney. Because boy do Congress critters really rely on that Article I Section 6 part of the Constitution that indicates.
Like that’s a very core, boy do we have thousands of cases to draw precedent on, right of Congress. And gosh, this is starting to look like the 119th session is going to be doing a whole lot of the 118th missteps.