ChiGoose

If Hunter Biden should be prosecuted for Criminal Contempt of Congress, why didn’t the GOP-led House vote to hold him in contempt and refer him to the DoJ? If the DoJ is just doing the bidding of the Dems, why did it reject their referrals for Dan Scavino and Mark Meadows?

That’s what happened. If you think that Hunter should be prosecuted for contempt, you should be mad at the GOP for not holding a floor vote on sending the contempt motion to the DoJ.

In case anyone is wondering how contempt generally works in the House: A committee subpoenas someone to testify. They refuse. The committee then votes to send a finding of contempt to the floor. The entire House votes on the contempt motion. If it succeeds, the House refers it to the DoJ. Both Bannon and Navarro (as well as Dan Scavino and I think at least one other person) refused to testify to the Jan 6 committee. The committee voted to hold them in contempt and sent it to the whole House. The House then voted to refer the charges to the DoJ who filed charges against Bannon and Navarro (but notably not against everybody who was referred). Hunter Biden refused a subpoena to testify so the House committee voted to hold him in contempt. Before a floor vote was scheduled, Hunter re-engaged the committee to negotiate his appearance. They held off on sending the contempt motion to the floor and were able to get Hunter to come in and testify, negating the need to hold the floor vote. It’s not some biased deep state thing. Hunter just decided to eventually do the smart thing at the last minute and testify before the entire House could hold him in contempt.

I mean, it's inclusive of traitors...

Controversial opinion warning: We probably shouldn't venerate people who took up arms against the United States. Monuments to confederates should be moved to museums or battlefield national parks where they can be put in context.

Just in case people don't realize that most confederate statues were not erected for the purpose of preserving history, but in conjunction with enacting Jim Crow laws.

If the Trump campaign didn't want people to claim they are close with Russians, they probably shouldn't have so many contacts with Russians and people working on behalf of Russians...

If you were up in arms about the son of a president, who was not a part of his campaign or administration, doing crimes, but you do not care about a presidential candidate hiring an actual convicted criminal, then you're not a serious person.

Poll: Majority of Americans aren’t paying attention to Trump’s hush money trial “Asked how closely they were following Trump's hush money case, a majority in this poll – 55 percent – said they were not following it much or at all, versus 45 who reported paying some or a lot of attention to the trial. Many Americans, including voters, are taking cues from most Republican leaders who continue to stand by Trump, even as he continues to face criminal and civil charges and investigations, said Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter. "It tells voters it's not that big of a deal," Walter said. "If you have a party that is for the most part rallying around a candidate, it is hard for negative information about that candidate to really take hold among partisans." The sheer number of court cases, 88 separate charges and multiple levels of legal actions overwhelm most people, Republican strategist Sarah Longwell said. "One of Trump's negative superpowers is being able to flood the zone," she said. While some people tend to follow certain cases, focus group interviews and other surveys suggest people don't painstakingly follow every case against Trump, Longwell said . "It's a lot to ask for people to track."”

Strong disagree. I would bet that most people aren’t aware of this. I’d love to see polling on the Trump trial but I don’t think most Americans are following it. The reason that Trump is doing so well is because most people aren’t paying attention.

There is a LOT of money to be made as a right wing grifter. There was a story years ago about finding someone behind some of the fake Facebook groups. They found a guy who was behind a bunch of right wing groups and were surprised to discover he was actually liberal. He had started doing both liberal and conservative fake news groups but the liberal ones never gained traction while the right wing ones took off.

Or could be x10. She has trouble with those numbers...

Missouri bill to ban all child marriages runs into resistance from House Republicans Kids as young as 16 can get married in Missouri with parental consent.

That’s giving Julie Kelly too much credit. I don’t think this was contrived or intentional. I think she’s just really dumb.

Boy is Julie’s law school going to be embarrassed when they learn she can’t tell the difference between the numbers 10 and 2. RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA FAIL: JULIE KELLY’S TROUBLES WITH TEN AND TWO Tl;dr: local legal expert cannot tell the difference between a box labeled “2” and a box labeled “10”, assumed they were the same thing and then accidentally made an argument for Trump’s guilt: ”Poor Julie took a description of a box found in the storage closet, treated it as a description of a box found somewhere else, and then simply never bothered to check what that box — the box Jay Bratt was actually referring to — actually contained. Julie the propagandist suggests that if the picture were accurate — if there really were seven documents that still had cover sheets in the box that Jay Bratt was actually describing — then it would accurately support an argument that, “the former president is a criminal and threat to national security.” And wow, that may be a problem, conceding that that picture supported an argument that Trump was a national security threat! Because nothing Julie claims in her post describes this box. And her claims that the FBI made this picture as damning as possible is debunked when you look at the actual contents of the box (or even, the picture itself).“

Way to miss the point entirely.

Lol

Do you think all jaywalkers are or should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Should everyone going 36 in a 35 get a ticket?

Biden and Pence cooperated with investigators. Trump obstructed investigators. That's really all it is. If Trump didn't want to get prosecuted, he could have just cooperated. If Biden, or Pence had obstructed, they would have been in the same boat as Trump (though for Biden they'd have to wait until he was out of office). There are serious issues with how documents are handled and the laws we have were written for the millions of people who have clearances for their non-elected jobs. Unfortunately, electeds fall in a gray area. We can say we want to change the document controls to make them better, and change the laws to hold electeds more accountable, but today we have to deal with the controls and laws as they are. Righties big mad because they can't understand very basic things so they need to make up big conspiracies to avoid recognizing that even their people might do crimes.

Donald Trump could have intentionally taken the documents with him intending to sell them for money, change his mind and then just like having them around for years and years and years, and he *still* wouldn't get prosecuted if, when the feds asked him to return them, he handed them all over. The guy literally refused to turn them over when asked for almost a year, then hid documents from his lawyer causing his lawyer to lie to the government, told the government he had returned all of the documents when he hadn't, ordered his staff to destroy video evidence of all of this, and somehow people think this is the same as turning documents over when asked.

Elected officials generally do not get prosecuted for retaining documents if they return them when asked by the feds. The government in those instances is more concerned about recovering the documents and conducting an analysis to understand if there is a potential impact to intelligence operations. By coming hard at anyone who has documents, they would create an incentive for people to hide the documents, making an intelligence assessment impossible. So when the government becomes aware someone has documents they shouldn't, it tells them they will not prosecute them if they turn them over. You know I don't watch MSNBC. I've told you before. But you have to stick to your script, because it comforts your from reality. Actually engaging on the facts might hurt your brain or *gasp* make you rethink the conclusions from which you later determine your "facts" I honestly don't understand the appeal of being willfully ignorant, but you seem to enjoy it.

If that's your definition, then Trump would be too if he actually listened to his lawyer instead of Tom Fitton.

Former elected officials generally do not get prosecuted for possessing documents unless they obstruct the investigation. It's why Pence wasn't prosecuted It's why Biden wasn't prosecuted It's why there weren't prosecutions for every administration since Reagan. The only reason Trump is being prosecuted is because he obstructed the investigation. You're telling on yourself here.

Me: here's the data that shows that gun violence is strongly correlated with the availability of guns. Here's some additional data showing that there are effective gun laws that reduce gun violence and deaths. Galaxy brained geniuses: Nuh uh. Number go big in one spot.

Agreed, Trump is actually arguing that Biden should be above the law. Thankfully, Trump is wrong. What has actually happened is that people who have no idea what they are talking about are unable to tell the difference between obstructing an investigation and not obstructing an investigation. It's a sad reflection of our very dumb world.