As we know the dems are obsessed with investigations (unless of course it’s investigations of them). Since Mueller did not give them the results they had hoped for, they have decided a new investigation is necessary. Conducted by our incredibly fair minded congressional democrats. They have already announced their verdict, they just haven’t put together the reasoning for it. My question is a little more basic. After over two years, isn’t it time for them to announce the underlying crime they are investigating? Does anyone have any idea what it is suppose to be?
We know of at least one where the President was named as an unindicted co conspirator
I did in another thread. Emoluments is one of them.
What is the crime. When and where is it alleged to have happened? What is the supporting evidence to suspect a crime?
For what crime? When and where did it happen?
Why name a crime when you can use Congressional subpoenas to harass your political foes?
It’s a sport, not a vocation.
You premise appears to be faulty defining a condition that might or might not exists (i.e. crime was committed) and that such condition is a requirement for Congress to have an investigation.
That is a wrong premise.
Congress does not need to have a crime committed to open or conduct an investigation. Such investigations can be for:
- To gather information for impeachment (and no impeachment doesn’t have to be based on a crime, it can be for anything for which Congress will vote on.)
- It can be gathering information to determine if changes in laws (such as ethics and tax) are needed.
Oversight of what? They are relentless. They have lost their minds.
You asked a question based on a false premise.
I told you about the faulty premise.
I understand you don’t like it.
Named as “Individual 1” here
as directing his former lawyer to commit the crimes that his former lawyer is going to jail for.
I was a sport back in 1860 too.
So sorry dude. You understand far les than you realize.
Democrats are like an investigation in search of a crime to investigate. They know there is a crime there, after all we all know this is a criminal President, they just don’t know what that crime is.
Hopefully, it was going to be colluding with the Russians. Fail. Ok, the crime must be somewhere else. His financials are incredibly complicated so maybe somewhere in there something was done that was illegal. After all, Cohen said so.
If this fails, maybe there was a crime somewhere else.
Many investigations start by determining who committed a suspected crime. This is one giant investigation in search of a crime to investigate further.
Its got to be there somewhere.
Even if there was no crime, maybe the crime was not cooperating with the investigation.
Kafka would have understood.
Do you ever feel you are spinning around in circles here?
The same ground covered multiple times…and yet…
7 more investigations until we are on par with Benghazi
His performance at Helsinki in believing Putin over the US Intelligence agencies he is in charge of is enough justification.
It would be criminal NOT to try to figure out why that happened.
The right is just as guilty.
Volume 1 of the Mueller report was fairly straight forward in terms of findings/conclusions. Volume 2 was most definitely not. A further investigation of volume 2 findings in order to reach a conclusion is reasonable.
Was Nixon harassed?
Yes. By the “nattering, nabobs of negativism”.
Congress does not have the power to investigate crimes, so I see no need for them to announce anything.