Quote:The Jan. 6 select committee is pushing back at a challenge to its legitimacy, citing a probe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., once derided, Politico is reporting.

In a late-night court filing, House Counsel Douglas Letter defended the Democrat-controlled select panel against claims it is invalid since Republican leaders have not appointed any of its members.

Letter pointed to the formation in 2005 of a select committee, which was set up to investigate the government response to Hurricane Katrina.

That panel was made up of 11 Republicans appointed by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Pelosi had objected to the committee and called it a partisan “sham," according to Politico.

Letter’s defense of the Jan. 6 panel came in a case involving Taylor Budowich, a spokesman for former President Donald Trump. Budowich wants the committee to return his bank records, which it obtained last month from JPMorgan Chase. He maintains the Jan. 6 panel is structurally flawed.

Pelosi had rejected two of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s five appointees to the panel — Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Jim Banks, R-Ind. She had claimed they were too intertwined with Trump to be credible.

McCarthy, R-Calif., then withdrew his other three appointees in protest.

Now he has rejected the Jan. 6 committee's call for him to testify on his private communications, rebuking the "illegitimate" investigation as an "abuse of power."

"This committee is not conducting a legitimate investigation as Speaker Pelosi took the unprecedented action of rejecting the Republican members I named to serve on the committee," McCarthy said in a statement. "It is not serving any legislative purpose. The committee's only objective is to attempt to damage its political opponents — acting like the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee one day and the DOJ the next."

Politico noted that Trump allies who are facing subpoenas from the committee have maintained that the lack of GOP-appointed members is evidence the committee is not operating properly.

They point out that the House’s rules for subpoenas and depositions require talks between majority and minority members, which is not possible for a panel that has no formal GOP-appointed members, the news outlet said.

The panel’s two GOP Reps. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., were named to the committee by Pelosi.

Link

(04-11-2022 12:32 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Letter pointed to the formation in 2005 of a select committee, which was set up to investigate the government response to Hurricane Katrina.

That panel was made up of 11 Republicans appointed by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Pelosi had objected to the committee and called it a partisan “sham," according to Politico.

Yep, that's how precedent works in Congress. Pelosi objected to the Katrina committee, the pedophile Speaker Hastert proceeded anyway, and the precedent was set. So don't be surprised someday when, despite universally opposing them at the time, Democrats use Mitch McConnell's Senate precedents to hold open a Supreme Court seat for months and/or confirm a new Justice within days of an election.

(04-11-2022 02:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:32 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Letter pointed to the formation in 2005 of a select committee, which was set up to investigate the government response to Hurricane Katrina.
That panel was made up of 11 Republicans appointed by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Pelosi had objected to the committee and called it a partisan “sham," according to Politico.

Yep, that's how precedent works in Congress. Pelosi objected to the Katrina committee, the pedophile Speaker Hastert proceeded anyway, and the precedent was set. So don't be surprised someday when, despite universally opposing them at the time, Democrats use Mitch McConnell's Senate precedents to hold open a Supreme Court seat for months and/or confirm a new Justice within days of an election.

How precedent works in congress is that whoever has the majority can do pretty much whatever they want to do. That's why I find the republicans' failure to prioritize winning elections, while democrats think of almost nothing else, to be particularly galling.

Rule #1 of politics. You can't do anything without winning elections.

(04-11-2022 02:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:32 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Letter pointed to the formation in 2005 of a select committee, which was set up to investigate the government response to Hurricane Katrina.

That panel was made up of 11 Republicans appointed by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Pelosi had objected to the committee and called it a partisan “sham," according to Politico.

Yep, that's how precedent works in Congress. Pelosi objected to the Katrina committee, the pedophile Speaker Hastert proceeded anyway, and the precedent was set. So don't be surprised someday when, despite universally opposing them at the time, Democrats use Mitch McConnell's Senate precedents to hold open a Supreme Court seat for months and/or confirm a new Justice within days of an election.

The “It’s cool to do something you find unethical if someone else does it first” defense. The hallmark of high moral character.

(04-11-2022 09:57 PM)banker Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 02:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:32 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Letter pointed to the formation in 2005 of a select committee, which was set up to investigate the government response to Hurricane Katrina.

That panel was made up of 11 Republicans appointed by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Pelosi had objected to the committee and called it a partisan “sham," according to Politico.

Yep, that's how precedent works in Congress. Pelosi objected to the Katrina committee, the pedophile Speaker Hastert proceeded anyway, and the precedent was set. So don't be surprised someday when, despite universally opposing them at the time, Democrats use Mitch McConnell's Senate precedents to hold open a Supreme Court seat for months and/or confirm a new Justice within days of an election.

The “It’s cool to do something you find unethical if someone else does it first” defense. The hallmark of high moral character.

I'm sick of that know it all, smug, self righteous baffoon. As well spoken as he is his intellectual capacity and reasoning skill is inversely proportionate.

Did Hastert boot any of the democrats off the committee? The article didnt mention that.

(04-11-2022 03:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 02:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:32 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Letter pointed to the formation in 2005 of a select committee, which was set up to investigate the government response to Hurricane Katrina.
That panel was made up of 11 Republicans appointed by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Pelosi had objected to the committee and called it a partisan “sham," according to Politico.

Yep, that's how precedent works in Congress. Pelosi objected to the Katrina committee, the pedophile Speaker Hastert proceeded anyway, and the precedent was set. So don't be surprised someday when, despite universally opposing them at the time, Democrats use Mitch McConnell's Senate precedents to hold open a Supreme Court seat for months and/or confirm a new Justice within days of an election.

How precedent works in congress is that whoever has the majority can do pretty much whatever they want to do. That's why I find the republicans' failure to prioritize winning elections, while democrats think of almost nothing else, to be particularly galling.

Rule #1 of politics. You can't do anything without winning elections.

If you don't have the hammer, you can't use the hammer....

(04-11-2022 02:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:32 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Letter pointed to the formation in 2005 of a select committee, which was set up to investigate the government response to Hurricane Katrina.
That panel was made up of 11 Republicans appointed by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Pelosi had objected to the committee and called it a partisan “sham," according to Politico.

Yep, that's how precedent works in Congress. Pelosi objected to the Katrina committee, the pedophile Speaker Hastert proceeded anyway, and the precedent was set. So don't be surprised someday when, despite universally opposing them at the time, Democrats use Mitch McConnell's Senate precedents to hold open a Supreme Court seat for months and/or confirm a new Justice within days of an election.

Are you saying that Hastert was right then, or that democrats are wrong now?

Libs…

(04-12-2022 08:05 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Did Hastert boot any of the democrats off the committee? The article didnt mention that.

Just found it. From Nancy's own website.

“I will not appoint any Democrats to participate in this sham. Instead, Democrats have proposed an independent commission, based on the rigorous and effective example of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

So the Jan6 committee being invalid is NOT like the Katrina Select Committee. Dennis Hastert did not object to any democrats put forward, Nancy just decided not to put any forward. The Katrina select committee was therefore valid.

In the case of the Jan 6th committee, Nancy objected to and refused to seat the first 2 republicans. Therefore, Nancy has not followed the rules of the select committee, so this Jan 6th committee has no subpoena powers.

end of story. womp womp

(04-12-2022 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 02:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:32 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Letter pointed to the formation in 2005 of a select committee, which was set up to investigate the government response to Hurricane Katrina.
That panel was made up of 11 Republicans appointed by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Pelosi had objected to the committee and called it a partisan “sham," according to Politico.

Yep, that's how precedent works in Congress. Pelosi objected to the Katrina committee, the pedophile Speaker Hastert proceeded anyway, and the precedent was set. So don't be surprised someday when, despite universally opposing them at the time, Democrats use Mitch McConnell's Senate precedents to hold open a Supreme Court seat for months and/or confirm a new Justice within days of an election.

Are you saying that Hastert was right then, or that democrats are wrong now?

I don't think it really matters, as you correctly said earlier Congressional precedent is basically worth exactly what the majority thinks it is worth on any given day. It's really just the political optics of who breaks with tradition first and/or changes the House/Senate rules. Harry Reid abolished the filibuster for judges, Mitch McConnell abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, and both sides have reaped both victory and defeat from those changes at different times. The January 6th committee format will likely be copied by the Republicans at some point, perhaps even in the next Congress.

I think we're unlikely to see many political consequences flow from establishing a partisan-dominated committee, unless and until one side uses it to pursue something the majority of the public believes is really just a "witch hunt". So I'd advise both sides to be cautious using the tactic going forward, reserving it for serious issues that a vast majority of the public consider worthy of Congressional investigation, like government handling of Katrina or the January 6th riots.

(04-12-2022 02:57 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 02:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:32 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Letter pointed to the formation in 2005 of a select committee, which was set up to investigate the government response to Hurricane Katrina.
That panel was made up of 11 Republicans appointed by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Pelosi had objected to the committee and called it a partisan “sham," according to Politico.

Yep, that's how precedent works in Congress. Pelosi objected to the Katrina committee, the pedophile Speaker Hastert proceeded anyway, and the precedent was set. So don't be surprised someday when, despite universally opposing them at the time, Democrats use Mitch McConnell's Senate precedents to hold open a Supreme Court seat for months and/or confirm a new Justice within days of an election.

Are you saying that Hastert was right then, or that democrats are wrong now?

I don't think it really matters, as you correctly said earlier Congressional precedent is basically worth exactly what the majority thinks it is worth on any given day. It's really just the political optics of who breaks with tradition first and/or changes the House/Senate rules. Harry Reid abolished the filibuster for judges, Mitch McConnell abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, and both sides have reaped both victory and defeat from those changes at different times. The January 6th committee format will likely be copied by the Republicans at some point, perhaps even in the next Congress.

I think we're unlikely to see many political consequences flow from establishing a partisan-dominated committee, unless and until one side uses it to pursue something the majority of the public believes is really just a "witch hunt". So I'd advise both sides to be cautious using the tactic going forward, reserving it for serious issues that a vast majority of the public consider worthy of Congressional investigation, like government handling of Katrina or the January 6th riots.

If you had read what I posted, you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of posting rubbish that has already been refuted by Nancy Pelosi's own website.

Hastert did not object to any democrats on the Katrina select committee. Pelosi didnt want a select committee, so she didnt send any democrats.

Thats way different than Pelosi not allowing 2 republicans onto the jan 6th committee. By doing that, she invalidated the committee as a "select" committee, which means it does not have subpoena power. ALl of the witnesses can tell her to go blow a goat, and not a damned thing will be done to them. (As has already been proven out in the process. )

(04-12-2022 04:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 02:57 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 02:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:32 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Letter pointed to the formation in 2005 of a select committee, which was set up to investigate the government response to Hurricane Katrina.
That panel was made up of 11 Republicans appointed by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert.
Pelosi had objected to the committee and called it a partisan “sham," according to Politico.

Yep, that's how precedent works in Congress. Pelosi objected to the Katrina committee, the pedophile Speaker Hastert proceeded anyway, and the precedent was set. So don't be surprised someday when, despite universally opposing them at the time, Democrats use Mitch McConnell's Senate precedents to hold open a Supreme Court seat for months and/or confirm a new Justice within days of an election.

Are you saying that Hastert was right then, or that democrats are wrong now?

I don't think it really matters, as you correctly said earlier Congressional precedent is basically worth exactly what the majority thinks it is worth on any given day. It's really just the political optics of who breaks with tradition first and/or changes the House/Senate rules. Harry Reid abolished the filibuster for judges, Mitch McConnell abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, and both sides have reaped both victory and defeat from those changes at different times. The January 6th committee format will likely be copied by the Republicans at some point, perhaps even in the next Congress.

I think we're unlikely to see many political consequences flow from establishing a partisan-dominated committee, unless and until one side uses it to pursue something the majority of the public believes is really just a "witch hunt". So I'd advise both sides to be cautious using the tactic going forward, reserving it for serious issues that a vast majority of the public consider worthy of Congressional investigation, like government handling of Katrina or the January 6th riots.

If you had read what I posted, you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of posting rubbish that has already been refuted by Nancy Pelosi's own website.

Hastert did not object to any democrats on the Katrina select committee. Pelosi didnt want a select committee, so she didnt send any democrats.

Thats way different than Pelosi not allowing 2 republicans onto the jan 6th committee. By doing that, she invalidated the committee as a "select" committee, which means it does not have subpoena power. ALl of the witnesses can tell her to go blow a goat, and not a damned thing will be done to them. (As has already been proven out in the process. )

That may be YOUR opinion on the matter, but you're way out ahead of the courts on that. I don't think anyone has been acquitted of Contempt of Congress for defying their January 6th Committee subpoena, have they? The most recent story I see indicates that Steven Bannon's case is still proceeding, and I don't believe the Justice Department has indicted anyone else yet -

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-nixes-b...16352.html

(04-12-2022 04:08 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 04:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 02:57 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 02:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Yep, that's how precedent works in Congress. Pelosi objected to the Katrina committee, the pedophile Speaker Hastert proceeded anyway, and the precedent was set. So don't be surprised someday when, despite universally opposing them at the time, Democrats use Mitch McConnell's Senate precedents to hold open a Supreme Court seat for months and/or confirm a new Justice within days of an election.

Are you saying that Hastert was right then, or that democrats are wrong now?

I don't think it really matters, as you correctly said earlier Congressional precedent is basically worth exactly what the majority thinks it is worth on any given day. It's really just the political optics of who breaks with tradition first and/or changes the House/Senate rules. Harry Reid abolished the filibuster for judges, Mitch McConnell abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, and both sides have reaped both victory and defeat from those changes at different times. The January 6th committee format will likely be copied by the Republicans at some point, perhaps even in the next Congress.

I think we're unlikely to see many political consequences flow from establishing a partisan-dominated committee, unless and until one side uses it to pursue something the majority of the public believes is really just a "witch hunt". So I'd advise both sides to be cautious using the tactic going forward, reserving it for serious issues that a vast majority of the public consider worthy of Congressional investigation, like government handling of Katrina or the January 6th riots.

If you had read what I posted, you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of posting rubbish that has already been refuted by Nancy Pelosi's own website.

Hastert did not object to any democrats on the Katrina select committee. Pelosi didnt want a select committee, so she didnt send any democrats.

Thats way different than Pelosi not allowing 2 republicans onto the jan 6th committee. By doing that, she invalidated the committee as a "select" committee, which means it does not have subpoena power. ALl of the witnesses can tell her to go blow a goat, and not a damned thing will be done to them. (As has already been proven out in the process. )

That may be YOUR opinion on the matter, but you're way out ahead of the courts on that. I don't think anyone has been acquitted of Contempt of Congress for defying their January 6th Committee subpoena, have they? The most recent story I see indicates that Steven Bannon's case is still proceeding, and I don't believe the Justice Department has indicted anyone else yet -

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-nixes-b...16352.html

Its not my opinion. Nancy Pelosi refused to allow 2 repubicans on the committee. It therefore is not a select committee and therefore has no subpoena powers.

This recent deflection where she tries to say Hastert did the same thing is a lie. Her own website says it was Nancy he refused to seat any democrats, not Hastert.

womp womp

(04-12-2022 04:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 04:08 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 04:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 02:57 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Are you saying that Hastert was right then, or that democrats are wrong now?

I don't think it really matters, as you correctly said earlier Congressional precedent is basically worth exactly what the majority thinks it is worth on any given day. It's really just the political optics of who breaks with tradition first and/or changes the House/Senate rules. Harry Reid abolished the filibuster for judges, Mitch McConnell abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, and both sides have reaped both victory and defeat from those changes at different times. The January 6th committee format will likely be copied by the Republicans at some point, perhaps even in the next Congress.

I think we're unlikely to see many political consequences flow from establishing a partisan-dominated committee, unless and until one side uses it to pursue something the majority of the public believes is really just a "witch hunt". So I'd advise both sides to be cautious using the tactic going forward, reserving it for serious issues that a vast majority of the public consider worthy of Congressional investigation, like government handling of Katrina or the January 6th riots.

If you had read what I posted, you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of posting rubbish that has already been refuted by Nancy Pelosi's own website.

Hastert did not object to any democrats on the Katrina select committee. Pelosi didnt want a select committee, so she didnt send any democrats.

Thats way different than Pelosi not allowing 2 republicans onto the jan 6th committee. By doing that, she invalidated the committee as a "select" committee, which means it does not have subpoena power. ALl of the witnesses can tell her to go blow a goat, and not a damned thing will be done to them. (As has already been proven out in the process. )

That may be YOUR opinion on the matter, but you're way out ahead of the courts on that. I don't think anyone has been acquitted of Contempt of Congress for defying their January 6th Committee subpoena, have they? The most recent story I see indicates that Steven Bannon's case is still proceeding, and I don't believe the Justice Department has indicted anyone else yet -

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-nixes-b...16352.html

Its not my opinion. Nancy Pelosi refused to allow 2 repubicans on the committee. It therefore is not a select committee and therefore has no subpoena powers.

This recent deflection where she tries to say Hastert did the same thing is a lie. Her own website says it was Nancy he refused to seat any democrats, not Hastert.

womp womp

The bolded is indeed, an opinion. You are entitled to it and can shout it from the rooftops or tattoo it on your back if you wish, but none of that will give it the force of law unless and until a court shares your opinion.

(04-12-2022 04:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 04:08 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 04:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 02:57 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-12-2022 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Are you saying that Hastert was right then, or that democrats are wrong now?

I don't think it really matters, as you correctly said earlier Congressional precedent is basically worth exactly what the majority thinks it is worth on any given day. It's really just the political optics of who breaks with tradition first and/or changes the House/Senate rules. Harry Reid abolished the filibuster for judges, Mitch McConnell abolished the filibuster for Supreme Court justices, and both sides have reaped both victory and defeat from those changes at different times. The January 6th committee format will likely be copied by the Republicans at some point, perhaps even in the next Congress.

I think we're unlikely to see many political consequences flow from establishing a partisan-dominated committee, unless and until one side uses it to pursue something the majority of the public believes is really just a "witch hunt". So I'd advise both sides to be cautious using the tactic going forward, reserving it for serious issues that a vast majority of the public consider worthy of Congressional investigation, like government handling of Katrina or the January 6th riots.

If you had read what I posted, you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of posting rubbish that has already been refuted by Nancy Pelosi's own website.

Hastert did not object to any democrats on the Katrina select committee. Pelosi didnt want a select committee, so she didnt send any democrats.

Thats way different than Pelosi not allowing 2 republicans onto the jan 6th committee. By doing that, she invalidated the committee as a "select" committee, which means it does not have subpoena power. ALl of the witnesses can tell her to go blow a goat, and not a damned thing will be done to them. (As has already been proven out in the process. )

That may be YOUR opinion on the matter, but you're way out ahead of the courts on that. I don't think anyone has been acquitted of Contempt of Congress for defying their January 6th Committee subpoena, have they? The most recent story I see indicates that Steven Bannon's case is still proceeding, and I don't believe the Justice Department has indicted anyone else yet -

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-nixes-b...16352.html

Its not my opinion. Nancy Pelosi refused to allow 2 repubicans on the committee. It therefore is not a select committee and therefore has no subpoena powers.

This recent deflection where she tries to say Hastert did the same thing is a lie. Her own website says it was Nancy he refused to seat any democrats, not Hastert.

womp womp

The prog filth zealots eat this stuff up

The people pissed at the economic and social disaster that is the Biden* regime dont care.

Only a small weird group of people believe there was an insurecton esp with a real war on tv daily.

Its also meant to be a distraction from the crimes and pedo agenda.