What you are saying is that if Republicans turn down a fair deal then the only fair thing Democrats can do is not have the investigation because whatever it is it won't be as fair and so won't be legit. That is just absurd logic. Republicans were never going to agree to any investigation because they had a big hand in causing the events that require one to be done.
You are basically saying that the defendant in a criminal trial should be able to say the trial is not legit because of the risk of conviction.
What else could Nancy have done to make this committee fair in your eyes?? Who is responsible for this committee not being legitimate IYO?No, I don't. You would just like for me too. I posted what I thought on Bengazi. It has nothing to do with this topic.
I have already agreed they should have taken the deal as it was, but they didn't. Nancy is playing the "phuck you" card. She can do that if she wants. It isn't going to help things or make anything legitimate. This is true regardless of what you or I think of Bengazi. Lord knows Nancy has never been vengeful or ruthless...
Fuck off, shitbag.No, that is not what I said or meant in the least. Thanks for your input anyway.
Good, it's not illegal, so take your biased opinion and fuck off. Republicans have spent the last 2 decades behaving in really shitty ways, and when pressed on it all they can say is: "It's not illegal"
#butthurt
#dealwithit
LOL
WTF triggered you? What a joke.
Toddlers around the world are taking note.So once again all Republicans have to do to make anything illegitimate is to refuse to participate?
Secret reasonsWhat else could Nancy have done to make this committee fair in your eyes?? Who is responsible for this committee not being legitimate IYO?
Secret reasons
What else could Nancy have done to make this committee fair in your eyes?? Who is responsible for this committee not being legitimate IYO?
This is not fair in an any sense.
" select committee where Democrats are the majority and have sole subpoena power. "
AND
I have already stated that the republicans should have accepted the original offer which was entirely fair as far as I know. They screwed the pooch and now Nancy will extract her pound of flesh.
She went from getting turned down straight to vindictive. What would it hurt to have another meeting or two to sort out the members and the rules
Having a meeting is a waste of time unless Nancy can give them something. What else could she give them they didn't have in the independent committee proposal? Should Republicans have majority power?This is not fair in an any sense.
" select committee where Democrats are the majority and have sole subpoena power. "
AND
I have already stated that the republicans should have accepted the original offer which was entirely fair as far as I know. They screwed the pooch and now Nancy will extract her pound of flesh.
She went from getting turned down straight to vindictive. What would it hurt to have another meeting or two to sort out the members and the rules
There is absolutely nothing vindictive about the House majority holding a majority of positions on a committee. Offering the treasonous Republicans equal membership was a far too generous offer to begin with. I understand why the Speaker made the offer (and I disagree with her reasons) and I understand why Kevin McCarthy turned it down (he was one of the fucking traitors on Jan 6th).This is not fair in an any sense.
" select committee where Democrats are the majority and have sole subpoena power. "
AND
I have already stated that the republicans should have accepted the original offer which was entirely fair as far as I know. They screwed the pooch and now Nancy will extract her pound of flesh.
She went from getting turned down straight to vindictive. What would it hurt to have another meeting or two to sort out the members and the rules
Having a meeting is a waste of time unless Nancy can give them something. What else could she give them they didn't have in the independent committee proposal? Should Republicans have majority power?
How does being one-sided make it not legit? Does it make evidence suddenly not evidence? Are facts no longer facts? Are criminal investigations everywhere not legit because they are 100% investigated by law enforcement instead of a 50/50 split of law enforcement and criminals? Your claim that it can't be legit relies on the premise that it is impossible for Democrats to be unbiased, and also that bias means more than facts and evidence.They turned down an option they should have taken as I said. They could still negotiate. I'm not doing a Bengazi comparison... I didn't object then and I'm not objecting now. You asked a poll question and I gave you my honest answer.
This is not legit in my opinion as it is too one sided.
How does being one-sided make it not legit? Does it make evidence suddenly not evidence? Are facts no longer facts? Are criminal investigations everywhere not legit because they are 100% investigated by law enforcement instead of a 50/50 split of law enforcement and criminals? Your claim that it can't be legit relies on the premise that it is impossible for Democrats to be unbiased, and also that bias means more than facts and evidence.
That's my point geekster doesn't want to admit the committee is not legitimate IHO because Republicans made it that way by rejecting the power sharing agreement.No, they should not have majority power over a committee they didn't want to begin with.
That's my point geekster doesn't want to admit the committee is not legitimate IHO because Republicans made it that way by rejecting the power sharing agreement.
This committee is legitimate because Republicans gave Democrats no choice other then to have a SELECT committee.
She turned down two guys that happens to be material witnesses in the subject inestigation. McCarthy then decided to pull everyone.They turned down an option they should have taken as I said. They could still negotiate. I'm not doing a Bengazi comparison... I didn't object then and I'm not objecting now. You asked a poll question and I gave you my honest answer.
This is not legit in my opinion as it is too one sided.
This is exactly how the Bier Hall Putsch was described.Where we differ is that I don't see this as a "credible threat to democracy". As I've said here several times, my scout troop could have planed and executed a better operation. This was clown collage warfare, stupid people reacting without thinking. They had no firepower, they had no defined plan, they had no exit strategy, they had a vague goal that was never achievable. They not only didn't hide their faces, they took selfies and posted them on the web.
That's why the majority of them are being charged with petty crimes, because what they did was a petty crime.
But Hitler wasn't serious that time, so no big deal.This is exactly how the Bier Hall Putsch was described.
While they may have failed it is still a fact that large numbers of supporters of the then president breached the legislature for the purpose of capturing and/or executing elected officials for the purpose of seizing power. In the 6 months between that event and today the Republican Party has gone from wholesale condemnation to now tacit approval.
The country needs to be warned because Republicans will try to seize power again.
No, that is not what I said or meant in the least. Thanks for your input anyway.
It is not what you think you said because of your bias, pointed out to you in this thread over and over again, but it is exactly what your words imply if what you are saying were true.LOL
WTF triggered you? What a joke.