If Trump deliberately hid classified documents.

[GaryK]

I join you in disagreeing with and disliking this.

If i recall, this was an ongoing hangup in the J6 “show trial?” viewtopic.php?t=4700

Except that the Republicans insisted that the same Republicans who were under investigation should represent their party in the investigation, and refused to nominate others.

So the Democrats found Republicans who were willing to participate, but that meant that the Republicans didn't have as much influence as they normally would. Their brinkmanship backfired. I don't know how the Democrats could have done better, though, given the circumstances.

Who was investigating them? Were they being criminally investigated?

[Ken]

If i recall, this was an ongoing hangup in the J6 “show trial?” viewtopic.php?t=4700

Except that the Republicans insisted that the same Republicans who were under investigation should represent their party in the investigation, and refused to nominate others.

So the Democrats found Republicans who were willing to participate, but that meant that the Republicans didn't have as much influence as they normally would. Their brinkmanship backfired. I don't know how the Democrats could have done better, though, given the circumstances.

Who was investigating them? Were they being criminally investigated?

Let’s revisit what actually happened.

1. Democrats proposed an independent bipartisan commission to investigate the events surrounding 1-6. Not a CRIMINAL investigation, but simply a bipartisan commission to find answers, much like the bipartisan 9-11 commission that investigated 9-11. Or before that with Iran-Contra. And before that with Watergate. This was not something obscure like Benghazi. It happened in our country on national TV and involved people at the very center of power. People wanted answers.

2. Republicans in the Senate under the leadership of Mitch McConnell and at the direction of Trump BLOCKED legislation to establish a bipartisan or nonpartisan commission to investigate 1-6.

3. In response, the House which was under Democratic control did the only next possible thing which was to form a House Investigatory committee to do the same thing. Since the House can act on its own without the need for legislation that passes both houses of Congress. The House attempted to make it a bipartisan commission but chose to veto Republican appointees who were directly implicated in the events of 1-6. This sort of decision by the majority party is not completely uncommon. For example, since the Republicans have taken control, they have blocked Ilhan Omar from being seated on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and after some protests the Democrats put someone else in that seat.

4. However the Republican House leadership under McCarthy and at the urging of Trump chose not to do so and simply refused to cooperate with the committee which left only Republicans who chose to defy their leadership and Trump on the committee like Liz Cheney.

5. The committee shrugged, and went about its business without the full participation of Republicans as was their right.

None of this is anything new or unusual. The House under Republican leadership convened something like 5 different committees to investigate Benghazi. And now they are attempting to do something similar with Hunter Biden. Shrug. All of it is simply informational investigations and not criminal investigations because the House does not have prosecutorial powers. And you can give their reports and conclusions whatever weight you choose to give them since it is all simply informational.

[GaryK]

Except that the Republicans insisted that the same Republicans who were under investigation should represent their party in the investigation, and refused to nominate others.

So the Democrats found Republicans who were willing to participate, but that meant that the Republicans didn't have as much influence as they normally would. Their brinkmanship backfired. I don't know how the Democrats could have done better, though, given the circumstances.

Who was investigating them? Were they being criminally investigated?

Let’s revisit what actually happened.

1. Democrats proposed an independent bipartisan commission to investigate the events surrounding 1-6. Not a CRIMINAL investigation, but simply a bipartisan commission to find answers, much like the bipartisan 9-11 commission that investigated 9-11. Or before that with Iran-Contra. And before that with Watergate. This was not something obscure like Benghazi. It happened in our country on national TV and involved people at the very center of power. People wanted answers.

2. Republicans in the Senate under the leadership of Mitch McConnell and at the direction of Trump BLOCKED legislation to establish a bipartisan or nonpartisan commission to investigate 1-6.

3. In response, the House which was under Democratic control did the only next possible thing which was to form a House Investigatory committee to do the same thing. Since the House can act on its own without the need for legislation that passes both houses of Congress. The House attempted to make it a bipartisan commission but chose to veto Republican appointees who were directly implicated in the events of 1-6. This sort of decision by the majority party is not completely uncommon. For example, since the Republicans have taken control, they have blocked Ilhan Omar from being seated on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and after some protests the Democrats put someone else in that seat.

4. However the Republican House leadership under McCarthy and at the urging of Trump chose not to do so and simply refused to cooperate with the committee which left only Republicans who chose to defy their leadership and Trump on the committee like Liz Cheney.

5. The committee shrugged, and went about its business without the full participation of Republicans as was their right.

None of this is anything new or unusual. The House under Republican leadership convened something like 5 different committees to investigate Benghazi. And now they are attempting to do something similar with Hunter Biden. Shrug. All of it is simply informational investigations and not criminal investigations because the House does not have prosecutorial powers. And you can give their reports and conclusions whatever weight you choose to give them since it is all simply informational.

That doesn't answer my questions to Boot.

[Ken]

Who was investigating them? Were they being criminally investigated?

Let’s revisit what actually happened.

1. Democrats proposed an independent bipartisan commission to investigate the events surrounding 1-6. Not a CRIMINAL investigation, but simply a bipartisan commission to find answers, much like the bipartisan 9-11 commission that investigated 9-11. Or before that with Iran-Contra. And before that with Watergate. This was not something obscure like Benghazi. It happened in our country on national TV and involved people at the very center of power. People wanted answers.

2. Republicans in the Senate under the leadership of Mitch McConnell and at the direction of Trump BLOCKED legislation to establish a bipartisan or nonpartisan commission to investigate 1-6.

3. In response, the House which was under Democratic control did the only next possible thing which was to form a House Investigatory committee to do the same thing. Since the House can act on its own without the need for legislation that passes both houses of Congress. The House attempted to make it a bipartisan commission but chose to veto Republican appointees who were directly implicated in the events of 1-6. This sort of decision by the majority party is not completely uncommon. For example, since the Republicans have taken control, they have blocked Ilhan Omar from being seated on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and after some protests the Democrats put someone else in that seat.

4. However the Republican House leadership under McCarthy and at the urging of Trump chose not to do so and simply refused to cooperate with the committee which left only Republicans who chose to defy their leadership and Trump on the committee like Liz Cheney.

5. The committee shrugged, and went about its business without the full participation of Republicans as was their right.

None of this is anything new or unusual. The House under Republican leadership convened something like 5 different committees to investigate Benghazi. And now they are attempting to do something similar with Hunter Biden. Shrug. All of it is simply informational investigations and not criminal investigations because the House does not have prosecutorial powers. And you can give their reports and conclusions whatever weight you choose to give them since it is all simply informational.

That doesn't answer my questions to Boot.

I think Boot is actually incorrect.

Pelosi didn’t reject Jim Jordan and Jim Banks from the 1-6 committee because they were under investigation. She rejected them because they voted against certification of the election citing Trump’s lies and misinformation and because they continued to deliberately disseminate disinformation about the election. She made the case that because of their actions they could not be viewed as neutral or impartial. In response, McCarthy pulled all 5 of his appointees off the committee even though Pelosi had only rejected two of them.

None of it had anything to do with any of them actually being under investigation. And if they were under investigation at the time by the DOJ that would have been very unlikely to have been public information.

[Josh]

Republicans who are democratically elected should be allowed to serve on bipartisan committees, regardless of if Democrats think they should be “under investigation”.

Democracy means the politicians the people vote into office, are the politicians in charge.

[Ken]

Republicans who are democratically elected should be allowed to serve on bipartisan committees, regardless of if Democrats think they should be “under investigation”.

Democracy means the politicians the people vote into office, are the politicians in charge.

Regardless of what you think should be the case, the majority party gets to make the rules in both the House and Senate because all the rules are decided by majority vote. And none of of this stuff (other than a few things like the threshold vote for impeachment) are actually found in the constitution. In fact, committees themselves are not found anywhere in the constitution.

If pure democracy actually governed how we do things then we would not have the filibuster or the electoral college or a senate based on state representation rather than population.

[Robert]

Regardless of what you think should be the case, the majority party gets to make the rules in both the House and Senate because all the rules are decided by majority vote.

So are you okay with the way the House Oversight Committee is being run?

[Ken]

Regardless of what you think should be the case, the majority party gets to make the rules in both the House and Senate because all the rules are decided by majority vote.

So are you okay with the way the House Oversight Committee is being run?

I am fine with it. I know that it is just politics and nothing more. I actually think it is very bad politics on the part of the GOP and a strategic error on their part. But as Napoleon said, "never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"

I think if the GOP was smarter they would use their control over the House to make the case to the public for GOP control of the government. By passing a suite of reasonable conservative measures that would demonstrate how they would intend to rule if given power that would contrast with whatever Biden and the Senate Democrats are doing. Hold hearings and pass new legislation on health care, the environment, the economy, judicial reform, etc. etc. Even if those bills don't pass the Senate and reach Biden's signature they would serve as an argument in favor of GOP government.

But they are doing none of that. They are going deep into obscure conspiracy theories that the majority of Americans have no interest in or have even heard of. My mother, for example, has no idea what CRT or DEI or ESG are, or what Burisma is, or who Viktor Shokin is. Nor does she particularly care.
It is all just political noise. She wants to know if the government is going to reduce the price of prescription drugs and whether her grandchildren will have good jobs and live in an environment with clean air and water.

[Ken]

For those who think Trump is being unfairly treated...

[Bootstrap]

Except that the Republicans insisted that the same Republicans who were under investigation should represent their party in the investigation, and refused to nominate others.

So the Democrats found Republicans who were willing to participate, but that meant that the Republicans didn't have as much influence as they normally would. Their brinkmanship backfired. I don't know how the Democrats could have done better, though, given the circumstances.

Who was investigating them? Were they being criminally investigated?

The January 6th committee was investigating Jordan. Banks had said he had no intention of cooperating with the investigation and wanted to disrupt it. The report itself describes this, but it was also widely reported as the commission was being set up initially.

Pelosi agreed to seat 3 out of the 5 people that McCarthy proposed. McCarthy refused to let those 3 participate if Jordan and Banks couldn't and refused to appoint anyone else. Boycotting the January 6th investigation became a loyalty thing for Republicans. So Pelosi wound up choosing Republicans who were willing to buck that in order to participate.

January 6th Report

Jordan was personally involved in the acts and circumstances of January
6th, and would be one of the targets of the investigation. By that point,
Banks had made public statements indicating that he had already reached
his own conclusions and had no intention of cooperating in any objective
investigation of January 6th, proclaiming, for example, that the Select
Committee was created “. . . solely to malign conservatives and to justify
the Left’s authoritarian agenda.”

On July 21st, Speaker Nancy Pelosi exercised her power under H. Res.503
not to approve the appointments of Representatives Jordan or Banks,
expressing “concern about statements made and actions taken by these
Members” and “the impact their appointments may have on the integrity
of the investigation.” However, she also stated that she had informed
Leader McCarthy “. . . that I was prepared to appoint Representatives
Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls, and requested that he rec-
ommend two other Members.”

In response, Leader McCarthy elected to remove all five of his Republi-
can appointments, refusing to allow Representatives Armstrong, Davis and
Nehls to participate on the Select Committee.(page 156)

And it has more to say about Jordan. It sure would be nice to hear from him under oath about what happened on January 6th. As far as I know, this has not yet happened. Ditto with Trump. They promise to investigate others, but do whatever they can to avoid cooperating with investigations.

Representative Jordan was a significant player in President Trump’s
efforts. He participated in numerous post-election meetings in which
senior White House officials, Rudolph Giuliani, and others, discussed
strategies for challenging the election, chief among them claims that the
election had been tainted by fraud. On January 2, 2021, Representative Jordan
led a conference call in which he, President Trump, and other Members of
Congress discussed strategies for delaying the January 6th joint session.
During that call, the group also discussed issuing social media posts
encouraging President Trump’s supporters to “march to the Capitol” on
the 6th. An hour and a half later, President Trump and Representative
Jordan spoke by phone for 18 minutes. The day before January 6th,
Representative Jordan texted Mark Meadows, passing along advice that Vice
President Pence should “call out all the electoral votes that he believes are
unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.” He spoke with President
Trump by phone at least twice on January 6th, though he has provided
inconsistent public statements about how many times they spoke and what
they discussed.664 He also received five calls from Rudolph Giuliani that
evening, and the two connected at least twice, at 7:33 p.m. and 7:49 p.m.
During that time, Giuliani has testified, he was attempting to reach Mem-
bers of Congress after the joint session resumed to encourage them to con-
tinue objecting to Joe Biden’s electoral votes.666 And, in the days following
January 6th, Representative Jordan spoke with White House staff about the
prospect of Presidential pardons for Members of Congress.

The Committee recognizes that the Department of Justice and other
prosecutorial authorities may be in a position to utilize investigative tools,
including search warrants and grand juries, superior to the means the
Committee has for obtaining relevant information and testimony. Indeed,
both the Department of Justice and the Fulton County District Attorney may
now have access to witness testimony and records that have been unavail-
able to the Committee, including testimony from President Trump’s Chief
of Staff Mark Meadows, and others who either asserted privileges or
invoked their Fifth Amendment rights. The Department may also be able
to access, via grand jury subpoena or otherwise, the testimony of Republi-
can Leader Kevin McCarthy, Representative Scott Perry, Representative Jim
Jordan and others, each of whom appears to have had materially relevant
communications with Donald Trump or others in the White House but who
failed to comply with the Select Committee’s subpoenas.