Latest Breaking News

Novara

(6,115 posts)

36. Right, the Oversight Committee. BUT

Tue Apr 12, 2022, 06:10 PM

Apr 2022

The materials could be so highly classified that people on the oversight committee don't have the requisite clearance to know what's in the files.

And if that's the case, this motherfucker needs to be prosecuted to the highest extent of the law.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DOJ rebuffs Democrats' request for inventory of Trump's boxes [View all] brooklynite Apr 2022 OP

They're busy looking at the unopened boxes and thinking important thoughts about them. They Scrivener7 Apr 2022 #1

The Hammer of Justice will soon clobber Repube Traitor-in-Chief Achilleaze Apr 2022 #2

Totally agree Joinfortmill Apr 2022 #44

&#W&##(&@#%%+__((((%$ Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #3

I think all your questions are the same questions the DOJ is investigating Fiendish Thingy Apr 2022 #7

I don't think "we" assume the same things. Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #14

And yet, the DOJ still puts people in prison. Fiendish Thingy Apr 2022 #17

But, as the "tRump" supporter in Florida once said of their 'leader': MyOwnPeace Apr 2022 #21

"some" people.nt Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #33

Yup Joinfortmill Apr 2022 #45

A few years Rebl2 Apr 2022 #30

If only it was a couple of e-mails DOJ would be right on it. Historic NY Apr 2022 #4

I'm OK with that Fiendish Thingy Apr 2022 #5

"unnecessarily tipping off anyone to the contents" Effete Snob Apr 2022 #6

Do you think he packed the boxes himself? Fiendish Thingy Apr 2022 #8

So, to recap Effete Snob Apr 2022 #9

One of the interesting things about investigations is they don't often ask witnesses questions Fiendish Thingy Apr 2022 #13

i'd rather someone be put in jail for smuggling top secret files out of the white house orleans Apr 2022 #23

Why not both? Fiendish Thingy Apr 2022 #26

b/c of the possibility they only get charged with lying nt orleans Apr 2022 #27

where was it said that the contents were to be made public?? Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #47

Can somebody with the appropriate knowledge answer this? intrepidity Apr 2022 #10

What's the likelihood that those boxes contain evidence relating to 1/6? Ocelot II Apr 2022 #12

Even if the documents contain no evidence of crimes, removing them is a crime Fiendish Thingy Apr 2022 #15

And that's also not within the 1/6 committee's purview. Ocelot II Apr 2022 #16

Precisely. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 2022 #19

BUT IT WAS NOT....... MyOwnPeace Apr 2022 #28

Right, the Oversight Committee. BUT Novara Apr 2022 #36

Your metaphor is a bit mangled and doesn't really apply Fiendish Thingy Apr 2022 #43

The House Oversight Committee is run by Dems. former9thward Apr 2022 #55

It may not be run by Dems next year. Fiendish Thingy Apr 2022 #57

It's not the 1/6 committee's request FoxNewsSucks Apr 2022 #35

It's not the J6 committee asking. Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #48

I should've read the op more carefully. Ocelot II Apr 2022 #49

I'm not sure if Oversight isn't just asking for an inventory. Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #51

Good. They'll be more useful to DoJ than to the 1/6 committee. Ocelot II Apr 2022 #11

If it's Top Secret material Zorro Apr 2022 #18

If it's highly classified, then who on Maloney's committee actually has the clearance to be privy to Novara Apr 2022 #22

Probably no one on the committee has the clearances Zorro Apr 2022 #25

Hmmm......... MyOwnPeace Apr 2022 #29

Well, it depends on what you mean by "clearances." summer_in_TX Apr 2022 #58

for all we know, he has copied it and sold the copies. nt Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #34

I don't like this. Not a damned bit. The DOJ is owned by the 6 of the 6/3 USSC. jaxexpat Apr 2022 #20

I would think they could work a little multigraincracker Apr 2022 #24

They would if the House refused to pay them. jaxexpat Apr 2022 #62

very well said Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #37

"Rebuffs"?? BS. DOJ's had a full plate since it was able to constitute itself a year and a month ago ancianita Apr 2022 #31

Once again, for those in the back... Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #50

Thanks for the correction. The same holds true for Oversight in terms of jurisdiction. ancianita Apr 2022 #52

they did not ask for the evidence Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #54

I hear you. ancianita Apr 2022 #64

What would Congress do with this information? Raven123 Apr 2022 #32

Maybe if we had some assurance that action was happening to hold TFG accountable for ANYTHING... Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #38

So they're supposed to compromise classified information Novara Apr 2022 #41

your words Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #42

I still don't get the point. The Oversight Committee can't hold Trump accountable either Raven123 Apr 2022 #46

He won't show up at their hearings, nor will his underlings Captain Zero Apr 2022 #60

Damn right Novara Apr 2022 #39

Maybe there isn't an inventory. Grasswire2 Apr 2022 #40

TFG probably had his minions just toss all the stuff into boxes Ocelot II Apr 2022 #53

That's a clear sign that the boxes contain material that are well above the average Congressperson's Martin68 Apr 2022 #56

The more sensitive the material, the more serious a crime Novara Apr 2022 #61

I don't know the law, but it would be logical for the mishandling of the most sensitive would incur Martin68 Apr 2022 #63

I want them to discover EndlessWire Apr 2022 #59