Free Republic

Both are a sham, so he is sorta right!

“Steven Spielberg warns ‘overt’ anti-Semitism in U.S. as bad as 1930s Nazi Germany”-hyperbole

hyperbole
hī-pûr′bə-lē
noun

A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.In rhetoric, an obvious exaggeration; an extravagant statement or assertion not intended to be understood literally.Synonyms See exaggeration.

If its true then we can just give up on this green crap!

Either he or me are whistling past the graveyard, I am pretty sure it’s him!

This fight has always been nothing but stupid! The whole idea behind speed traps is to get people to slow down, flashing your lights gets people to slow down!

not his decision to make, not sorry!

Why can’t you people be psychopaths like us?

Canada is a yeast infection?

He is way to dumb to foresee this but AI will soon be able to detect lying, he is screwed! Lets run the old vids about Epstein Island, no one has been more blackmailed than this prick!

He can go first to set an example! Lets ask him if he is cool wit that!

With an empirical amount of data proves the vaccines are detrimental to health Pfizer I guess keeps bribing these lairs!

How more racist, misogynistic, homophobic can these guys be?

My thoughts Project Veritas is James, he has nothing to worry about, happens all the time, a board thinks they have way more power than they actually do. If he walks the money will follow him not the idiots who stepped in it.

It doesn’t actually say except Hunter;

ArtI.S8.C18.7.1 Overview of Congress’s Investigation and Oversight Powers

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress’s power to conduct investigations stands on equal footing with its authority to legislate and appropriate.1 Although the “power of inquiry” was not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it has nonetheless been acknowledged as “an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function” derived implicitly from Article I’s vesting of “legislative Powers” in the Congress.2 This implied constitutional prerogative to gather information related to legislative activity is both critical in purpose, as Congress “cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information,” and extensive in scope, as Congress is empowered to obtain pertinent testimony and documents through investigations into nearly any matter.3 Included within the scope of the power is the authority to initiate investigations, hold hearings, gather testimony or documents from witnesses, and, in situations where either a government or private party is not forthcoming, compel compliance with congressional requests through the issuance and enforcement of subpoenas.

While Congress’s investigative tools can be used to achieve a number of different purposes, congressional practice suggests that legislative inquiries primarily serve to either gather information valuable for considering and producing legislation (what may be called the self-informing or legislative-informing function)4 or to ensure that existing laws are being properly administered (what may be referred to as the oversight function.)5 Although functionally distinguishable, the self-informing and oversight functions often merge during the conduct of significant investigations.

In the absence of explicit constitutional text, the scope of the investigatory power has been molded and defined primarily by congressional practice, negotiations between the political branches, and opinions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has only rarely engaged in any significant discussion of Congress’s investigatory power, and in fact has only once issued an opinion directly addressing an investigative oversight conflict between Congress and the Executive Branch.6 A variety of factors contribute to the reduced judicial role in this area, including legal principles of judicial restraint and the separation of powers. But at least historically, the chief constraint appears to be the infrequency in which cases involving the investigatory power have been adjudicated.7 As a general matter, the Judicial Branch generally has become involved in subpoena disputes in only three classes of cases: (1) when a party is subject to a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with congressional demands;8 (2) when the House or Senate itself initiates a lawsuit in an attempt to enforce a subpoena—though the Supreme Court has never heard such a case;9 or (3) when a subpoena seeks an individual’s documents from a third party, and the individual brings suit to block the third party from complying with the subpoena.10 The majority of cases have historically come from the first category, arising either in the context of a criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress, or a habeas proceeding stemming from a detention carried out pursuant to an exercise of Congress’s inherent contempt power.11 The relative dearth of jurisprudence means that historical practice, especially Congress’s views of the reach of its own authority established through hundreds of years of investigations, plays a substantial role in establishing the outer bounds of the investigatory power.

Although Supreme Court decisions in this area are limited, they illuminate the basic constitutional foundation of Congress’s investigatory power and establish key legal limitations on its exercise. The Court’s early jurisprudence began with a focus on establishing the source of the investigatory power before considering the power’s scope.12 In that vein, the Court established that the authority to conduct investigations was implied from the “legislative power” vested in Congress by Article I of the Constitution, but only to the extent that an inquiry actually served a “legislative purpose.”13 By the mid-twentieth century, judicial recognition of the investigatory power had been well established, and the Court’s focus shifted to legal limitations on congressional inquiries, generally in the context of the tension between congressional investigations and the individual rights of private citizens.14 These judicially identified limitations on Congress’s power of inquiry emanated principally from the Bill of Rights, including the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as from the internal rules of the House and Senate, which can act as self-imposed constraints on the investigatory power. Intervention by the Supreme Court into investigative disputes has generally been confined to scenarios in which Congress is seeking information from a private citizen, rather than a government official. Trump v. Mazars, decided in 2020, was the first time the Supreme Court directly addressed an interbranch investigatory conflict. Even then, the case was technically brought by President Donald Trump in his private rather than official capacity, though the Court chose to treat the conflict as one between the branches.15 Instead, the historical reality has generally been that inter-branch investigative conflicts are resolved through an informal tug-of-war between the political branches rather than through adjudication by the courts.16

How is it possible that this idiot gets quoted by anyone besides Losers Anonymous?

not in his lifetime!

He picked Flynn which could have saved him from a lot of choices.

I don’t know if he exists and wonder what its like to be so disillusioned.