It's pretty simple. 

If an investigation is closed, it's closed.  Unless new evidence is discovered or proof that the investigation was tainted, then opening up another investigation is not only political BS, but a total waste of tax payer money.

What EEF wants to do is what most in the judicial system refer to as a fishing expedition.  You have no new evidence beyond what was already considered in the fir investigation, but you want authority to continue upending this man and his family's lives because you lost.  Plain and simple.

Are you saying you trust that law enforcement never cover up a crime? They never are corruptly ordered to stop investigating something? Re-opening the investigation isn't BS or a waste if it was improperly closed. Furthermore, letting congress look at it isn't re-opening it either.

I said what I meant.  Show me where Congress has a mandate to distrust law enforcement and to reinvestigate EVERY CASE THAT ENDS WITH NO CHARGES without any evidence the investigators were corrupt.

Wrong, if they have video of him accepting a bribe, then that isn't a fishing expedition. Fishing expeditions are when you have no evidence of a crime, you just go searching for something.

No.  A fishing expedition is when you manufacture an excuse to investigate someone over an unproven allegation, and then wind up charging him for a totally unrelated crime.  "We went through his finances.  No sign of a bribe, but it looks like he may have underpaid his taxes 10 years ago."  Fishing.

Have you seen this video?  How do you know it exists? 

EEF:  Congress has to investigate, because law enforcement is corrupt and they lie.

Also EEF:  The video proves there was a crime. We have to trust the investigators who recorded the video, because they wouldn't lie.

I said what I meant.  Show me where Congress has a mandate to distrust law enforcement and to reinvestigate EVERY CASE THAT ENDS WITH NO CHARGES without any evidence the investigators were corrupt.

No.  A fishing expedition is when you manufacture an excuse to investigate someone over an unproven allegation, and then wind up charging him for a totally unrelated crime.  "We went through his finances.  No sign of a bribe, but it looks like he may have underpaid his taxes 10 years ago."  Fishing.

Have you seen this video?  How do you know it exists?

Mandate? No. Ability? Yes. BTW no one said congress should reinvestigate every case.
Who else has the power to check the president/DOJ if there is an allegation they are committing a corrupt action? You trust people in such power to basically say "I investigated my good friend and he didn't do anything wrong, trust me, no need to have someone else look at it."?

Did you make this same argument against congress looking into the Steele Dossier fiasco?


Where is the evidence that it was a fishing expedition?


We already covered this

Says the person who believes red flag laws will be justly applied and executed.

The Steele Dosiere was debunked by the Dossiers leading author: Steele himself.  That was about the time of Trump's first inauguration.  Yet, the FBI continued to use that misinformation to go after Trump and his administration for years, costing tax payers millions, and resulting in no charges for Trump or his people as related to the Russia-Collusion hoax.  Comey tried to claim ignorance, and after he left the FBI, he told an interviewer that, had he known then what he knows now, he would have never gone after Trump.  Now he's being arrested and charged.

With Homan, the people investigating found no evidence.  This time they have the good sense to not keep taking bites at the same apple.

I never made that argument.
No, you chose to ignore it and push for red flag laws in spite of government corruption, their incompetence, and abuse by the public, law enforcement and the courts.

Cool story, so did you object when congress looked into it?

Are you that dumb?  As I said there should be evidence/proof of corruption or an incomplete investigation.  We had that proof.  Try again.

You don't know that, you only hear a Trump lackey say there was no evidence. So again, why not have congress look at it as well and verify? It would show the source was unreliable, Trump didn't engage in corruption, and Homan didn't take a bribe.

There were no charges.  That tells me more than a "Trump lackey" believed there was no evidence.  Try again.

Says the person who believes red flag laws will be justly applied and executed.

The Steele Dosiere was debunked by the Dossiers leading author: Steele himself.  That was about the time of Trump's first inauguration.  Yet, the FBI continued to use that misinformation to go after Trump and his administration for years, costing tax payers millions, and resulting in no charges for Trump or his people as related to the Russia-Collusion hoax.  Comey tried to claim ignorance, and after he left the FBI, he told an interviewer that, had he known then what he knows now, he would have never gone after Trump.  Now he's being arrested and charged.

Not a good example, since we knew the hoax was a hoax early on, but the crime of basing an investigation on it continued until the Mueller report ended it.

With Homan, the people investigating found no evidence.  This time they have the good sense to not keep taking bites at the same apple.

I never made that argument.

You don't know that, you only hear a Trump lackey say there was no evidence.

What does that matter?

What does that matter?

please show it was a trump lackey said there was no evidence...

No, you chose to ignore it and push for red flag laws in spite of government corruption, their incompetence, and abuse by the public, law enforcement and the courts.

Are you that dumb?  As I said there should be evidence/proof of corruption or an incomplete investigation.  We had that proof.  Try again.

There were no charges.  That tells me more than a "Trump lackey" believed there was no evidence.  Try again.

focus
you said congress can investigate the executive branch
homan was not in the executive branch when the alleged bribe occurred

I figured it was obvious but I will spell it out for you...
Congress can investigate the decision to close the Homan case.

nothing is obvious in what you write
because you are constantly posting thought experiments and other bullshit rather than stating an opinion...

nothing is obvious in what you write
because you are constantly posting thought experiments and other bullshit rather than stating an opinion...

When he does state an opinion, it's usually wrong anyway.

People who stand for nothing fall for anything.

Opinions by definition are neither right nor wrong. Do you not understand what an opinion is?

By whose definition?  Yours?  Your handlers?

Opinions are not always about what color you like or whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream.

Opinions of important events, topics and polices ARE able to be judged right or wrong.  They should be supported by facts and desired outcomes.  e.g. If I have the opinion that killing anyone who disagrees with me as much as you do is justified, is that opinion Right?  Wrong?  Neither?

The courts issue hundreds of opinions daily based on laws, precedence and the facts of the cases.  I guess none of them were right or wrong?