[SENATE] Haitian Papers Resolution

[Snacks]

With all due respect, Senator Goldman, I have to say that your words indicate one of two things: that you neither listened nor read the proposed amendment, or you are a baldfaced liar. Nowhere in my proposed changes is there language that could possibly used to silence whistleblowers involved with the Haitian Papers, nor any whistleblowers.

If you refer to investigation by independent special prosecutor of the leak and authenticity of the Haitian Papers, then I suggest you take it up with our colleague Representative Perez, for that is a point of his original Resolution proposal with which I wholeheartedly agree and it would seem your fellow Republicans in the House do as well.

If you refer to the call for a tri-partisan group of legislators to question legal experts and justice department officials on the decision to file for legal injunction against the Kansas City Star, I am firstly unaware of any alleged leaks from the Justice Department, and secondly do not see how either of these groups that would be relevant to questioning on this subject would be seen as whistleblowers. Furthermore, it would do quite a bit more good to learn the reasons for this injunction than politely asking the administration, which your fellow Republican delegates have already explained rather well they do not trust, to tell them what they want to hear and expecting it to lead to results.

If you refer to the call for a tri-partisan group of legislators to question experts who have reviewed documents held and reported on by the Denver Post, I again see no coherent train of thought from you on why these experts, who determine the authenticity of these reports and as far as I am aware would not have met whoever provided the Denver post with them.

I also have to point out that you have clearly gone with your "gut" and nothing more when it comes to somehow backing up your accusations of the proposed changes putting this investigation into partisan hands. It certainly couldn't be the appointment of a special independent prosecutor to investigate the Haitian Papers- again, exactly as proposed in the original resolution. Which means it must be the formation of investigatory committees-structured so as to not leave Americans of any political leaning any reason to believe that the questioning process is being dominated by partisan aims- to investigate the conduct of the Justice Department, a matter which the original proposal made it clear there is desire to investigate but provided no reasonable expectation of accomplishing this. For someone wanting to find the truth, the original wording of this point is an extremely ineffective way of going about it, ladies and gentlemen.

As for the arranging to have experts determine the authenticity of the Denver Post's reports and testify on this for the sake of informing Congress and the American people, I am not sure what objection you could have to learning whether these documents or any future ones may bring new evidence to light, or in allowing questioning from an investigative body intentionally set up so as to be as impartial as possible. If it's that you don't think that is possible, I'm not sure how you think that a single impartial investigator can be appointed. It is only through being placed as checks on one another as the Founders designed that we eliminate the effects of our individual biases, of our incorrect guy instincts, Senator.

If you have a sound reason to reject the new stipulations of these amendments in favor of the insubstantial demands in the original resolution's wording, which amounts to twiddling your thumbs while posturing as tough on President Roux-Johnson, the Senators of this chamber and the people of this country deserve to hear it: from your brain via your mouth, not from your gut via your ass.

Two Progressive Hard Left votes IN FAVOR of the proposed amendment.

[Gesar]

With all due respect to the Senator from Missouri, if he's truly concerned about the non-partisan nature of the Haitian Papers, I'd advise him to speak to his colleagues in the House.

Two Progressive Liberal votes IN FAVOR of the proposed amendment.

[Smyg]

((OOC: For the record, I just really fucking hate this complicated voting system. Would've been in favor, had not Huojin told me it needed to be voted down for any progress to be made elsewhere. Christ, America.))

[Flamelord]

I can see reasons from both sides of the aisle in favor and against this resolution and the amendment that has been proposed for it. And both sides have made good points.

But, my judgment, and the American people, call for the truth. And with the truth, we also must work to make sure that such a leak, if it were intended for any ill purpose, such as deliberately destabilizing the Roux-Johnson Administration, as opposed to the desire to bring said truth to the people. We cannot fully compromise our security for our freedom, not in this age of fascist subversion and opposition to our democratic form of governance. the government has a responsibility to make sure that we are not unduly compromised by potentially foreign agent, and to ensure that what is being published is, in fact, the truth.

As such, I support this proposed amendment, and with it, this resolution.

5 Progressive Moderate Senators IN FAVOR of the amendment to this Resolution.

[Rising Phoenix]

I echo the sentiment of Senator Marquez. Irrespective of whatever opinion we hold regarding the decisions of the Administration we should always work to uphold honesty in court and law.

6 Progressive Conservative votes IN FAVOR

[Coin]

I will not disown my deep concern at some aspects of how the Progressive amendment would investigate the Papers. Frankly to have this "tripartisan" committee investigate some of the most crucial and controversial issues, namely the injunction and the Denver Post's release of further papers, rather than the independent special prosecutor we and the American people would prefer, is not ideal.

However in the interests of bipartisanship, and stating that we at least will not end pursuit of this matter, we vote for it.

3 conservative Republican votes IN FAVOR

[Huojin]

[[This bill has gained a quorum of votes in the Senate, as well as a majority in favour of the bill. However the text passed by the Senate and the text passed by the House are different, so now the parties should negotiate here as the conference committee to find a common language for the bill, which both houses can vote on again. Normally there are people chosen from both houses to this committee, and from all the parties. So Congressmen/women and Senators together can debate this.

Normally there's a degree of give and compromise and so on. Just to say. Otherwise, yeah, lets see how this goes. You guys will have to get used to this process if/when future elections leave the balance in Congress different.]]