Niether of those addresses the quality of evidence needed to initiate an investigation. Just go any of the numerous threads about how the Republicans stole the 2004 election, and what you’ll see is people saying: do the investigation by all means, jsut don’t say it’s already proven. You’re confusing that threshold with the threshold needed to win a debate in GD.
IOW, you don’t think it will come up as an item of investigation. I guess we agree then.
What, there is some standard of evidence? Such that no threadbare fantasy will be treated with sombre pomposity by Congressites? Really?
Assuming you’re referring to the discussion I am having with EC, and not the one I’m haveing with Elvis… We’re not talking about what standards Congress might or might not use, but what standards posters here on the SDMB would use before they would agree that a Congressional investigation is appropriate. **EC **stated that some of the “usual suspects” would never agree that an investigation is OK unless there was already proof “beyond any shadow of a doubt”.
Dear Mr. President George Bush,
I am currently in possession of 200 pounds of yellow cake (value US$ 100,000,000.00 which I need assistance in removing from Nigeria. I require trustworthy American such as yourself to assisst me in this endevor. You may take upon compensation of 35% of the value of the yellowcake after completion of the transfer. Please respond to this email within 10 days to begin this transaction
Dr. Robert Okon.
Oh, come on, John. Congress has been known to get whole entire impeachments going over … get this … unsubstantiated allegations of consensual BLOWJOBS! Hell, back in the 50s Joe McCarthy used to investigate people for being Commies on grounds of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
I’m just talking grounds for reasonable people thinking something funny is going on, which is WAAAAAAY more than some Congressional investigations have been based on
I’m trying to recall if Helen Chenoweth (R-Batshit Pizza) was successful in getting a Congressional investigation into the UN’s “black helicopter” incidents.
I don’t disagree with any of that. It doesn’t, however, have anything to do with what we were discussing-- about the “usual suspect” and their standards for when an investigation is appropriate. Remember?
Sigh … the same Usuals did, and still do, show outrage over the blowjob incident. That *does * establish their standards - which, of course, are much clearer when one considers party affiliation.
Now: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, not the simple gainsaying of everything the other person has to say, ya know. *Do * try a bit harder to contribute to this forum, will you? 
You’re funny, Elvis!
I should have clipped your quote off at this point:
Which my response did directly address – clearly, very little to no evidence is required to start a Congressional investigation, if we go by past standards. I think the standard for this board would be, what would a reasonable man think is reasonable grounds for thinking there’s probably something going on out there that needs to be looked into. And I mean, Hadley’s fingerprints are ALL OVER this yellowcake thing. And I don’t think he was a rogue operative. I mean, the Bush Admin doesn’t exactly prize independent initative, does it?
Why would the Italian secret service be gadding about with forged documents about Iraqis trying to buy yellowcake in Niger all on their lonesome? Doesn’t make a lick of sense, does it?
No, it doesn’t.
Is not. It can be a simple denial of the other person’s position based on … reasons.
NEVER!!!