"the logical extension of the House argument is that Congress would be entitled to subpoena the president's fifth grade report card if it claimed to be considering legislation to promote childhood literacy."
No need for that subpoena we already know he's at about a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension and oral communication!
Rachel got those 2 pages last year... or was it longer ago than that? Hard to tell here in the Dark TImes. Time having no meaning any longer, and whatnot.
There's got to be more pages floating around out there. Maybe someone has them, and is just waiting for the highest bidder. If I had the money that Amazon's Jeff Bozo does, I'd advertise a cool $10 mill for whoever has them.
When Roberts asked, in effect, "are there no limits?", I thought the answer was obvious. Only if Congress is leaning into something that is not part of the Article I mandate. Examples? Well, there is no federal divorce law and it would be a stretch to say Congress can get the private settlement agreements between the President and his many former wives. Or probe documents related to child support involving an estranged child (Tiffany are you listening?) to investigate interstate evasion of child support obligations in general. There is no federal law of contracts so I don't think there would be much justification for Congress to subpoena parties to such contracts with the President as part of looking at NDA's in contracts signed by the President. I can't forsee how Congress could justify a subpoena of the bankruptcy records of the President to study ways to amend the bankruptcy laws. Lots of examples. But federal campaign law violations through the use of funds illegally to buy off people with damaging informaton? That seems right in the Article I wheelhouse of Congress.
lol they drug it out until it seemed likely a Democrat might be next, and suddenly rushed to say a President can't say no to congress if congress has a "reasonable" whatever.Anyone wanna guess what will be considered "reasonable" when it is the GOP demanding shit?
Hey, the Hill; A: he has said this shit before. B: How about you post his lies WITH A NOTE THAT IT IS NOT TRUE?Try it fucking once you sycophantic lick spittles
But getting back to a normal, healthy democracy with functioning guardrails is more important than bringing these assholes to justice.
I can't just take the win, because while I recognize the wisdom in what you're advocating, I think that having a normal, healthy democracy requires bringing the powerful and politically connected to justice for crimes actually committed.
I don't think we've been a normal, healthy democracy in that sense the entire time I've been alive. I was born while Nixon was president. He was a crook, he committed felonies (or at least Sirica thinks so) and he spent not one day in jail for his crimes - supposedly because democracy required it.
But here's the thing: that ability to get away with crime is exactly what gave us Reagan secretly negotiating with the Iranian hostage takers to keep their hostages until after Reagan could get elected. It's what gave us Iran-Contra. It's what made Bill Barr Attorney General so that he could quash any attempt to bring the Iran-Contra criminals to justice.
But more than that, it's what gave the Republicans the chutzpah to investigate Whitewater and Benghazi the way that they did. Because they committed crimes and didn't face any penalty, they knew for a fact that it was possible to commit ALL THE CRIMES and face no penalty, so what was wrong with assuming that just because someone wasn't charged that maybe/probably they were still actually guilty as fuck?
They sabotaged trust in government using not just their own crimes, but their own efforts to obstruct justice related to those crimes.
The current pessimism, the current feeling that it doesn't matter who is in office, the current feeling that they're all criminals, so why the fuck even vote ALL OF THAT is directly related to crimes past and present by the political class and their influential, plutocratic friends.
So, sure, restoring healthy democracy is more important than holding any one political leader accountable for their crimes. And, sure, just because the president does something completely awful doesn't mean that the awful thing is prosecutable as a crime. I'm more than willing to take the expert advice of a neutral prosecutor on that point, provided there's a serious investigation that can reasonably be expected to give that prosecutor all the information they need to actually make a decision on that point (LOOKING AT YOU, MUELLER).
But no, I strongly disagree that we can get to a "healthy democracy" place if we let Trump's conduct go. Even Mueller seemed to think that there was a crime committed by Trump or Trump's close family members, and that was based solely on their behavior before Trump took office.
If a prosecutor was actually willing (and able) to use the power and leverage inherent to a US Attorney's office to fuck with the lives of white people who, in all probability, engaged in a criminal conspiracy, in the same way that they're willing to use that power against a Black mom who lets her son move back in even though she knows he's an addict with a history of selling drugs on the side to feed that habit, then we might actually get some answers from the people currently hiding Trump's involvement and then make a rational decision about whether to prosecute.
But since the prosecutors are under Trump's control, congressional subpoenas are the only possible way to compel people to divulge necessary information.
So, sure. There have to be guardrails in a healthy democracy. But if the guardrails are what prohibit a full accounting from Trump, then the USA doesn't have a healthy democracy anyway.
We have many talented people in the Wonkettariat. I think AlwaysPunkindrublic might do it.
Any musicians out there? I want a percentage, I am so broke.
Like Lily Tomlin's Edith-Ann.
She's in a primary with a total wingnut. Doug Collins from the impeachment hearings. Hope they kill each other.
Fuck that harpy. With many votes for her opponent.
"the logical extension of the House argument is that Congress would be entitled to subpoena the president's fifth grade report card if it claimed to be considering legislation to promote childhood literacy."
No need for that subpoena we already know he's at about a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension and oral communication!
As the great heavyweight champ Joe Louis said of challenger Billy Conn: "He can run, but he can't hide."
Rachel got those 2 pages last year... or was it longer ago than that? Hard to tell here in the Dark TImes. Time having no meaning any longer, and whatnot.
There's got to be more pages floating around out there. Maybe someone has them, and is just waiting for the highest bidder. If I had the money that Amazon's Jeff Bozo does, I'd advertise a cool $10 mill for whoever has them.
He's still under audit! And he's busy! Give the nice man some time!
/s
When Roberts asked, in effect, "are there no limits?", I thought the answer was obvious. Only if Congress is leaning into something that is not part of the Article I mandate. Examples? Well, there is no federal divorce law and it would be a stretch to say Congress can get the private settlement agreements between the President and his many former wives. Or probe documents related to child support involving an estranged child (Tiffany are you listening?) to investigate interstate evasion of child support obligations in general. There is no federal law of contracts so I don't think there would be much justification for Congress to subpoena parties to such contracts with the President as part of looking at NDA's in contracts signed by the President. I can't forsee how Congress could justify a subpoena of the bankruptcy records of the President to study ways to amend the bankruptcy laws. Lots of examples. But federal campaign law violations through the use of funds illegally to buy off people with damaging informaton? That seems right in the Article I wheelhouse of Congress.
And they wouldn't have to say a word, just examine the tattoos.
lol they drug it out until it seemed likely a Democrat might be next, and suddenly rushed to say a President can't say no to congress if congress has a "reasonable" whatever.Anyone wanna guess what will be considered "reasonable" when it is the GOP demanding shit?
Hey, the Hill; A: he has said this shit before. B: How about you post his lies WITH A NOTE THAT IT IS NOT TRUE?Try it fucking once you sycophantic lick spittles
If this keeps happening, Spanky is going to regret he allowed Brett Kavanaugh to get away with rape.
"Frozen stiff with fear...Major horror show..."You sound nervous, Donnie.
But getting back to a normal, healthy democracy with functioning guardrails is more important than bringing these assholes to justice.
I can't just take the win, because while I recognize the wisdom in what you're advocating, I think that having a normal, healthy democracy requires bringing the powerful and politically connected to justice for crimes actually committed.
I don't think we've been a normal, healthy democracy in that sense the entire time I've been alive. I was born while Nixon was president. He was a crook, he committed felonies (or at least Sirica thinks so) and he spent not one day in jail for his crimes - supposedly because democracy required it.
But here's the thing: that ability to get away with crime is exactly what gave us Reagan secretly negotiating with the Iranian hostage takers to keep their hostages until after Reagan could get elected. It's what gave us Iran-Contra. It's what made Bill Barr Attorney General so that he could quash any attempt to bring the Iran-Contra criminals to justice.
But more than that, it's what gave the Republicans the chutzpah to investigate Whitewater and Benghazi the way that they did. Because they committed crimes and didn't face any penalty, they knew for a fact that it was possible to commit ALL THE CRIMES and face no penalty, so what was wrong with assuming that just because someone wasn't charged that maybe/probably they were still actually guilty as fuck?
They sabotaged trust in government using not just their own crimes, but their own efforts to obstruct justice related to those crimes.
The current pessimism, the current feeling that it doesn't matter who is in office, the current feeling that they're all criminals, so why the fuck even vote ALL OF THAT is directly related to crimes past and present by the political class and their influential, plutocratic friends.
So, sure, restoring healthy democracy is more important than holding any one political leader accountable for their crimes. And, sure, just because the president does something completely awful doesn't mean that the awful thing is prosecutable as a crime. I'm more than willing to take the expert advice of a neutral prosecutor on that point, provided there's a serious investigation that can reasonably be expected to give that prosecutor all the information they need to actually make a decision on that point (LOOKING AT YOU, MUELLER).
But no, I strongly disagree that we can get to a "healthy democracy" place if we let Trump's conduct go. Even Mueller seemed to think that there was a crime committed by Trump or Trump's close family members, and that was based solely on their behavior before Trump took office.
If a prosecutor was actually willing (and able) to use the power and leverage inherent to a US Attorney's office to fuck with the lives of white people who, in all probability, engaged in a criminal conspiracy, in the same way that they're willing to use that power against a Black mom who lets her son move back in even though she knows he's an addict with a history of selling drugs on the side to feed that habit, then we might actually get some answers from the people currently hiding Trump's involvement and then make a rational decision about whether to prosecute.
But since the prosecutors are under Trump's control, congressional subpoenas are the only possible way to compel people to divulge necessary information.
So, sure. There have to be guardrails in a healthy democracy. But if the guardrails are what prohibit a full accounting from Trump, then the USA doesn't have a healthy democracy anyway.