• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chuck Schumer says Democrats might tie spending bill to Mueller protection (1 Viewer)

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
108,128
Reaction score
101,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday that Democrats might tie their support for the next spending bill to legislation protecting special counsel Robert Mueller – although he stopped short of saying he would be willing to risk a shutdown.

The New York Democrat fears that President Donald Trump's choice of Matthew Whitaker to head the Justice Department could threaten Mueller's investigation into Russian election meddling and potential ties to the Trump campaign. Trump named Whitaker as the intehttps://www.debatepolitics.com/rim attorney general after Jeff Sessions' ouster last week.

"The appointment of Mr. Whitaker should concern every American –Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative – who believes in rule of law and justice," Schumer said during an interview Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "He has already prejudged the Mueller situation. If he stays there, he will create a constitutional crisis by inhibiting Mueller or firing Mueller, so Congress has to act."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...humer-robert-mueller-spending-bil/1967118002/

While I certainly agree with the idea, I couldn't help but wonder what the point was in saying in advance that he wouldn't support a shutdown. While I am no negotiation expert, I'm pretty sure that saying you wouldn't go through with a threat somewhat defangs that threat. It renders the act of tying protection of the SC investigation symbolic instead of concrete.
 
Tie it to the wall and we got ourselves a ball game :2razz:
 
LOL, hilarious.
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...humer-robert-mueller-spending-bil/1967118002/

While I certainly agree with the idea, I couldn't help but wonder what the point was in saying in advance that he wouldn't support a shutdown. While I am no negotiation expert, I'm pretty sure that saying you wouldn't go through with a threat somewhat defangs that threat. It renders the act of tying protection of the SC investigation symbolic instead of concrete.

Buckle your seatbelt, folks. This flight's about to hit some turbulence!
 
LOL, hilarious.

A thought McConnell no doubt shares. Unfortunateley, Schumer has shown that he's not willing to go through with a politically risky legislative maneuver, whereas McConnell has shown that he's willing to go as far as it takes every time. I'll be watching this with interest, but I'm not betting my own money that Democrats are willing to play hardball on this issue. But let's say for the sake of argument that they are: A shutdown is going to be more painful because they have backed down in the past, whereas if they had stayed strong a shutdown would last a minimal amount of time because Republicans would believe Democrats were willing to risk political capital to get what they wanted. As it stands, Democrats are automatically starting with a handicap because Republicans have zero reason to believe they'll go through with a shutdown.
 
Buckle your seatbelt, folks. This flight's about to hit some turbulence!

The Mueller investigation has been going on for a year. Nothing will be found that already hasn't been discovered.
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...humer-robert-mueller-spending-bil/1967118002/

While I certainly agree with the idea, I couldn't help but wonder what the point was in saying in advance that he wouldn't support a shutdown. While I am no negotiation expert, I'm pretty sure that saying you wouldn't go through with a threat somewhat defangs that threat. It renders the act of tying protection of the SC investigation symbolic instead of concrete.

The Democrats have preached doom and gloom over government shutdowns. Perhaps Schumer actually believes that? Then again, maybe Schumer doesn't want the Democrats blamed for a shutdown? Certainly tying something that has nothing to do with spending to a spending bill probably would lay the blame for a shutdown at Schumer's feet.

Now all spending bills must originate in the House. About all Schumer can do is try to amend that bill with his protection of Mueller in the senate. With the Republicans in the majority, they could vote that amendment down. Unless Schumer has some Republicans to go along with him, this would make it political theater knowing the outcome in advance of even submitting the amendment.

My advice would to let the house put it in the spending bill. It doesn't belong in a spending bill, but the house would have no problem putting it in. A ton of other things get added to these spending bills that have absolutely nothing to do with spending or our budget. I think that's totally wrong, but that is the way it is.

Then the senate would have to strip that language of Mueller's protection out of the senate bill. Which they could do since they have the numbers. Then you have two separate spending bills, time for reconciliation.
 
The Mueller investigation has been going on for a year. Nothing will be found that already hasn't been discovered.

I'm so sorry you feel that way!
 
The Democrats have preached doom and gloom over government shutdowns. Perhaps Schumer actually believes that? Then again, maybe Schumer doesn't want the Democrats blamed for a shutdown? Certainly tying something that has nothing to do with spending to a spending bill probably would lay the blame for a shutdown at Schumer's feet.

Now all spending bills must originate in the House. About all Schumer can do is try to amend that bill with his protection of Mueller in the senate. With the Republicans in the majority, they could vote that amendment down. Unless Schumer has some Republicans to go along with him, this would make it political theater knowing the outcome in advance of even submitting the amendment.

My advice would to let the house put it in the spending bill. It doesn't belong in a spending bill, but the house would have no problem putting it in. A ton of other things get added to these spending bills that have absolutely nothing to do with spending or our budget. I think that's totally wrong, but that is the way it is.

Then the senate would have to strip that language of Mueller's protection out of the senate bill. Which they could do since they have the numbers. Then you have two separate spending bills, time for reconciliation.

Well, thing is, Schumer has pre-announced that it would be political theater because he isn't willing to go through with a shutdown. If you're afraid of being blamed for a shutdown then you don't have the balls for a shutdown. McConnell proved that you can do anything you want; you just have to have zero fear of what the political fallout might be. Are Democrats ready to learn that lesson? Thus far, it would appear the answer is a resounding "no."
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...humer-robert-mueller-spending-bil/1967118002/

While I certainly agree with the idea, I couldn't help but wonder what the point was in saying in advance that he wouldn't support a shutdown. While I am no negotiation expert, I'm pretty sure that saying you wouldn't go through with a threat somewhat defangs that threat. It renders the act of tying protection of the SC investigation symbolic instead of concrete.

One thing neither Schumer nor the article mention is "when" this spending bill will come up. I don't think it's likely there'll be any such legislation before Congress until well into 2019. I wouldn't be surprised if Mueller is done and gone by then.

Another thing...spending bills originate in the House. After January, it'll be the Dems who construct any spending bills. Seems to me that Schumer is holding his threat over his fellow Dems. Not over the Republicans.

Schumer is pissing into the wind on this.

Oh...one other thing: I don't think Trump is going to bother nominating his new AG before the new year...but he might. But when he does, the Senate will confirm quickly. This takes Whitaker out of the issue. Schumer is playing political theater...heck, ALL the Dems are playing political theater...by getting all hot and bothered about Whitaker.
 
Last edited:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...humer-robert-mueller-spending-bil/1967118002/

While I certainly agree with the idea, I couldn't help but wonder what the point was in saying in advance that he wouldn't support a shutdown. While I am no negotiation expert, I'm pretty sure that saying you wouldn't go through with a threat somewhat defangs that threat. It renders the act of tying protection of the SC investigation symbolic instead of concrete.

He did not say he wouldn't support a shutdown. He stopped short of saying that he would... In other words, he did not say one way or another. He did NOT take it off the table.

In either case, I don't know what power Dems have in the Senate anyway. They'd need significant support of at least some Republicans for anything concrete (let alone if some Dems counteract Democrat party position ala Manchin); so Schumer needs to tread lightly...
 
The Mueller investigation has been going on for a year. Nothing will be found that already hasn't been discovered.

First, you have no idea what HAS been discovered already but not presented to the public yet.

Second, take a look at history...

investigations_lengths.JPG
 
Well, thing is, Schumer has pre-announced that it would be political theater because he isn't willing to go through with a shutdown. If you're afraid of being blamed for a shutdown then you don't have the balls for a shutdown. McConnell proved that you can do anything you want; you just have to have zero fear of what the political fallout might be. Are Democrats ready to learn that lesson? Thus far, it would appear the answer is a resounding "no."

Maybe. The Democrats were certainly willing to risk losing senate seats with their nay votes on Kavanaugh by McCaskill, Donnelly and Heitkamp. You could add Tester's seat to that list, but he pulled it out regardless of his nay vote. Americans have short memories, having a shut a year out before an election in my opinion isn't risking much regardless of the fallout.

I think most of us take shutdowns with a grain of salt except our hyperbolic office holders. I do agree one doesn't broadcast what one is willing to do or not do in war or political battles which is war by other means. He should have kept his mouth shut. Or if he, Schumer wasn't willing to shutdown the government, he shouldn't have broadcast that fact. I still think the best way to go about this is let the house do it. Put it in the their spending bill since these bills must originate in the house.
 
He did not say he wouldn't support a shutdown. He stopped short of saying that he would... In other words, he did not say one way or another. He did NOT take it off the table.

In either case, I don't know what power Dems have in the Senate anyway. They'd need significant support of at least some Republicans for anything concrete (let alone if some Dems counteract Democrat party position ala Manchin); so Schumer needs to tread lightly...

I think most of us take shutdowns with a grain of salt except our hyperbolic office holders. I do agree one doesn't broadcast what one is willing to do or not do in war or political battles which is war by other means. He should have kept his mouth shut. Or if he, Schumer wasn't willing to shutdown the government, he shouldn't have broadcast that fact. I still think the best way to go about this is let the house do it. Put it in the their spending bill since these bills must originate in the house.

I assumed Schumer was referring to a broad Democratic strategy rather than anything Democratic Senators could specifically do. To answer the "what power do they have in the Senate?" question, the answer is that the minority party has been mostly stripped down. They still have the legislative filibuster remaining but that's about it. With House control, however, that means Democrats have a seat at the table once more. And if they had the wherewithal, they could indeed shut down the government for as long as they liked until they got their protection for Mueller. Of course, they'd first have to be unafraid of any political fallout that results, and there would be political fallout, since every time they hold up a legislative process on principle their approval drops. Democrats would basically have to not care when that happens, a scenario I'm not betting my own money on.
 
One thing neither Schumer nor the article mention is "when" this spending bill will come up. I don't think it's likely there'll be any such legislation before Congress until well into 2019. I wouldn't be surprised if Mueller is done and gone by then.

Another thing...spending bills originate in the House. After January, it'll be the Dems who construct any spending bills. Seems to me that Schumer is holding his threat over his fellow Dems. Not over the Republicans.

Schumer is pissing into the wind on this.

Oh...one other thing: I don't think Trump is going to bother nominating his new AG before the new year...but he might. But when he does, the Senate will confirm quickly. This takes Whitaker out of the issue. Schumer is playing political theater...heck, ALL the Dems are playing political theater...by getting all hot and bothered about Whitaker.

The problem is no one has any idea how long Trump plans to leave Whitaker, unconfirmed, clearly conflicted with regard to Mueller's investigation, in place. Under the authority he's citing for appointing him as 'active' and not confirmed by the Senate, he could stay in place for 210 days, or until June 2019.

So what you're asking Democrats to do is assume for some unknown reason untethered to any evidence that Trump will soon name a permanent replacement. It might happen, but why would Democrats assume that? And more importantly how is that an effective political strategy - say they're not worried about Whitaker because for some reason they suspect, assume, he'll be gone soon? The idea is to pressure Trump to name a permanent replacement. Why wouldn't Democrats pressure him to name one?
 
It would be stupid of Dems to force a shut down of the government. Hopefully they won't.
 
Maybe. The Democrats were certainly willing to risk losing senate seats with their nay votes on Kavanaugh by McCaskill, Donnelly and Heitkamp. You could add Tester's seat to that list, but he pulled it out regardless of his nay vote. Americans have short memories, having a shut a year out before an election in my opinion isn't risking much regardless of the fallout.

I think most of us take shutdowns with a grain of salt except our hyperbolic office holders. I do agree one doesn't broadcast what one is willing to do or not do in war or political battles which is war by other means. He should have kept his mouth shut. Or if he, Schumer wasn't willing to shutdown the government, he shouldn't have broadcast that fact. I still think the best way to go about this is let the house do it. Put it in the their spending bill since these bills must originate in the house.

To be fair to Schumer, he knows how budget bills work, and the article pointed out that the strategy for protecting Mueller included the House.

[Schumer] said Democratic leaders in the House and Senate plan to send a letter to the chief ethics officer of the Justice Department asking for an opinion on whether or not Whitaker should recuse himself from the investigation.

If Whitaker does not recuse, Schumer said Democrats in both houses of Congress will "attempt to add to must-pass legislation, in this case the spending bill, legislation that would prevent Mr. Whitaker from interfering with the Mueller investigation."
 
I assumed Schumer was referring to a broad Democratic strategy rather than anything Democratic Senators could specifically do. To answer the "what power do they have in the Senate?" question, the answer is that the minority party has been mostly stripped down. They still have the legislative filibuster remaining but that's about it. With House control, however, that means Democrats have a seat at the table once more. And if they had the wherewithal, they could indeed shut down the government for as long as they liked until they got their protection for Mueller. Of course, they'd first have to be unafraid of any political fallout that results, and there would be political fallout, since every time they hold up a legislative process on principle their approval drops. Democrats would basically have to not care when that happens, a scenario I'm not betting my own money on.

The other side of that, however, is if Democrats can tie the shutdown to that provision - the protect Mueller provision - it's also very risky for the GOP. McConnell says there's no need for it because Whitaker doesn't threaten the investigation. Well, if that's true, why NOT put it in a spending bill and make it official? McConnell has to have a response, and it's not clear what that might be.
 
I assumed Schumer was referring to a broad Democratic strategy rather than anything Democratic Senators could specifically do. To answer the "what power do they have in the Senate?" question, the answer is that the minority party has been mostly stripped down. They still have the legislative filibuster remaining but that's about it. With House control, however, that means Democrats have a seat at the table once more. And if they had the wherewithal, they could indeed shut down the government for as long as they liked until they got their protection for Mueller. Of course, they'd first have to be unafraid of any political fallout that results, and there would be political fallout, since every time they hold up a legislative process on principle their approval drops. Democrats would basically have to not care when that happens, a scenario I'm not betting my own money on.

Makes sense. I still don't see though where Schumer said he would not go to shutdown. He did not say one way or another based on your link. He said

We'll see what happens down the road
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...humer-robert-mueller-spending-bil/1967118002/

While I certainly agree with the idea, I couldn't help but wonder what the point was in saying in advance that he wouldn't support a shutdown. While I am no negotiation expert, I'm pretty sure that saying you wouldn't go through with a threat somewhat defangs that threat. It renders the act of tying protection of the SC investigation symbolic instead of concrete.
Schumer is, as usual, full of ****. This whole mob hysteria about Whitaker somehow screwing with Mueller at this late date is nutty. The worst W. has done is suggest Mueller should stick to what he was hired to do rather than pushing the envelope by taking advantage of some nebulous boilerplate language in his commissioning document. So far he's found a few Russians that messed with social media ( AS IF the dems weren't doing the same thing).

All just an attention-getting stunt for Schumer who's butt-hurt that he didn't get Majority Leader in the Senate like his BFF Nancy got Speaker in the House (at least theoretically)
 
Curious concept of the Congress will not pass a budget unless the President gives a Constitution Presidential power over the Congress?

President Trump should veto any bill with any such provisions. If Democrats in the House shut down the government trying to overturn the Constitution, I suppose they can shut down the government.
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...humer-robert-mueller-spending-bil/1967118002/

While I certainly agree with the idea, I couldn't help but wonder what the point was in saying in advance that he wouldn't support a shutdown. While I am no negotiation expert, I'm pretty sure that saying you wouldn't go through with a threat somewhat defangs that threat. It renders the act of tying protection of the SC investigation symbolic instead of concrete.



I really hate when either side uses 'govt. shutdown' threat for anything. At least the employees of federal agencies will still get their pay now.
 
I really hate when either side uses 'govt. shutdown' threat for anything. At least the employees of federal agencies will still get their pay now.

Government shutdown. Shutdown of what, exactly? I ask because so many government services have been deemed as 'essential' and exempt from shutdown, I'm not really sure if there really is a shutdown at all.

Especially when those government workers who don't report to work because of the shutdown, end up getting paid for the time they didn't work. :confused:
Like WTF?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom