• 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

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.

It's not overturning the constitution.
 
Disgraced and discredited Bob Mueller has not found one damm thing in two years. The two little convictions he did get had absolutely nothing to do with Trump at all. And THAT is why he must be stopped. He is now looking for any kind of dirt on any subject, on anything. You cannot have some nut running wild across the country investigating anybody for anything.
 
Woodward: No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion, I Searched For Two Years
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...rump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

QUOTE: "In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Friday, Bob Woodward said that in his two years of investigating for his new book, 'Fear,' he found no evidence of collusion or espionage between Trump and Russia. Woodward said he looked for it "hard" and yet turned up nothing.

"So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?" Hugh Hewitt asked Woodward.

"I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard," Woodward answered. "And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case."

"But you’ve seen no collusion?" Hewitt asked again to confirm.
"I have not," Woodward affirmed.
 
Woodward: No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion, I Searched For Two Years
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...rump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

QUOTE: "In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Friday, Bob Woodward said that in his two years of investigating for his new book, 'Fear,' he found no evidence of collusion or espionage between Trump and Russia. Woodward said he looked for it "hard" and yet turned up nothing.

"So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?" Hugh Hewitt asked Woodward.

"I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard," Woodward answered. "And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case."

"But you’ve seen no collusion?" Hewitt asked again to confirm.
"I have not," Woodward affirmed.

Woodward isn't Mueller.
 
He's better. He uncovered Watergate. Muller hasn't uncovered JACK in two years.

Then you must have been (blissfully) unplugged from the news for the past year.
 
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.
Hi Cardinal,

I think that democrats are getting the vapors over nothing really. This temporary position is within the Presidents call to make. And there is nothing to suggest to date that the administration would do anything to hinder the completion of the SC's report....While I have no crystal ball, and wouldn't be surprised if Trump shot himself in the foot, I think it is unlikely to happen because then the republicans in the Senate may just join in to get him.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
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...

But he wasn't firm that he would go through with such a thing. Combined with what happened last winter with DACA, there is considerable evidence to suggest that he won't have the backbone to be a part of any effort to shut the government down to get protection for Mueller. And as I already said, any shutdown would last considerably long for the simple reason that Republicans have historical precedent to assume they could wait out the Democrats.
 
Last edited:
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.

Yep. You can't play a game of chicken if you admit you might swerve. In this sense Republicans have more cojones.
 
Yep. You can't play a game of chicken if you admit you might swerve. In this sense Republicans have more cojones.

A sad but true reality of the situation, and I've been given no reason to think Democrats have any intention of changing their MO.
 
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?

So. You think Schumer's nonsense is nothing but "pressure". Maybe both you and Schumer don't realize yet that you don't pressure Trump. He doesn't care about political shenanigans. He'll do what he wants to do...when he wants to do it.

Like I said...Schumer is pissing into the wind.
 
So. You think Schumer's nonsense is nothing but "pressure". Maybe both you and Schumer don't realize yet that you don't pressure Trump. He doesn't care about political shenanigans. He'll do what he wants to do...when he wants to do it.

Like I said...Schumer is pissing into the wind.

Two years of immunity through majority has made you complacent.
 
A sad but true reality of the situation, and I've been given no reason to think Democrats have any intention of changing their MO.

Which is why I think Chuck Schumer is the least effective democratic congressional leader.

Say what you will about Nancy Pelosi, but at least she is able to control her caucus
 
Schumer threw that out there to keep the base happy. Now they can run around pretending that the Senate actually has the power to "protect Mueller".
 
Which is why I think Chuck Schumer is the least effective democratic congressional leader.

Say what you will about Nancy Pelosi, but at least she is able to control her caucus

Crying Chuck is an idiot. And we will see if old Pelosi can control this fresh breed of radical socialists. They are there to cause mayhem.
 
Schumer threw that out there to keep the base happy. Now they can run around pretending that the Senate actually has the power to "protect Mueller".

Democrats in the Senate don't. Democrats in the House do.
 
The Mueller investigation has been going on for a year. Nothing will be found that already hasn't been discovered.
Yes, it's been discovered by Mueller who hasn't made his findings public. You are premature to presume there is nothing there.
 
Yes, it's been discovered by Mueller who hasn't made his findings public. You are premature to presume there is nothing there.

If there was something there, we would already know about it.
 
Yes, it's been discovered by Mueller who hasn't made his findings public. You are premature to presume there is nothing there.

No, if there was anything more then I know I would know it already. That goes for everything. That's why I never bother taking new classes, learning new skills or reading new books.
 
Crying Chuck is an idiot. And we will see if old Pelosi can control this fresh breed of radical socialists. They are there to cause mayhem.
Ah, "radical socialists," which are basically Americans who support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and social programs that had bipartisan support for decades. We used to call what YOU call "radical socialists," moderates, which shows how far to the right your side has moved.

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” -- President Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954
 
So. You think Schumer's nonsense is nothing but "pressure". Maybe both you and Schumer don't realize yet that you don't pressure Trump. He doesn't care about political shenanigans. He'll do what he wants to do...when he wants to do it.

Like I said...Schumer is pissing into the wind.

Right, I forgot who I was talking to. You're right. All hail Dear Leader!
 
Back
Top Bottom