- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,813
- Reaction score
- 53,598
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It's not overturning the constitution.
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.
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.
Hi Cardinal,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...
Hi Cardinal,
I think that democrats are getting the vapors over nothing really.
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.
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.
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".
Yes, it's been discovered by Mueller who hasn't made his findings public. You are premature to presume there is nothing there.The Mueller investigation has been going on for a year. Nothing will be found that already hasn't been discovered.
Democrats in the Senate don't. Democrats in the House do.
Do, what?
Yes, it's been discovered by Mueller who hasn't made his findings public. You are premature to presume there is nothing there.
Read the thread as many times as it takes to learn what it's about.
Yes, it's been discovered by Mueller who hasn't made his findings public. You are premature to presume there is nothing there.
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?