Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Trump Administration Post-Election Mischief

why do you ASSUME the House Dems would side with her??? Has there been any indication from any Dem that should someone show up claiming the in they would be confirmed??? Not true with Senate Republicans.

and before you claim hypocrisy, let me say should they do that, I will join you in your criticism. I don't think the process is what you would think it is. Otherwise in every election the loser would appeal to the party in power to confirm them and we would end up with a one party system.

I gotta go with Rick on this one. There is a salient difference between talking smack and actually implementing the smack. It's kinda like in the law. You actually have to commit a crime before being charged with that crime.

I have to disagree about nominations. The Constitution does not state when the Senate has to deal with a nominee, only that it does. All the arguments about timing are irrelevant. We can by induction find no justices are just as good as 9. (If 8 justices are ok then why not 7? and if 7 is ok why not 6? etc).

The rule should be simple ... like when a president nominates a justice, the Senate should take it up ... no matter when. We don't have government when it is only convenient, but because it is necessary. Act like it.

I agree about Sen Reid. Frustration should not have been the guiding force behind his decision to change the rules. If Republicans did not want to compromise, the people to convince it is a problem is the electorate.

About Reid's sequestration of bills is not accurate. While it is true he did table some bills, the practice had been ongoing for years. The question is the number of bills. I think most people who have analyzed this have found the actual number was far smaller than the 300 you mention. The padding came from comments from a Senator about many proposals etc which had not been submitted for consideration. Here is an example of why a majority leader may want to table a bill ... suppose a bill from opposing party came through wanting to eliminate tax revenues. Clearly the bill would not go far, so why consume tie with a bill which goes no where. One could make the same argument about minority PARTISAN bills. By partisan I mean bills which promote opposing minority party agendas. Not much chance of going far, so why waste time. The problem is one party could easily confuse PARTISAN bills with bills proposed by the opposing party which may have bipartisan support.

Past history and being a cynic. There has to be a reason why she would forego Iowa's procedures in favor of having the Democratic controlled house choose or decide whether she won or lost. Whenever I see something like this, I always assume the worst.

she had to know going through Iowa's normal procedures since the election was certified, she had little to no hope there. So take it to the democratic controlled house where by an old law rarely used they could reverse the decision.

Besides down from a 236-199 majority to a 222-212 majority with NY 22 not yet decided, Pelosi will want and need every Democratic congress person she can get.
It'll be bad optics for sure for a couple of days, then forgotten.

All those bills tabled by Reid and McConnell probably deserved to be tabled. Most were vanity bills passed without bi-partisan support. In Reid's case many were bills striking down the ACA. McConnel also follows procedural rules set by that convicted child molester Dennis Hastert.

Jeezus, man! What is it with you and the acknowledgement of context, anyway?

I hear Lindsey Graham promised on Fox News that if the Republicans retain control of the senate, they will refuse to confirm any Biden AG nominee who says he will investigate Trump for criminal prosecution. Now, of course Graham can say almost anything he wants on Fox News. But if he actually did that, he could be indicted as an Accessory After The Fact. The definition of that is someone who knows a person has committed an offense against the United States, and does anything to help that person avoid investigation, prosecution, or punishment. Mueller reported 10 instances of Obstruction of Justice Trump could be prosecuted for after leaving office, and Mueller was extremely qualified to be the judge of that.

So Graham either has to know Trump committed an offense against the US, or at least suspect. Obstructing an investigation of that confirms it! So there you have all the elements of Accessory After The Fact. All the other Republican Senators who vote to not confirm the AG would be harder to prosecute, because they could just claim to be doing their job. But Graham actually announced his intention for a criminal reason on TV.

The federal sentencing guideline says Accessory After The Fact gets half the sentence and fine of the original criminal. So if Trump got 5 years per Obstruction charge, Graham could get 25 years. I wonder if that's his retirement plan?

Graham could also face Georgia state charges for soliciting a state official to discard valid ballots. Their law is very clear, and that was witnessed by others.

But you know none of that stuff is gonna happen anyway, right?

What one thinks deserves to be tabled, another doesn't. I'm sure Republicans are saying the bills McConnell tabled deserved to be tabled for political reasons also.

I've always been of the opinion that all bills passed by the house regardless of who controls it, should be voted on in the senate and vice versa. They have plenty of time to do so. They only work 3 days out of the week and spend close to a half a year in recess. Monday and Friday's are travel days when in session.

https://www.thoughtco.com/average-number-of-legislative-days-3368250

well of course

you uncovered it. Yes the massive Democrat Party conspiracy of cheating, fraud, and baby eating, pedophiles.

Why not ask her why? Of course you may not believe what she says. So why believe what anyone says.

If I were her, I would ask for a recount with only Trump supporting counters.

I suspect going to the House for relief is not what she thinks it is nor what you think it is. The votes are certified in a razor thin race. For her to make a case she would have to claim she actually won the race because there was an error in the certified vote count. Any claim she should be seated because she is a Democrat doesn't work.

Of course for Republicans, I believe that is precisely their case. Mr Trump won because ... well ... he is the greatest human to have ever lived and therefore yadda yadda yadda. 39 of 40 appearances in court have been met with judicial derision for trying to make a case out of he couldn't lose therefore fraud. The one case won was for technical reasons ie.e watchers were not allowed close enough to see the fine print on a ballot.

I will conclude you believe she is corrupt. Perhaps you can point out some action which was as egregious as Mr Trump abusing the power of his office???

gee ... I hate to agree (LOL)

yes. We do not live in colonial America or early Constitutional times, when the county courts met once a month and considered all the cases until those submitted cases were exhausted. It should be a full time job, not just because a lot of jobs should be full time but also because America deserves and requires full time legislators addressing all the problems of a modern, fast paced society.

non sequitur

I wonder why Republicans continue to call members of the opposition the socialist Democrats, so don't Democrats call the opposition the fascist Republicans??? Is fascism ok in America???