Democrats load "subpoena cannon" with 85+ Trump targets
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
House Democrats plan to probe every aspect of President Trump’s life and work, from family business dealings to the Space Force to his tax returns to possible "leverage" by Russia, top Democrats tell us.
What they're saying: One senior Democratic source said the new majority, which takes power in January, is preparing a "subpoena cannon," like an arena T-shirt cannon.
- Based on our reporting and other public sources, Axios' Zach Basu has assembled a list of at least 85 potential Trump-related investigation and subpoena targets for the new majority.
Jonathan Swan wrote in August that Republicans had already catalogued numerous oversight targets that Democrats had signaled, including:
- President Trump’s tax returns
- Trump family businesses — and whether they comply with the Constitution's emoluments clause, including the Chinese trademark grant to the Trump Organization
- Trump's dealings with Russia, including the president's preparation for his meeting with Vladimir Putin
- The payment to Stephanie Clifford — a.k.a. Stormy Daniels
- James Comey's firing
- Trump's firing of U.S. attorneys
- Trump's proposed transgender ban for the military
- Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's business dealings
- White House staff's personal email use
- Cabinet secretary travel, office expenses, and other misused perks
- Discussion of classified information at Mar-a-Lago
- Jared Kushner's ethics law compliance
- Dismissal of members of the EPA board of scientific counselors
- The travel ban
- Family separation policy
- Hurricane response in Puerto Rico
- Election security and hacking attempts
- White House security clearances
And on Sunday night's "Axios on HBO," Schiff said that he wants to investigate Trump's targeting of the press — namely, The Washington Post and CNN.
- And Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the incoming House Appropriations chair, said she'd like to investigate Trump's decision to initiate the Space Force — among a slew of topics already on Swan's list.
Worth noting: The House Oversight Committee had already blocked 64 subpoena requests submitted by Democrats as of September. Here's that list, minus those with targets outside the Trump administration.
- Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services Withholding Documents on Trump Administration Child Separation Policy
- Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross Withholding Testimony on Census 2020 Citizenship Question
- Department of Veterans Affairs Withholding Documents Relating to Reports that Mar-a-Lago Members Influencing Department Decisions
- White House Withholding Report and Documents on Security Clearance Process Required by Law
- White House Withholding Documents on Revocation of John Brennan Security Clearance
- White House Withholding Documents on John Bolton Security Clearance
- State Department Withholding Documents on Retaliation
- Office of Personnel Management Refusing to Provide Briefing on Complying with Court Order
- Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Withholding Documents on Medicaid Work Requirements
- Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Withholding Documents on Scrubbing of Department Websites
- State Department Withholding Documents on Decision to Close Cyber Office
- Director of National Intelligence Testifying Before the Oversight Committee on the extent of the Russian Threat to Our Country and Our Elections.
- Department of Justice Withholding Documents About Refusal to Defend the Affordable Care Act in Court
- White House Withholding Documents on Contractor Wanted for Attempted Murder
- State Department Withholding Documents on Political Loyalty Lists
- Department of Health and Human Services Withholding Documents on Title X Family Planning Program Proposed Gag Rule
- Environmental Protection Agency Withholding Documents on Freedom of Information Act
- Steve Bannon Testifying B efore the Oversight and Judiciary Committees About His Involvement with Law Enforcement Actions Before, During, and After the 2016 Election
- Commerce Department and Census Bureau Withholding Documents on Citizenship Question
- Department of Justice Withholding Documents on Request to Add Citizenship Question to Census
- Department of Justice Withholding Documents on Politicized Hiring Allegations for Immigration Judges
- Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice Withholding Documents on Gag Order Against Whistleblowers
- White House Withholding Information on Chartered Flights
- White House Withholding Documents on Use of Private Email Accounts
- Department of Justice Withholding Documents on Improper Attempt to Classify Dana Boente Notes
- State Department and White House Withholding Documents and Testimony on “Cleaning” Out of Career Employees
- White House Withholding Documents on Rejected Security Clearance Application for NSC Deputy Robin Townley
- Department of Health and Human Services Withholding Documents on Effort to Strip Information from Women’s Health Website
- John M. Gore, the Acting Head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, Testifying About the Trump Administration’s Decision to Add a Citizenship Question to the 2020 Census.
- White House Withholding Documents on Security Clearances
- DHS Withholding Documents on Contract for Emergency Meals
- White House Withholding Information on Deadly Niger Ambush
- CBP Withholding Documents on Allegations of Sexual Assault by CBP Employees
- Agencies Withholding Identities of Regulatory Reform Task Force Members
- DOD Withholding Documents on Federal Response to Hurricanes
- HHS Withholding Documents on Collaboration with Right-Wing Group to Rescind Medicaid Freedom-of-Choice Letter
- DOI Withholding Documents on Reassignment of Employees
- DOJ Withholding Documents on Communications with White House on AT&T Time-Warner Merger
- T reasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Withholding Response to Complaint
- USDA Withholding Documents on Communications with Corporate Lobbyists
- Trump Foundation Withholding Documents on Transfer of Assets to a Disqualified Person
- Jared Kushner for Testimony at Emergency Hearing on Conflicts of Interest and Security Clearances
- Trump Organization Withholding Documents on Foreign Payments
- DHS Withholding Documents on Russian Attacks Against States Before Election
- DHS Withholding Information from IG Report on Trump Muslim Ban
- White House and HHS Withholding Documents on Biased Refugee Report
- HHS Withholding Documents on Gag Order Against Whistleblowers
- Kushner Withholding Emails That Violate Presidential Records Act
- White House Withholding Documents on Security Clearance Suspensions
- Transition Team and DOJ Withholding Flynn, Jr.’s Security Clearance Documents
- White House Withholding Documents on Interim Security Clearances
- Flynn and Business Partners Withholding Documents on Middle East Nuclear Deal
- OMB Withholding Agency Downsizing Plans
- FDIC Withholding Documents on EPA Senior Advisor Banned from Banking
- White House Withholding Documents on Flynn’s Foreign Contacts
- White House Withholding Documents on Personal Email Use by Top Aides
- J ared Kushner and Ivanka Trump Withholding Documents on Emails
- White House Withholding Documents on Hurricane Response
- Kushner Companies Withholding Documents on Alleged Housing Abuses
Other potential investigations
- The findings so far of the Mueller investigation, which some House Democrats believe had been obstructed by prior House Intel leaders. ( Washington Post )
- Trump's use of pardon power. ( Washington Post )
- The sudden change in plans to construct a new FBI headquarters . ( ABC )
- Trump's involvement in hush payments to women alleging affairs. ( WSJ )
- The firing of Jeff Sessions and the appointment of Matt Whitaker as acting Attorney General. ( ABC )
- The White House's alleged stifling of the FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. ( ABC )
- The Interior Department's decision to expand mining and drilling on federal lands and what role industry played. (USA Today)
-
Allegations that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke threatened Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) with negative energy and public land policies after she voted against repealing Obamacare. (Politico)
- Zinke's exempting of Florida from offshore drilling as a possible political favor to Gov. Rick Scott. (Politico)
- Zinke's removal of references to humans' role in climate change from agency reports. (Politico)
- Violations of the Hatch Act stemming from Zinke's appearance at a fundraiser while on an official trip. (Politico)
- The EPA's siding with special interests on matters of public health. (The Hill)
- Trump's politicization of the military. (AP)
- Lack of consistent policy for civilian casualties. (AP)
- Profitability of the Trump International Hotel in Washington and whether it's being used to violate the emoluments clause. ( AP)
- Administration policies on domestic terrorism. (AP)
- Relaxing of regulations for for-profit colleges and limiting of student loan forgiveness. ( WashPost )
- Department of Education's rollback of Obama-era rules that expanded transgender students' access to school facilities. (Education Week)
Incoming House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told “Axios on HBO” that he expects Trump to resist the committees' requests, demands and subpoenas — likely pushing fights over documents and testimony as far as the Supreme Court.
- Why it matters: The fight will test the power of the presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court.
Top Democrats, who had largely avoided the subject during the campaign, now tell us they plan to almost immediately begin exploring possible grounds for impeachment. A public report by Robert Mueller would ignite the kindling.
- Tom Steyer, the liberal activist who spent more than $100 million during the campaign to build support for impeachment, said establishment leaders who are trying to postpone talk of impeachment are "the outliers": "80 percent of registered Democrats think ... we're right."
Two of the most powerful incoming chairs tell "Axios on HBO" that they are plotting action far beyond Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
1) Schiff, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee, told us he wants to help special counsel Robert Mueller, and plans to release — with some redactions of classified material — transcripts of dozens of interviews the committee conducted during its own Russia probe.
- Schiff says these transcripts contain numerous possible contradictions with other testimony and facts that have come to light, meaning possible legal jeopardy for the witnesses, who have included White House officials and alumni.
- "I want to make sure that Bob Mueller has the advantage of the evidence that we've been able to gather," Schiff said. "But equally important: that Bob Mueller is in a position to determine whether people knowingly committed perjury before our committee."
- Asked if there are real questions about contradictions between the testimony of Roger Stone, a close ally of the Trump campaign, and emails that have surfaced since then, Schiff said: "That is certainly the case."
- Schiff said: "We're going to want to look at what leverage the Russians may have over the president of the United States."
2) Incoming House Appropriations Chair Nita Lowey of New York, a close ally of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, said "yes" to each of a long list of possible investigative targets, including the Space Force, hurricane relief in Puerto Rico, White House security clearances, White House use of personal email and more.
- "We have our boxing gloves on," Lowey said. "I'm ready. And so is Nancy."
We reminded Lowey and Schiff of a Jonathan Swan scoop from August, "Republicans secretly study their coming hell," reporting that House Republicans had built a spreadsheet of potential investigation targets, based on Democrats' public complaints and statements.
- Both Lowey and Schiff made it clear that the GOP list is just a starting point.
Trump is already signaling confrontation, saying at his post-election news conference that if Dems investigate him, the result will be "a warlike posture."
- Asked if he'll investigate the Democrats back, he replied: "Oh, yeah. Better than them."
Be smart: For 225+ years, federal courts have upheld the Constitution's mandate of Congress as an equal branch of government, providing checks and balances on the executive. So House Democrats have a high hand as they assume power.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
594 visitors
How in the hell can anyone who has passed their 4th birthday act like such rabid children? Spoiled??? Hell yeah.
These folks are going to turn everyone in every country against us because of their childishness and crying.
Funny though - didn't notice whether or not they're going to file contempt charges 'cause he laces his shoes overhand, left to right.
.... but they can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time ....... yeah right!
Yeah, normally, but this looks like they're trying to chew a buttload of bubblegum. That's probably going to make it pretty hard to walk.
They're going to turn the spotlight on Republicans and the Trump administration malfeasance which will turn everyone in every country against us and they will demand we live up to the same ideals we demand from others. When you have a corrupt administration using the federal government as their own piggy bank the worst thing you can do is turn a blind eye just because that piggy is giving you what you always wanted, namely, pissed off liberals. Is the bitter revenge conservatives have always wanted to take on progressives really worth the damage it's doing to our nation? Has the anger over liberals always eventually winning finally boiled over such that conservatives simply don't care about anyone but themselves anymore? Conservatives were angered when they lost the war they fought to protect slavery. Conservatives were angered when women and blacks won the vote. Conservatives were angered when segregation and Jim Crow laws were defeated. Conservatives were angered when their bans on interracial marriage and gay marriage were overturned. And now, conservatives are angered at the prospect of progressives investigating them and exposing the corruption, exposing Trumps tax returns, exposing the violations of the emoluments clause, exposing Trumps obstruction of justice, exposing Trumps ties to authoritarians and other foreign criminals.
About as much as the exposure of Hillary's foreign contribution slush fund organizations being investigated and exposed??
All corruption needs to be exposed, not just against the side you do not like.
I say bring it on...... Gridlock is exactly what we need.....
You mean their A+ rated foundation?
That one?
Or did you mean trumps foundation?
Yeah, those ones that closed their doors after it was realized she wasn't going to have access to the government or the ability to set policy anymore. (they don't pay you if you cannot produce)
I gave you the link, look it up.
Those who lay down with dogs (Trump), will get up with fleas. His supporters have gone along with all his ridiculous and even illegal behavior, and now all of them will see the result of all that.
Trump isn't being picked on, he is getting his karma.
This isn't going to make Trump suffer. It's the country that will suffer.
It's the country that will suffer.
The country has suffered enough of this fool in the WH. It’s high time for him to face the music.
The previous 8 years cost the U. S. plenty - and why isn't he and his crew facing the music?? Oh yeah - obstruction by the Dems.
[deleted]
In response to the first query...They are just following Trumps daily example of being a spoiled child and a liar. Not to difficult.
In response to the second query...I think you best start reading the news, Trump has already done that with ignorant comments...
There you go, asked and answered.
Ok, but to be honest? I think he was looking for rational factual answers, not hyperbolic political opinions.
But, to each his own...
I don't see Trump choking the government with investigations.
Do you see the daily barrage of lies and threats? Hard to miss those.
Your inability to separate fact from hyperbolic political opinion is noted, and nothing new.
Carry on.
So, you are advocating acting like a child becuase someone else acts like a child? I'm sure your mom would be ashamed that you never learned the lessons she tried to teach you.
You have no idea what my mom did or didn't do, so it's best to not make ignorant comments even though it seems to be your MO.
In other words, mind your own business when it comes to my family.
So you agree that trmp acts like a child
And where are those "barrage of lies and threats" considered government investigations?
Trump hasn't thrown the DOJ into the fray just to pizz and moan because he doesn't get his way. That's the Dems MO.
You'll never make an attorney.
thank christ
Trump pisses and moan and lies every frickin' day. And issues threats as well..His latest is to withhold federal aid from California because of forest mismanagement...What a frickin' idiot. I've have damn good friends that lost everything and are not young enough to rebuild their lives. So spare me the BS about Trump.
Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, To provide for wildfire suppression operations, and for other purposes, H. R. 2862, 2017-2018 budget - Jerry Brown told Trump and Congress to kiss his ass 'cause he didn't need/want it. Now, he's crying for assistance.
I've got relatives and friends in Cali - a couple who have lost their houses and one family who lost their two sons, so I think they also lost everything and can't rebuild.
Trump didn't have anything to do with the bill - as it stands now, the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry has had the bill since 6/26/17 and no further action has been taken.
And WTF does that have to do with Trump stupid comments, 1st...Not a damn thing.
If you feel it's necessary to defend Trumps ignorance, go for it.
Giving you some "facts" about your comment on the Wildfire/forest mismanagement, which is still in committee, not in Trump's control.
I actually have some of those ''facts'' on H.R. 2862 . My point, which you seem to keep dodging is that Trumps comment was ignorant and without merit regarding the fires. It had nothing to do with H.R. 2862 which I'm sure that you know.
The firefighters and scientists pointed out to him his ignorance on the subject matter.
If you choose to defend the indefensible comment please carry on.
Actually, no, the firefighters and scientists did not point that out to him. Some of them did.
California, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Colorado - most of the NW states have been told/advised on numerous occasions that they need to ANNUALLY reduce the fire load within their forests. Their response is they don't have the personnel/time/finances. USFWS/USFS, both part of the Ag agency, have been requesting/demanding funding to be able to do exactly that for many, many years and Congress has consistently failed to provide that funding.
I've been in the wildland firefighting world, on the AF side, and know how critical that wildfire burning/clearing/control annually is. But, the states AND CONGRESS are at fault and neither of them will step up and work out a plan to help remedy the problem that the Indian Tribes/Nations have been pointing out to them for years and years.
Congress, specifically the House, is at fault - that's who Trump should be lambasting. Brown should be lambasted for trying to prove he is in control of California when he can't even work with his state firefighters who have to work with the Fed firefighters.
Trump Leaves Wildfire Control Underfunded
The Whitetail Fire in Custer State Park this month is one tiny flare-up in a long-term increase in wildfire driven by climate change .
The Trump budget not only ends programs to study and combat climate change but also fails to provide more resources to fight wildfires. The budget blueprint sticks with the status quo, saying the President’s plan “Budgets responsibly for wildland fire suppression expenses. The Budget would directly provide the full 10-year rolling average of suppression expenditures.”
http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2018/08/08/ca-gov-jerry-brown-vetoed-bipartisan-wildfire-management-bill-in-2016/?fbclid=IwAR1aA-_oywsMBss7_4cG7mgHs0lTySA__82ytpKiME9CWoz9zdqTQ6-uGyM
http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2018/08/08/ca-gov-jerry-brown-vetoed-bipartisan-wildfire-management-bill-in-2016/?fbclid=IwAR1aA-_oywsMBss7_4cG7mgHs0lTySA__82ytpKiME9CWoz9zdqTQ6-uGyM
Nice to know that your excusing the ignorance of Trump....Keep up the good work.
You may want to speak with the firefighters there that responded to Trump (I have) and or sit down with the scientists.
I'm well aware of what Brown vetoed. That isn't what we are discussing as you well know. It's Trump and his ignorant claims re the fire, deal with that.
From a Supervising Fire Boss -
Old school”forest management” conducted in the timber heydays of the Forest Service, like that evident on the National Forest land to the east of Paradise, would likely do little to nothing to prevent catastrophic wildfires or to help suppress wildfires. Especially wildfires driven by Santa Ana winds. So just saying we need more “forest management” to prevent these types of disasters is not accurate. The type of management matters as well. Thinning large trees while favoring fire-tolerant species, removing small and medium-sized trees and shrubs (ladder fuels), raising tree canopies and underburning forest stands after treatment would greatly help to reduce wildfire risk.
Saying that fire is natural or inevitable so we should do nothing to reduce the risk is also wrongheaded. Land managers, community leaders and residents have a responsibility to address this risk. Until they do, there will be more “Paradise-like” catastrophes.
That is really the only point I'm addressing. Trump said one thing that is/was correct - mismanagement, as stated above, is part of the problem. Mismanagement that has been addressed but ignored - again, due to budgeting/funding by Fed and State for the personnel, equipment and support needed.
The point I'm addressing is that Trump shot off his mouth when people were dying, losing their homes and suffering. A real display of empathy by Trump. He should have kept his mouth shut but that would be impossible for him.
As for the fires it would seem that that the people on the line have a bit more to say about it. Since many of the fires were not in the forest and a huge part of those that were, were under federal control...
Agree with your assessment. He has a very stupid mouth and hasn't learned, after 70 years, how to educate it.
Glad he's not trying any of Roosevelt's Fireside Chats - <shiver/shiver/shudder/shake>
The couple who lost their two sons said that the sons believed they could get back to the house to get some personal items - gawd - that has to be devastating.
Now that is funny.
I can't fathom losing two sons. I don't know if I could survive that.
One set of friends that lost everything and are in their late 70's I'm really worried about. He told me he has nothing to live for and that scares the hell out of me. I want them to come and stay with us until they are ready to move back or move out of the fire area.
Don't know the facts, but one friend had a rental property in Paradise. Said it got engulfed so fast that the tenets didn't make it out. He's checking more into it.
Yes, those folks need the emotional support that I know you and Red are very capable of giving. Wish them well for me also, will you?
Indeed I will.
I find it interesting that you would post a seed with detailed hyperlinks to 64 subpoena requests and fail to address even ONE of them. Is your posit that not one of those 64 issues is 'worth noting'?
Most are just a "fishing expedition" looking for anything they can use to justify spinning up an impeachment bill.
they are so partisan in demand that there really isn't anything to discuss except more hyperbolic dizzy head rationalizations.
Ohhhh - I'm supposed to follow someone else's guidelines about how I handle threads? Well, I find it interesting that you always have to be in control of another person's threads/articles/seeds and how they are managed.
The "intent" of listing the 64 was purely because they were included in the article. My desire in posting the article/thread/seed was to show the "whatever" the "incoming" party is scraping for - pure obstruction of government.
It is NOT Congress' job to tell OPM how/when/where/why they can admonish/fire a government employee. Laws have already been established and the courts have supported those laws - as an example.
Scrubbing websites??? Sorry - administrative function of that agency - which, by the way, has both Dem and Repubs, so why play the game.
So address the ones that aren't part of a 'fishing expedition'.
I merely stated that I found it interesting. I didn't say anything about 'guidelines'.
Hyperbolic bullshit. Well done.
So your posit is that all 64 of the denied subpoenas were based on 'pure obstruction of government. Was that so hard?
The OPM DOES NOT 'admonish/fire' anyone unless they actually work for OPM.
Because the PEOPLE paid for the information documented on those websites and that information is necessary to inform the public, ensure transparency and in some cases to save lives. It isn't a 'function of that agency' to scrub their website if is for the sole purpose of hiding the inconvenient truths from the public.
"So your posit is that all 64 of the denied subpoenas were based on 'pure obstruction of government. Was that so hard?" If it wasn't so hard, why'd you ask the question?
OPM establishes the policies based on Congressional Acts/Laws. As such, since Congress passed the Acts/Laws, why would the Dems want to subpoena Trump for answers, especially since they are part of the major problem for writing/passing the Acts/Laws?
If you have an issue with the items the Dems are looking for, look at them yourself and make your own decisions.
My question was:
You actually haven't answered it.
Thanks for admitting that they DO NOT 'admonish/fire'.
Well the OBVIOUS answer is that Trump employment is not regulated by the fucking OPM 1st.
Secondly, the OPM makes RECOMMENDATIONS, which Trump has IGNORED for almost every one of those employees for whom he is responsible. Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Sanders come to mind, though there are others.
Thirdly, the majority of the issues on the list have NOTHING to do with the OPM regulated policy. But hey, you just keep deflecting.
You're the one that has an issue with them en masse and solely because they are brought by Democrats it seems.
"Well the OBVIOUS answer is that Trump employment is not regulated by the fucking OPM 1st." Show your proof and please, as I've asked you on other threads/seeds/articles, watch your language.
"Secondly, the OPM makes RECOMMENDATIONS, which Trump has IGNORED for almost every one of those employees" Show us, please, OPM's references on Trump's employees so we can if he did, if FACT, ignore those references/recommendations.
"Thirdly, the majority of the issues on the list have NOTHING to do with the OPM regulated policy." - "and fail to address even ONE of them" - If you would have read below the first response dealing with the OPM, you would have noted that there were 11 other points covered. Why are you not fully reading prior to answering?
My point, and the point of many others on the thread/seed/article, is that the NEW Congress isn't even official yet and they are already stating/implying that they are going to make this administration/Trump pay through the nose.
What a way to run a railroad - which is exactly what they plan on doing - railroading their plans. They might need to remember that the Senate still has control over their actions to a point.
Seriously? The OPM is an agency in the executive branch. In short, Trump is the CEO of the OPM and need not 'qualify' under their hiring standards. In fact, the neither members of Congress or the Judiciary answer to the OPM either.
My language is well within the CoC.
My bad, it was the OSC who Trump ignores.
BTFW, you told me that google was my friend, so go look up how many of Trump's aids have violated the Hatch Act.
Where in the NT rules does it say that I have to address ALL parts of a comment 1st?
Boehner did the same to Obama and y'all cheered and voted for them accordingly.
Tell you what 1st, when the Democratic House gets anywhere near the rinse and repeat 'Obamacare repeal' recorded votes by the GOP, we can talk about it. They didn't seem to give a shit that there was the Senate had some control over their actions, they just kept on bringing it to the floor and voting on it ad nauseam...
My language is well within the CoC.
Not quite what the CoC sez.
6. While cursing and other potentially objectionable content is allowed within reason, it should be used as seasoning – as emphasis. Gratuitous profanity and other repugnant language that does not support the point of the comment or is over-used is prohibited.
Where in the NT rules - nowhere, it just "seems" that you nit-pick what you're addressing, especially since the contents below that one, I think, supported my response.
Boehner did the same - Cry-baby Boner?? Never liked nor trusted the fella.
they just kept on bringing it to the floor and voting on it ad nauseam - Each party does the same. Hell, you can look at the Congressional Record and see the number of "disappearing" H.R.'s there are and it is atrocious.
If so, flag it but PLEASE stop whining about it.
As do you. As an example, I'm still waiting for you to address my request for a link to support your BS about illegal and unconstitutional EO's.
Irrelevant.
Bullshit 1st. Name one other issue where the House voted over 50 times on the SAME EXACT ISSUE.
The Benghazi crowd now cowers and fears the Howard Cosell-like call ...
”Down goes Jess Willard!”
The Great White Hope will be KO’d by a Solid LEFT ...
Don’t cry to me, righties, the only thing saving Trump’s metaphorical ass until now has been a Republican-controlled Congress of legislative pimps and ball-less, self-serving panderers to bigots, xenophobes, religionists and zeal-without-knowledge resentful white folks.
Note: I’m in a good mood this morning or I’d really tear you a new one!
Damn good boxing metaphors if I say so myself!
Who are the “snowflakes” now?
ooooh .... scary!
Nope, still mostly just crackpots on the fringe left. Look no further than NT for proof of that. That said, one has to be looking for proof like that to find it and then actually accept it if one does find it. Few here are really interested in such an unbiased mental exercise if it doesn't goosestep in exact unison with their preferred narrative
If it looks like a snowflake, and acts like a snowflake, then it probably IS a snowflake.
Own it snowflakes!
The Pee Wee Herman rebuttal.
And they say you can’t mount a viable point-counterpoint argument.
’Course, there’s a reason they say it.
And should the proof be forthcoming, you will call it “fake news.”
Mark it down boys and girls.
Nah, its the original definition rebuttal from the past two years Your attempt to turn it around is the classic PeeWee "i know you are but what am i" maneuver. Didn't take long either.
Sadly played as it was ....
Wow!
He did it twice!
Do I hear three?
Congress of legislative pimps and ball-less, self-serving panderers to bigots, xenophobes, religionists and zeal-without-knowledge resentful white folks.
You are describing both sides of Congress - own up to it.
Stay on topic please.
Surely, if you find the existence of such a list to be excessive, and/or totally unwarranted, you can and will select a few, and, specifically stipulate in what way(s) they may be spurious.
If the allegers are willing to attempt to go on-the-record and satisfy the BURDEN OF PROOF, you can dispense with the ad seriatim, off-handed rejection of such an intention, and, tell the court-of-public-opinion, SPECIFICALLY, where the plaintiffs err.
So, I guess they are going to "Bush" him. Declare political open warfare. Where oh where is the democrat party of openness and fairness? the party that used to proclaim that the politics are done it's time to actually run the country?
I guess that died with FDR
It died that day in January 2009 when Obama was inaugurated and Republican leadership met and said as reported by then Republican Senator George Voinovich, “If (Obama) was for it, we had to be against it, (McConnell) wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”.
The current version of political war started in 2000
It died when the Supreme Court ruled that the 2000 election was over and Bush II was president.... The democrats went into brain meltdown cause they were not allowed to recount their way into a win. They then declared open political warfare.
I was on DU back then, don't even try to tell me that it wasn't declared open political warfare back then...
The republicans in 2008 did the same thing as the democrats did in 2000. What is going on with T-rump is just a continuing of the now decades old all or nothing fight the two parties have had going on since Gore lost.
Basically the Gingrich-Clinton dog and pony show going live...
And here I thought it was the Republican officials in Florida that were doing the recounts.
Recounts are not done by one party, the law mandates that reps from both parties supervise them and actually do them. You forget the news media pieces of their deliberations over ballots during the Gore debacle? there were both republicans and democrats sitting at those tables and acting as referees.
100% agreement, hence the point of 1st Warriors posting....
Kenneth W. Detzner is a registered Republican. Now don't you feel stupid about your claim?
All of them? Really?
Even if you think that's true, why not be better than them?
… When Justice Clarence Thomas cast the deciding vote to give Bush the Presidency …
• While Thomas' wife Ginny was a member of the Bush Transition Team!
• After Katherine Harris, Florida's REPUBLICAN Secretary of State, stopped the counting of hanging chad ballots as PAID REPUBLICAN DISRUPTERS INTIMIDATED THE VOTE COUNTERS!
NOTE: Some other time we can discuss
• How Anita Hill was crucified by some of the same Republican Senators who did the same to get Matt Kavanaugh approved as SCOTUS Justice
• How George H. W. Bush set up front-runner, Democratic POTUS Candidate Gary Hart to steal that election
• How "W" also stole both the 2004 POTIS election via Diebold Machines and potential voters still standing in line in Ohio to vote for Kerry
• And how because of the above, how REPUBLICANS STOLE THREE SCOTUS SEATS … NOT COUNTING THE OTHER TWO TRUMP/McCONNELL stole
• And how, Rich Scott, THE CEO ENGINEER OF THE BIGGEST MEDICARE FRAUD IN HISTORY … is trying to stop votes from being counted in Florida as I am typing this.
YESTERDAY, A REPUBLICAN-appointed Judge disagreed with you and admonished those making such allegations WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF …
… to stop making such allegations.
Many Republicans have now gone down the Trump road, calling everything and anything they don't like … "FRAUD"!
Topic please - not relevant.
You like to fish - so do I. But, obviously, the "newbies" coming into the House of Reps likes fishing more than we.
Interestingly, I think you and I will catch more than they.
Well lets see...
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board , 531 U.S. 70 (2000)
The Court unanimously held that there was "considerable uncertainty" as to the reasons for the Florida Supreme Court's decision. Therefore, the Court declined to review the questions presented, instead vacating the Florida Supreme Court decision and remanding the case for clarification of two questions. First, to what extent did the Florida Supreme Court see the Florida Constitution as circumscribing the legislature's authority under Article II of the federal Constitution? Second, how much consideration did the Florida Supreme Court give to a relevant federal statute, namely 3 U.S.C. § 5?
Bush v. Gore , 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
In a per curiam decision, the Court ruled that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties and ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limit set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 ("Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"), which was December 12. The vote regarding the Equal Protection Clause was 7–2.
So it was 7-2 on the valid equal protection argument on the basis that not all recounting was using equal standards. It was 5 to 4 on whether they should (or should not) remand to the FSSC to establish consistent standards. (the not vote winning) and it was 4 to 3 (with two abstentions) in deciding that the FSSC had violated the state constitution in it's handling of the case. (it decided it hadn't)
On the basis that the recounts could not be finished in the time allotted by the State constitution, the last certification was deemed final.
7-2 Bush won with two heavily Liberal justices agreeing with it. How it can be claimed that it was a conservative conspiracy to steal an election is strange to me.
The way the cases and arguments were made it sure came across as the democrat side, with the aid of a liberal FSSC were trying to recount their way into a win.... And by a 7-2 decision, the USSC was having no part of it...
And they were all in agreement (9-0) that what was going on overall was very fishy and they needed to look at it....
You can make all the tenuous connections you want to promote a conspiracy theory that Bush stole the election, the facts argue that an attempted stealing of a presidential election was thwarted by the USSC
NOTHING in your seed has anything to do with 'newbies' coming into the House. The issues, especially the 64 denied subpoenas, have accumulated for the last 2 years. Despite the neo-national consensus here, many of those issues are substantive IMHO.
As court challenges were issued over the legality of hand recounts in select counties, news stories were filled with the arcane vocabulary of the election judge. County officials tried to discern voter intent through a cloud of “ hanging chads” (incompletely punched paper ballots) and “ pregnant chads” (paper ballots that were dimpled, but not pierced, during the voting process), as well as “ overvotes” (ballots that recorded multiple votes for the same office) and “ undervotes” (ballots that recorded no vote for a given office). Also at issue was the so-called butterfly ballot design used in Palm Beach county, which caused confusion among some Gore voters—prompting them to inadvertently cast their votes for third-party candidate Pat Buchanan , who received some 3,400 (some 20 percent of his total votes statewide).
A tug-of-war ensued between Harris, who initially sought to certify the state’s election results on November 14, and the Florida Supreme Court, which ruled that hand recounts of questionable ballots should proceed in four counties and that the results must be included in the state’s final count. In the month following the election, some 50 individual suits were filed concerning the various counts, recounts, and certification deadlines. On December 8, in a 4–3 decision, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that manual recounts should continue in all counties where a statistically significant number of undervotes were observed for the office of president.
The Bush campaign immediately filed suit, and the U.S. Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to take up the case the following day. On December 9, in a 5–4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bush v. Gore that the manual recounts must halt, and it agreed to hear oral arguments from both parties. On December 11, the two sides presented their cases, Bush’s team asserting that the Florida Supreme Court had exceeded its authority by authorizing the recount of undervotes and Gore’s team stating that the case, having already been decided at the state level, was not a matter for consideration at the federal level.
The following day, in a 7–2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Florida decision, holding that the various methods and standards of the recount process violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution . The court ruled 5–4 on the remedy of the matter, with the majority holding that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision had created new election law—a right reserved for the state legislature—and that no recount could be held in time to satisfy a federal deadline for the selection of state electors.
The decision of the majority was heavily criticized by the minority. Dissenting justices wrote that the recount process, while flawed, should be allowed to proceed, on the grounds that constitutional protection of each vote should not be subject to a timeline.
Particularly notable was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’s dissent, which she ended with “I dissent” rather than the traditional “I respectfully dissent.” With the termination of the recount process, Florida’s 25 electoral votes were awarded to Bush. Gore officially conceded on December 13 and stated in a televised address, “While I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it.”
The Democrats have increased their seats in the House - hence "newbies"
And that is that..... History now.....
And I agree whomever decided to use such a flawed system as cardstock ballots and a punch pin needed to be strung up.....
But liberals tend to differ with conservatives on one issue, time limits. Our side (conservatives) believe that even though everyone who has a legal right to vote should have their vote counted, we cannot keep counting and recounting there has to be some finality in the system. Those on the other side (democrats) hold the same, except with one proviso, time limits should never exclude a valid vote.
There has to be a time limit or we keep going on recounting and recounting with no end in sight. there were two recounts which were still disputed, they were only recounting in the counties that favored the democrats, (like the issues that went on in those counties didn't happen in the other counties?) the recounts that were completed reduced Bush's win total but they both affirmed a Bush win. More recounts was only serving to delay the inevitable and it was really appearing that the democrats were going to recount until it appeared they won... and with the counters going into severe arguments as to what counted and what didn't count as a vote, it could have gone either way.
The initial count had Bush winning but in a tight enough race that mandated an official statewide recount he won the official recount, Gore challenged and paid for another recount. A second statewide recount was held and Bush still won.
Subsequent recounts were focused on only specific democrat counties, ignoring the rest of the state....
I don't think anyone could call that fair, and in deducing intent it can only be argued that the targeted recounts that the USSC halted were intended to change the election outcome when two official recounts decided and certified the result. (even though the margin was closer)
Yes every legal vote should count, but also, We cannot go on counting forever....
The topic is "Elections have consequences" … and as I see it,
Any election. the outcome of which is the result of a decision TO NOT COUNT ALL BALLOTS … CAN NEVER BE DEEMED LEGITIMATE OR VALIDATED!
Irrelevant to the discussion- hence weak.
Answered your "'newbies' coming into the House" - totally relevant.
Brother, I agree, my problem with Bush vs Gore? they had all the voted ballots, and were DECIDING WHICH WERE VALID AND WHICH WERE NOT!
They were actively eliminating voted ballots.... which in every practical sense is a decision to NOT COUNT EVERY VOTE!
(the fact that more Republican ballots were being eliminated than Democrat ballots begs the question of the intent to endlessly recounting ballots)
At some point the insanity had to stop. How many recounts should there have been? like here in Washington State enough recounts and eliminated ballots until the election is overturned?
Yes, every valid legal vote should count. and no one should have the right to invalidate anyone's vote...
The USSC acted properly.....
No, they did not prove "the results were legitimate;" they concurred that the court had made a "legitimate" decision regarding protocol … the only proof of a legitimate "win" … is by tallying all ballots cast.
And one of these times, see if you can allow your argument to stand on its own without punctuating it with mockery.
• Ballot design for all Federal Offices should be uniform state-to-state … paper and digital … all ballot tabulations should be done in the presence of three-person committees … BI-PARTISAN plus ONE NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY.
• All VOTING FOR FEDERAL OFFICES SHOULD BE DONE ON A SATURDAY, ALL VOTER REGISTRATION DONE AUTOMATICALLY.
• NO CHALLENGED BALLOT CAN BE DISCARDED PRIOR TO NOTIFICATION TO THE CHALLENGED "VOTER" WHO WILL HAVE ACCESS TO AN EASILY ATTAINED AFFIDAVIT WHICH HE/SHE MUST COMPLETE AND RETURN TO THE APPROPRIATE TABULATION COMMITTEE BY A STIPULATED RETURN DATE.
NO MORE FUCKING AROUND WITH ELECTIONS!
I would like to see an actual, honest answer as to WHY are these children acting/behaving as they are???? Never - NEVER has the "other" party been so misaligned/hurt/hurtful that they tried to totally disrupt the government and its functions. Have they completely forgotten that they represent their constituents and not their sponsors???
The short answer, yes.
Constituents are only useful to get elected. They view it as those that vote are voting for party and it's political take on policies rather than the person and his/her ability and forget the actual issues or any plan to resolve them.
The actual issues aren't that important to the typical politician on any side.
The only thing that is is control....
They have sunk to a very very low level...
I'm a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT on most issues, and, I can simultaneously stand in a trout stream, cast a dry fly into a promising eddy, this while a Nikon D500 hangs around my neck so that, while fishing, I can also take pictures …
I can fish, photograph, chew gum, hum Willie Nelson tunes and gather my thoughts with regard to presenting a case before an arbitrator … all at the same time …
… and still respect and appreciate a debate with a good friend!
That's the kind of guy I am.
I've never seen anyone hide their head in the sand the way you hide your head in the sand about Trump.
And there is always you John, I've seen many say the same about you...
Look in the mirror John - and the front page of NT on a daily basis.
Are you high?
[deleted]
He must be. How many times has Trump threatened to shut down the government if he doesn't get what he wants?
Well, Counselor, LET'S ALLOW INVESTIGATIONS and SUBPOENAS and UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES, and DISCLOSURE and DISCOVERY and GRAND JURIES to do their things …
… and then you may learn the WHY.
Already been done, but the Dems still don't like the answers the courts are giving them.
So, back to the why.
How many requested subpoenas were rejected by Deven Nunez, and, failures by key individuals to testify, did Nunez and Republicans bless?
I'll wait for MuellerTime.
I'm buyin', 1st!
Really 1st? Please cite the cases that you claim give the answers.
Please Dulay - no one on NT is in the process of writing a thesis to satisfactorily answer your desires for more information.
Please do use Google - it can be your friend.
Where did I exert that I KNEW of cases being denied?? No where. But, as so very many people do, I read the daily news and I do not keep a running track of court cases nor court pleadings of each and every article read.
Negra Modelo if ya'll got it
. But, only one - don't wanna scare the fish away.
Though there are many members here, who in good faith, willingly provide links to support their assertions. As the one making the assertion, it is on YOU to support it with facts.
Actually you did, right here:
Which infers that you know of court cases which gave answers, does it not 1st? So you MUST have at least SOME court ruling in mind.
I didn't ask you for 'each and every'. Name ONE that answers ONE of the above questions in a way that the Dems didn't want 1st. That would be a start...
Despite our deep political differences, I would drink (with you) to that!
You were saying?
2010 - 2018 - hmmmm. Nope - not even compatible. Did not see over 100+ subpoenas from the Repubs at all during ALL OF BO's 8 years in office - and yet, the new year hasn't even started and the Dems are flooding the market.
Perhaps you weren't looking. In the first 18 months of the 113th Congress, Issa issued 52 subpoenas. Judging from that #, I'm pretty sure that Issa issued over 100 subpoenas in that and other 'investigations' all by his lonesome.
And NONE of them got as much attention as the present House is going to be demanding, based on their posturing.
Issa, at least, took 18 months to submit his subpoenas. The upcoming "new" House, which hasn't even been sworn in, has already exceeded his scope.
Again, you must have been paying attention because Issa got tons of play in the media. IOKIYAR.
Again, those 64 subpoenas are cumulative from the last 2 years and even your own seed cites that fact that the Dems have prioritized that list down to about 13 issues.
Oh and BTFW, the 'new' House hasn't done shit yet.
Those who learn in law school and in life, "never to ask a question, the answer to which they don't already know" … refrain from issuing subpoenas they know in advance, will bite them in the ass!
?
A two second google would have shown you how mistaken that belief is 1st.
Every wonder how many of your other, deeply held beliefs, are just as much in error as this one?
Not a surprise really. After all there were many REAL issues and scandals in that time period that REALLY warranted investigation. Multiple IRS, VA scandals, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, accusations of mass illegal surveillance on US citizens, etc, etc
The 5th Amendment two step was a very popular dance during that time since since it was plead so many times by BO cabinet members and sycophants.
No REAL issues and scandals in this current time period that REALLY warrant investigation eh?
Your words not mine.
You really need to be less angry. You'll live much longer.
Now quick ..... report it ..... you might get me banned ....... oh boy!
Who's angry?
Where do you find anger in my statement above?
Thanks Arkansas - Dulay discussed it previously.
[Removed]
So the Dems have chosen to be the party of obstruction and endless costly investigations. I guess they want to keep the Kavanaugh Effect going for the next two years just to keep Trumps base worked up to get him reelected.
I forget, how many Benghazi investigations were there that all had the same result?
"Real" crimes that at least eight partisan Republican investigations failed to prove? The only "crime" was Republicans use of such a tragic incident as political fodder in their attempt to gain power. While normally shame for such tactics would prevent most politicians from using them, many Republican legislators had to sign away their shame along with their souls when they made their promise of fealty to the metaphorical devil of greed.
So, you and yours bitched and moaned about the endless Benghazi investigations, but you're good playing tit-for-tat?
How many times has Trump been investigated by a Democrat lead committee? ZERO!! When he has been investigated 8+ times for the exact same thing, you might have a complaint, but he has yet to be investigated even once by the Democrats.
Oh yeah Ozzie - you forgot who was in control during that time frame. Does BO ring a bell?
Even the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, Libya found NO crimes were committed.
BTFW, 'the subject' went through 11 hours of Congressional questioning and the report that Gowdy put out exonerated her of any wrongdoing.
So you're just pulling BS from your nether regions and presenting it as fact.
Are you claiming that Obama was in charge of the House Committee investigating Benghazi? Is that really what you are trying to claim???
Are you claiming Trump is in charge of the House Committees? Is that what you're implying?????
What the hell are you talking about??? I suggest you go back and reread my comments, use Google translate if you need to.
Well since Trump in in 'control' now, your issue with the list is moot right? RIGHT?
What?!?!?!???
In control of what????
We're talking about House investigative committees, I have no clue what you're talking about. You understand about the 3 branches of government?
Perhaps I should have included a sarcasm tag...
Ahhh, sorry.
Good point there... I've gotten to the point where I always include this, since I was misunderstood a dozen or so times...
Didn't bother you when the GOP said they would never help Obama in any way, did it? No. Well, turnabout is fair play. Karma, deal with it. Trump is officially a lame duck empty suit.
If they could have they would have. Instead they settled on a birther conspiracy and used racism to rile up the base, a tactic being played out today. They used their positions for political purposes (to this day) to hurt Hillary and waste tax dollars, while lying to Americans (Benghazi etc). They obstructed EVERY SINGLE THING OBAMA TRIED TO DO TO HELP THE COUNTRY. Investigations are the favorite tool of the GOP, the difference in this case is that democrats actually have real crimes to investigate. Doing their duty as a check and balance.
Right, except investigating Hillary's crimes, they are just covered up.... The republicans doing the same isn't a check or balance in the democrat world, it's obstructionist...
That's because Obama isn't a criminal.
FYI: The Mueller investigation was started by a republican that was appointed by a republican that was appointed by a republican president. Oh yea, Mueller has been a republican all his life.
oops.
He has been sued for fraud ~3,000 times, and last I checked? Fraud is a crime. So yea, trump is a criminal.
The law doesn't work that way. You can be sued many times for something (like fraud) and still not be found guilty of a crime. That is because a lawsuit is a civil action. The rules of evidence and standard of proof in a civil action are far less restrictive than in a criminal action (which is the only method of conviction for a crime).
Evidence in a criminal action must be gathered in the correct way and must meet strict standards. Then, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and it must be proven conclusively enough to convince all twelve members of the jury. Should that happen, you have then committed a crime and are considered a criminal.
The standards of evidence in a civil action are much lower as is the required level of proof. All that is needed for a civil judgement to be reached is to show liability by a preponderance of the evidence (over half after rebuttal), and that evidence can even be gathered in ways that would be illegal for the police to obtain it. If you lose a civil action, you have simply lost a judgement and would be required to pay compensation. You would not, however, be guilty of a crime and would not be considered a criminal.
Lawsuits are civil, not criminal. Has he been convicted of a crime? No. Then he is not a criminal. Period. No matter how much huffing, pufifng and crying you do. Please think before posting.
Wonderful answer, however, it may be lost on those who feel they can bypass the justice system when it suits them.
Not to mention the Illegal EO's, 12 of which were found to be unconstitutional.
Link?
1st, NOT ONE of those links cites an Executive Order case. NOT ONE. Try harder.
Of course not … just that birther thing … college transcript …
Supreme Court rejects Obama administration request on immigration orders
Ooooo, an injunction.
Where is the proof that the EO's were ILLEGAL and that 12 were found unconstitutional 1st? That was your claim right?
The federalist is a far right wing fake news site.
NYtimes is not much better.
And the last one is a blog post.
Nice try though.
Worked for the GOP.
It worked for exposing Hillary and her criminal activities with her illegally stored emails.
So quit bitching about exposing Trump's criminal activities and illegal use of unsecured cell phones and tweets. Aren't you on board with stopping crime?
What crimes was she convicted of again? Oh yea, none.
She was proven to have broken the law by Comeys investigation itself. If the investigation hadn't been run by partisan hacks like Lynch and Strzok who changed the final report to include "extremely careless" then Hillary would've been tried like anybody else.
"Illegally stored emails?" Yeah sure. Except the Trump and WikiLeaks fixed that, right?
Wikileaks published hacked emails from the DNC server. Hillarys emails were ones she sent herself that were classified and marked as such. The two have nothing to do with each other.
About as many as T-rump will be....
Who was the president then?? Oh yeah - BO.
‘Too inconvenient’: Trump goes rogue on phone security
The president has kept features at risk for hacking and resisted efforts by staff to inspect the phones he uses for tweeting.
By ELIANA JOHNSON , EMILY STEPHENSON and DANIEL LIPPMAN
05/21/2018 07:00 PM EDT
Is that the same EFFECT that lost Republicans the House and key Governorships?
Is that the "EFFECT"?
Actually, the ultra liberal talking heads here in the PNW are clearly saying that if it wasn't for the kavanaugh debacle, there WOULD have been a blue wave....
What happened is the democrats in the Senate turned a liberal spankin on a par with the one the republicans put on the democrats in 2010 into a less than stellar midterm. Yes they took over the House, barely....
This site right here and some of the more heavily twisted liberal sites are the only place where I see anyone calling this mid term cycle as anything but a disappointing one for democrats.
They were expecting a lot more than what they got...
But then we all have to make due with what we got and puff it up into something bigger than it was.....
Awfully depressing to me....
Democrats’ blue wave was much larger than early takes suggested
With all votes counted, it’s a larger landslide than 1994 or 2010.
This was a questionable interpretation at the time it was offered , but subsequent events have shown it to be almost entirely a psychological illusion based on timing.
Like in any election, Democrats both won some squeakers and lost some squeakers. They overperformed expectations in some races and underperformed them in others. And in 2018, it happens to be the case that Democrats got some of their most disappointing results in East Coast states with early closing times, while the GOP’s biggest disappointments came disproportionately in late-counting states.
Consequently, what felt to many like a disappointment as of 11 pm Eastern time on election night now looks more and more like a triumph.
House Democrats scored a bigger win than the 2010 GOP wave
One of Democrats’ basic problems with election night narratives is that in a country that’s fairly closely divided, the Pacific time zone has an overwhelming pro-Democratic tilt. But West Coast jurisdictions also tend to have generous vote-by-mail rules that result in slow vote-counting. Consequently, savvy election analysts are aware (but casual observers are not) that Democrats’ vote haul always improves in the days that follow Election Day.
To put the “ripple” in perspective, consider this striking analysis from Nate Silver and Dave Wasserman, two of the top quantitative election analysts in the world: Democrats will win the popular vote
For comparison, the House popular vote in things that are widely considered to be wave elections:
2010: R +6.8
2006: D +8.0
1994: R +7.1
So if we wind up at ~D +7.5 or so, we'll be pretty much exactly in line with those years.
The swing is less impressive than what Republicans accomplished in 2010. But that’s because 2008 was a dismal year for House Republicans, so the improvement in 2010 was enormous. By contrast, Republicans put in a fairly meh performance in 2016 — narrowly winning the popular vote and losing six seats in the House and two in the Senate.
Democrats’ 2018 performance would superficially look more impressive if they somehow managed to go back in time and get creamed in 2016.
But the vote count is the vote count, and the vote count says that voters picked Democrats to run Congress by a huge margin.
Poll closing quirks distorted the narrative
Perhaps no candidate was as emblematic of the 2018 resistance tide as Amy McGrath in Kentucky’s Sixth District. A woman, a veteran, and a first-time candidate whose viral web video powered a grassroots funding surge and let her run a competitive race in a district Donald Trump won in 2016, she was exactly the kind of phenomenon Democrats were hoping would power them to victory.
Instead, she lost. And because she lost in Kentucky, which has the earliest poll closing times in the country, everybody heard about it.
By Friday, it was clear that Republicans were going to lose half a dozen close races in California. But by Friday, those six seats put together were garnering less coverage than McGrath obtained on Tuesday night. Television had already halted its midterm coverage, and election result stories had to compete with a million other narratives for airtime.
Similarly, Senate Democrats had one of their biggest disappointments in Indiana, whose polls close second on election night. Republicans, by contrast, look like they’ll have their biggest disappointments in Montana (which closed late) and Arizona (where they are still counting votes).
This locked in an early narrative about promising challengers falling short and incumbent Democrats tumbling. But a fuller view of the results paints a different picture. Jared Golden’s ads in Maine’s Second Congressional District never went as viral as McGrath’s. But the basic story of a combat veteran leveraging that credibility into a competitive election in a working-class Trump district is the same. Except Golden is going to win — it’s just taking a long time for that to become official because Maine uses a ranked-choice voting system.
McGrath herself, meanwhile, was always a long-shot candidate — that’s part of why she was interesting. And what happens with long shots is they usually lose. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t worth paying attention to.
Democrats’ Texas success story
Perhaps the clearest example of the perverse narrative dynamic around the 2018 election is the results in Texas.
Colin Allred flipped a House seat in the suburbs of Dallas where Democrats hadn’t even fielded a candidate in 2016, and Lizzie Pannill Fletcher picked up a seat in the suburbs of Houston. Democrats also picked up two state Senate seats and 11 seats in the state’s lower House . They flipped four state appeals courts , and a slate of 17 black women were swept into office in Harris County .
Yet this all wound up being played as a disappointment for Democrats because Beto O’Rourke’s greatly hyped long-shot Senate campaign against Ted Cruz went down to a 48-51 defeat.
Obviously Beto’s legion of fans would rather have won than lost. But the money and enthusiasm expended on the race had a high payoff down-ballot, and have now set the stage for the kind of longer-term progressive investment in Texas that has long been dreamed of. The largest, most diverse, and most urbanized of the red states is clearly not warming to Trumpism, and Democrats made big gains there.
What’s more, Sunbelt advances (not just in Texas but also in the suburbs of Atlanta, Miami, and even Oklahoma City) didn’t come at the expense of Democrats improving in the crucial Great Lakes swing states. Instead, Democrats improved on their 2016 results in the places where Trump was unusually weak and in the places where he was unusually strong.
Democrats swept the big three
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan are why Trump is president.
The Electoral College has a kind of small-state bias because each state gets at least three electoral votes no matter how many people live there. But its biggest bias is that narrowly winning a big state gets you just as many electoral votes as winning one by a landslide. So the fact that Trump was more popular in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan than he was nationally let him eke out three narrow wins that netted him a huge haul of electoral votes.
In 2018, that dynamic reversed.
Tony Evers narrowly knocked off incumbent Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Gretchen Whitmer got elected governor of Michigan comfortably, and incumbent Gov. Tom Wolfe trounced the opposition in Pennsylvania. Democrats also comfortable won the Pennsylvania and Michigan Senate races while flipping three House seats in Pennsylvania and two in Michigan.
The critical thing about these results is that while Hillary Clinton’s campaign knew all along that they were losing ground with white voters in the rural North, they believed they were compensating for it in the suburbs. But while Clinton really did improve on Barack Obama’s results in the suburbs of America’s largest cities, the basic dynamic in the midsize cities was not as favorable as they’d anticipated. In 2018, that changed, with the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Detroit, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Salt Lake City coming through.
The upshot is that unlike in 2016, Democrats not only won the most votes — they won the votes in the places that counted the most. The problem is that Trump wasn’t actually on the ballot to beat.
Trump is still president
In his article dismissing Democrats results, Bret Stephens of the New York Times sniffed that “the president survived his first major political test more than adequately.”
This reflects a somewhat curious perspective that Trump-skeptical conservatives like Stephens have now that President Trump has proven to be a much more orthodox conservative in office than Candidate Trump promised on the campaign trail.
If your objection to Trump is all about his personality and his personal conduct, then it’s true that Democrats wins leave him if anything emboldened. The big change as a result of Democrats’ midterm wins is that public policy is going to be different going forward. The GOP legislative agenda is now entirely dead, while new Democratic trifectas in New York, Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada are now prepared to move the ball forward on progressive ideas.
Lots of Democrats object to Trump on both grounds — his policies are bad, and his personal conduct is offensive and harmful.
But Trump qua Trump is unchecked not because Democrats didn’t do well enough on Election Day, but because Trump wasn’t running for reelection. Trump’s party got stomped in the House amid peace and prosperity because most voters find him loathsome. But one of his loathsome qualities is that he’s shameless, so losing won’t force him to change. To beat him, he’ll have to be beaten in 2020.
IN THIS STORYSTREAM
The 2018 midterm elections could change American politics
{chuckle} Ok, if VOX says so...
Vox or Fox … we both have our chuckle sources.
True very true my friend, but with sources like Vox and Fox dishin the news, is it any wonder that I feel sometimes like we'er living in a land called Honahlee?
I remember "Puff the Magic Dragon" when he was just a little snake in the grass.
You mean when he was just a little snake smoking grass...
Puff, Puff, Pass....
Don't bogart, that Joint, my friend,,,....... Pass it over to meeeeee......
{chuckle} the good ol' days....
"The business of presidential harassment, which we were deeply engaged in in the late 1990s, improved the president's approval rating, and tanked ours," Mitch McConnell.
He's right, but the big difference is today's Democrats have the media on their side. The media has been waging war against Trump since he received the nomination, and will continue to act as the resistance's PR firm throughout the forthcoming investigation process. No matter how unfair the process or fruitless the results, the cultural gatekeepers will protect Democrats in a way they never did Gingrich, Starr etc..
LOL. It isn't possible to be unfair to Donald Trump.
Y'all (Trumpers) have lost your cotton picking minds.
Sure it is, just as unfair as they were to Obama, just as they were unfair to Bush II...
Fairness is something the hard core politicals don't have in their bat bag.....
To be fair, GWB had a republican congress for 6 of his 8 years. And yes, when the Dems took over, they shut GWB down because we were on the verge of a completely collapsed economy. Had they not put a stop to the spending, we would have had a REAL crisis on our hands.
Still doesn't change the fact that they went into meltdown mode. and did everything they could to derail Bush's presidency..... (and on some basis's it needed derailing, the patriot act comes to mind)
????
Spending increased dramatically with FY 2008, the first year Democrats controlled Congress.
That happened long before the Dems took control of congress.
Try offering some discussion John - your continuous "one-liners" show the lack of depth of your convictions.
Republican retards are responsible for developing such a weapon. They were the ones who decided that subpoena power should rest solely with the committee chairs.
Yep the Republican establishment, (Boehner and crew) were almost as brain dead as their democrat buddies.
Incredibly stupid. Did they seriously not think this would come back to bite them? At least the Senate was smart enough not to go nuclear on the fillibuster. They could actually see 2 inches in front of their faces, unlike the house. Man politicians are dumb lol.
Learn your history. Harry Reid did the fillibuster bust.
[deleted]
I'm bowing out of the conversation. This isn't about 1st. He's actually a pretty smart guy. We have had our differences but I respect him and (most) of his opinions a great deal.
It would do well to take a less confrontational approach with him.... (I learned the hard way)
So, are you actually claiming that there are no more filibusters? That Harry Reid has eliminated them?
Absolutely true. But McConnell took it to the next level.
Thank you NWM - same here.
You're both "pretty smart guys; our political disagreements keep us sharp …
… and while it's not my best quality … I like CONFRONTATION.
No shyte
Confrontation....
If there was no Con, there couldn't be a front.....
Think it was a fella named Reid and his sidekick Pelosi (the person who STILL uses military a/c for her week-end trips home) who developed that weapon, along with the obstruction door.
[Deleted] I am talking with someone actually worth talking to.
removed for context
It is about time somebody honest looked into all of Trump's malfeasences...
In an effort to appease the far left They will get his tax returns and won't be able to (legally) do anything with them. Which will only piss the moonbats off. They will also impeach impeach impeach and nothing else will get accomplished and after they fail to impeach (or after he is impeached and not removed LIKE WHEN PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED) the moonbats will lose their collective minds again.
The funny thing? They can go ahead with subpoenas for his tax returns, and yet, they have to demnstrate that they are doing it within the law, which will be impossible. Just because congress wants something, doesn't mean they get it-they also have to follow the law.
I'll say it again, the IRS, especially under the previous president, has looked at President Trump's taxes for years, likely decades and have found nothing of note. Why does he refuse to share them? Because his tax returns are between him and the government (IRS). The fact that people feel like they need to see them (and what will they find that the IRS experts have failed to find?) is not a legal reason. There is no requirement for anyone to hand over their tax returns for public review.
Hey right wingers. There is a hell of a lot more sticking to the Trump than a sticky stain on a blue dress like there was the last time a president was investigated.
The most important thing is the enlightenment Americans will receive when the Trump is exposed for what he really is and has always been. The popcorn bag with the 'hole in the bottom' is finally going to answer questions under oath. Lets see how he holds up. Let us see the stamina and honesty he wholly lacks.
Why would Hillary be answering questions under oath?
Hillary is not the president. Hillary did not have a secret meeting in Helsinki with Putin and not reveal to our INTEL what was discussed, what was agreed to or what the terms of any agreements entailed.
And Hillary did answer under oath in open session of the congress for over 21 hours. Could Trump do the same for one hour?
And she lied like a cheap rug.
Had she lied she would be prosecuted.
Trump relayed the information of the Helsinki meeting to the appropriate people in the appropriate agencies.
Sorry, but CNN is not one of those agencies.
She lied - Gowdy caught her NUMEROUS times - but, remember who was prez then.
That is not true and you know it.
And that too is not true and you know that also.
What are you defending?
Nah. Trump trounced himself. He has self exposed.
Yes he did! By a whopping MINUS 2.8 MILLION VOTES!
Most Americans would throw a shit fit if their football team lost a game in which they outscored their opponents.
But, for POTUS … not so much.
Otherwise, dennis, how have you been?
Which fans are they?
If one counts the Jill Stein and Gary Johnson votes … but there's no definitive way to determine how those votes might have gone … Trump or Clinton … had they been cast for either.
Uhhhh - 304 to 227 is what won according to the Constitution.
But the comments are rarely just stating "Hey, my team won!". The comments from Trump fans often claim "Hey, Team Trump is the most popular team in America because our team won!" which isn't remotely true. When we point out there are nearly 3,000,000 more Team Her fans than there are Team Trump, that isn't refuting the Team Trump win, it's simply stating that the majority of Americans are not Team Trump fans. And more fans did not show up at Team Trumps inauguration than did to Team Obamas inauguration and Team Trump does not have any sort of mandate from the majority of people as his followers seem to imply.
Facts:
Trump supporters = the minority.
Those opposing Trump = the majority.
Most recent weekly average (11/5/2018)
Trumps job approval rating: 38%
Trumps job disapproval rating: 56%
This seems to be something constantly overlooked by conservative Republicans. They bitterly paced back and forth for the 6 years after winning the majority in the house and senate continually whining and sniveling about not being in control of everything, then they get their wish, they squeak out a narrow electoral win upsetting the will of the majority to gain control of the executive, judicial and legislative branches in a mad power grab waiting an entire year to confirm a Supreme court justice. And what have they done in the last two years? Let themselves get screwed over by an adulterous ignoramus, get beaten in the debate over health care, get a big win for their corporate masters with a ridiculous permanent tax cut, and then they lost the house because of their incompetence and pompous bragging about how popular they imagined themselves.
Oh please, Gowdy got owned, he is still trying to get Hillarys boot print off his forehead. She sat there the entire time, calm and collected while gowdy say there sweating like a whore in church. If Hillary had told anything even CLOSE to a lie there would have been investigations for 500 years. Obviously, she didn't lie.
True, but that group includes the MAJORITY of Americans who disapprove of this worthless numbskull in the oval office. So every time a Trump supporters makes a comment about "America" supporting Trump, they're lying, we the majority, "America", include far more than just "disgruntled progressive liberals". So enjoy the little time your party has left in power, then don't let the fast approaching pendulum of political change hit ya where the good lord split ya.
., he is still trying to get Hillarys boot print off his forehead.
Yeah, President Clinton sure showed him!
Oh wait...
Yeah she kinda did. I watched the whole 11 hours, by the end I was wondering if Gowdy was the one under investigation from watching the two. Her sitting there calmly answering the questions mean while, Gowdy kinda like almost stammering at times, visibly shakin and sweating like he was about to pass out. It was weird, I started wondering if something was actually physically wrong with him. Evidently there was not. Yeah it was weird.
Criteria established at a time when slavery and other issues were part of the establishment logistics; based on reality in a logical and general sense, "winners" in virtually all situations are determined by the best QUANTITATIVE SCORE and not allocations based upon i.e., whether some human beings "counted for less than others" because they were "property".
The reasons for which the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College are no longer relevant. Modern technology allows voters to get necessary information to make informed decisions in a way that could not have been foreseen by the Founding Fathers. Also, while Alexander Hamilton in 1788 saw the electors as being "free from any sinister bias," members of the Electoral College are now selected by the political parties and they are expected to vote along party lines regardless of their own opinions about the candidates. [ 7 ] [ 4 ] [ 16 ] Just as several voting laws that limited direct democracy in the Constitution have been modified or discarded throughout history, so should the Electoral College. As a result of Constitutional amendments, women and former slaves were given the right to vote, and Senators, once appointed by state legislatures, are now elected directly by popular vote. [ 15 ] The vice presidency was once awarded to the runner up in electoral votes, but the procedure was changed over time to reflect the reality of elections. [ 17 ]
The Electoral College gives too much power to "swing states" and allows the presidential election to be decided by a handful of states. The two main political parties can count on winning the electoral votes in certain states, such as California for the Democratic Party and Indiana for the Republican Party, without worrying about the actual popular vote totals. Because of the Electoral College, presidential candidates only need to pay attention to a limited number of states that can swing one way or the other. [ 18 ] A Nov. 6, 2016 episode of PBS NewsHour revealed that "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have made more than 90% of their campaign stops in just 11 so-called battleground states. Of those visits, nearly two-thirds took place in the four battlegrounds with the most electoral votes — Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina." [ 19 ]
The Electoral College ignores the will of the people. There are over 300 million people in the United States, but just 538 people decide who will be president. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than one million votes, yet still lost the election on electoral votes. [ 14 ] Even President-elect Donald Trump, who benefitted from the system, stated after the 2016 election that he believes presidents should be chosen by popular vote: "I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win." [ 20 ] Just as in 2000 when George W. Bush received fewer nationwide popular votes than Al Gore, Donald Trump will serve as the President of the United States despite being supported by fewer Americans than his opponent. [ 2 ]
________________________________________________________
Feel free to debate what is written and please avoid summary, off-handed, dismissive comments; when I give you the respect of a specific response, I'd appreciate one in kind.
On what page of his report did he document that? Oh and can you give me a link to Gowdy's referral of Clinton to the DOJ? Thanks in advance...
I hope you're right but like I was telling someone last week, my family still couldn't see Nixon's warts after he resigned. Their song? "He didn't do anything that any other president did, he just got caught"
They sang that song for years. I don't think they ever saw his evilness. Just like there are folks now who will always see the Emperor's new clothes
Nixon's only priority was protecting himself. His illegalities were purely domestic. Trump, on the other hand is foreign and domestic. International money and other things. There may be more to the Khashoggi 'disappearance' than Saudi protections.
To the extreme of course, but on the last days of The Third Reich, followers went to The Last Redoubt where they ultimately perished.
It's foolish and dishonest.
Virtually no one in the country ran on a platform of infinite investigations, although there was some indication they were planning on it . Nevertheless, Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders have discouraged such talk for over a year. People who voted Democratic thought they were voting for the Supreme Court, healthcare, the economy, the environment, treatment of LGBT people and ethnic minorities, and immigration issues.
I don't necessarily agree that all those things need to be priorities, but I do know that Democratic voters wanted action on those issues, not endless investigations of Trump.
So, after the Democrats have wasted the country's time and money for two years, don't be surprised if they get voted right back out.
Who are the “snowflakes” now?
First time wasn't enough?
Looking for a fight this morning?
First time wasn't enough?
Looking for a fight this morning?
Looking for viable back-and-forth dialogue …
If my denigrating "Making America Great Again" by calling out the kissing of Putin's ass and the passing of bullshit laws intended to disenfranchise minority voters … if that's the fight …
… YEAH! Let's have it!
Mac - now that's BS and you know it.
"passing of bullshit laws intended to disenfranchise minority voters" was done by idiot lawmakers in ND and Trump nor his administration had nothing to do with it.
LOSERS Chris Kobach, Scott Walker … and then there's Kemp in Georgia …
ALL TRUMP SUPPORTERS/CLONES/SYCOPHANTS …
Republican Voter Suppression Efforts Are Targeting Minorities, Journalist Says
I for one would like to see Kemp's "Exact Match" toss outs …
I would too - would be really interesting.
Oh? Journalist say do they?
I understand your proclivity to automatically believe and support the press since your were one but i prefer to wait and find out what real investigators/sworn officers of our legal system find.
And to your previous point. You don't want dialogue, you want agreement and regurgitation of your preferred narrative. Sadly you sometimes stoop to sophomoric tactics in a attempt to progress that narrative.
I know you can be better than that ..... if you want to be.
Brother, I still have $50.00 on T-rump finishing out his term......
Haven't seen anything to lose confidence in that bet yet....
In Fort Leavenworth Military Prison?
Brother, I still have $50.00 on T-rump finishing out his term......
And I have $200 among NT members (for the American Cancer Society) … that he won't!
The (GRAND) JURY is still out.
It certainly is.....
For sure …
Mr. Schiff thinks "Americans" find Government Investigations to be titillating, Thrilling, Tantalizing and a new "As Seen on TV" Hit for Democrats !
That guy was near the top of his crackpottery class ...... no doubt about it.
Fabulous movie Mac - fabulous.
One of the greatest movie/musicals of all time....
Folks - we, IMMHO, have had good discussion here but the count is over 270 and it's starting to slow down when accessed.
I'll keep it open for the night and then close it in the morning.
Thanks so much for reading and contributing - I'm learning from ya'll and I hope it's been worthwhile to you also.