HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » StarfishSaver » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

StarfishSaver

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Apr 22, 2019, 03:26 PM
Number of posts: 2,170

Journal Archives

Sounds like someone showed Trump a section of the Constitution

But, of course, he only read part of it and he got it wrong.

“He wasn’t fired. Okay? Number one, very importantly. But more importantly, Article II allows me to do whatever I want. Article II would have allowed me to fire him."

Just until they show him this part: "The President ... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Posted by StarfishSaver | Sun Jun 16, 2019, 12:15 PM (2 replies)

How do you define "impeachment inquiry"?

And how, in your view, is an "impeachment inquiry" distinguishable from the investigations currently taking place in the House?
Posted by StarfishSaver | Sat Jun 15, 2019, 07:11 PM (41 replies)

Can we just take a moment to bask in Sharice David's awesomeness?

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1139714405036417024

OK. Carry on.
Posted by StarfishSaver | Fri Jun 14, 2019, 10:15 PM (7 replies)

An oldie but goodie dead-on description of Sarah Huckabee Sanders

https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/916380051297488896

Sarah Huckabee Sanders always has a tone of dim-witted condescension, like a drunk customer mocking the McDonald's cashier taking her order.
Posted by StarfishSaver | Fri Jun 14, 2019, 09:50 PM (0 replies)

Do people realize if Speaker Pelosi didn't want to impeach, she'd have shut that ish down weeks ago?

The very fact that support for impeachment is slowly building in the Democratic caucus, with more Members coming out every day to call for it, should tell us something.

If Pelosi was against impeachment and didn't want to move forward with it at all, this probably wouldn't be happening. She likely would have tamped down any discussion of impeachment a long time ago and we wouldn't be seeing this steady growth in impeachment talk.

Think about it ... and stay tuned.
Posted by StarfishSaver | Fri Jun 14, 2019, 12:49 PM (75 replies)

WAPO: Office of Special Counsel recommends removal of Kellyanne Conway for violating Hatch Act

The Office of Special Counsel has recommended the removal of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway from federal office for violating the Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from engaging in political activity in the course of their work.

The report submitted to President Trump found that Conway violated the Hatch Act on numerous occasions by “disparaging Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity during television interviews and on social media.”

The counsel said Conway was a repeat offender and recommended that she be removed from federal office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/office-of-special-counsel-recommends-removal-of-kellyanne-conway-from-federal-office-for-violating-the-hatch-act/2019/06/13/0786ae2e-8df4-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html?utm_term=.e6c113886b0c

Posted by StarfishSaver | Thu Jun 13, 2019, 12:16 PM (15 replies)

To anyone upset that Hope Hicks isn't testifying in public, consider this

There is no legal basis for Congress to compel any witness to testify in public. They can demand they appear before the committee to provide testimony but if a witness agrees to appear to give testimony but doesn't want to testify in public, Congress has no legal basis to force them to appear in public.

Of course, Congress could hold out and insist that she testify in a public hearing, and, in the meantime get nada.

Or they can subpoena her to testify in public and, when she refuses, take her to court.

And the short and sweet hearing would go something like this:.

HOUSE: We're here to ask you to enforce our subpoena requiring Ms Hicks to testify in public.

JUDGE: You're saying Ms Hicks refuses to appear before the committee

HOUSE: No, not exactly your honor Miss Hicks has agreed to appear in front of the committee but she won't do it testifying public.

JUDGE: Excuse me?

HOUSE: She's agreed to testify but she won't testify in public.

JUDGE: Has she greed to testify?

HOUSE: Yes, Your Honor

JUDGE: Has she agreed to testify on the record?

HOUSE: Yes, Your Honor

JUDGE: Has she agreed to have her testimony transcribed?

HOUSE: Yes your honor

JUDGE: Has she agreed to allow you to release the transcription to the public?

HOUSE: Yes, Your Honor

JUDGE: Then, what's the problem?

HOUSE: We'd like the public to watch her testify on television.

JUDGE: Get the hell out of my courtroom! And if you waste the this court's time like this ever again I'll hold YOU in contempt

Posted by StarfishSaver | Wed Jun 12, 2019, 06:00 PM (16 replies)

In last 24 hours, Hope Hicks agreed to testify, a committee voted to hold Barr and Ross in contempt

and to authorize Nadler to go to court to obtain grand jury materials and enforce subpoenas.

Sounds to me like a lot's happening.
Posted by StarfishSaver | Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:56 PM (21 replies)

BREAKING: Hope Hicks will testify next week

Former White House aide Hicks agrees to testify to House panel investigating Trump

Hope Hicks, a top aide to President Trump during his 2016 campaign and his first year in the White House, has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee next Wednesday, according to people familiar with the matter.

Hicks will be the first former Trump aide to go before the committee investigating whether Trump tried to obstruct a probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. But Hicks might not answer many of the panel’s questions, citing the president’s assertion of executive privilege on events that occurred inside the White House.

Earlier this month, the White House instructed Hicks not to cooperate with a congressional subpoena for documents related to her White House service.

Robert Trout, a lawyer for Hicks, declined to comment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-white-house-aide-hicks-agrees-to-testify-to-house-panel-investigating-trump/2019/06/12/6f687f84-8d47-11e9-b162-8f6f41ec3c04_story.html?utm_term=.30ce6d3b0816
Posted by StarfishSaver | Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:49 PM (10 replies)

Let's clarify the facts on the 911 Victims Compensation Bill-the Democrats have been on top of this!

Contrary to what some people think, the Democrats have NOT been the bad guys here. Let's look at the facts and the history.

The Victims Compensation Fund was originally passed as part of a larger 911 package by the Democratic House and Senate in 2010.
Because of Republican opposition to the $7 billion cost, the only way to get the bill through was to agree that it would have to be reauthorized in 2015. https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/847?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22victims+compensation+fund%22%7D&s=2&r=4

It was reauthorized in 2015 for five years, meaning the funding would run out in 2020. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1786?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22victims+compensation+fund%22%7D&s=3&r=6

Every year since, Democrats have introduced legislation to make the funding permanent, but because we didn't control the House or Senate, the bill died in committee every year.https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/7062?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22victims+compensation+fund%22%7D&s=4&r=2

Last February, after the Democrats took over the House, Rep. Carolyn Maloney again introduced the "Never Forget the Heroes: Permanent Authorization of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Act." Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand again introduced its companion bill in the Senate the same day. The House bill was immediately referred to the Judiciary Committee, which has been working on the bill since. Yesterday's hearing was part of the process to get the bill marked up and passed in the House.https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1327?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22victims+compensation+fund%22%7D&s=1&r=2

So, please stop bashing Democrats for not moving fast enough or for the fact that this bill has not moved in Congress. The Democrats have been working and fighting for this measure but, not being in control of the House and Senate meant they could not force the legislation through. As soon as we took back control of the House, the Democrats took steps to get the bill through. One of those steps was to bring Jon Stewart back to offer a high profile and impassioned call for the bill's passage at yesterday's hearing.

But, don't be confused. This bill would have passed the Judiciary Committee and the House with or without Stewart because the Democrats now have the numbers to pass it, as they've approved it in the past when they had the numbers. The difference now is that Stewart shamed REPUBLICANS and may have helped the Democrats get McConnell to move the bill through the Senate to a vote.

This is all on the Republicans. The Democrats have been fighting.
Posted by StarfishSaver | Wed Jun 12, 2019, 04:43 PM (2 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »