This.
Next they will simply say the formal authorization vote didn’t specify what matters they were investigating so LOL fuck you no we’re not cooperating with anything.
Then Nancy will he them vote that they are investigating the Ukraine matter. And they will say LOL fuck you executive privilege we’re not cooperating.
Plus we get Tulsi on record being against impeachment.
This is way easier than all of that. If they continue to obstruct, just introduce the articles of impeachment, as they already have a mountain of evidence just related to the Ukraine scandal. They can have a full vote on articles of impeachment all they want, and I guarantee you if they were to only go with Nixon’s first 3, they will pass the JC and will be put up for a full vote.
I prefer listening to Hayseed Dixie.
Gimme 10 votes of retiring GOP in favor of impeachment! C’mon, one time.
This action by Nancy also “accommodates” the “concerns” of Lindsay and the 47 or whatever GOP senators who wrote a letter last week complaining about the House process and who could use that as a fig leaf not to convict on that article and to complain about the “legitimacy” of the process more generally. (“Sure, they had him dead to rights on the Ukraine stuff, but the integrity of the process must be respected, so I voted not to impeach,” said Senator Ted Cruz.) I’d expect about six weeks of open hearings in the House, then ship it over to the Senate around Dec. 15.
What I find nuts is people like Hurd (who signed onto the tabling of the Schiff censure with the GOP, which is effing preposterous). This is a former CIA guy who ostensibly is quitting because he thinks Trump is a scumbag, and that he will lose in his district. In a generous giving the benefit of the doubt, I might even be willing to say that he thinks because he’s can’t (because of GOP pressure), won’t, whatever his Constitutional duty that he doesn’t belong in Congress.
Now, his golden parachute is being a lobbyist in the national security sector. If he somehow doesn’t vote for impeachment over the Ukraine scandal, why would the national security sector want him? If he votes against, he clearly can’t be taken seriously on private sector national security even in GOP QAnon circles.
Yeah I’m super sure the GOP isn’t going to raise any bad faith arguments about illegitimate process anymore. Nancy chessmated them on that!
I mean JFC these are the people who just had 20 congrsssmen with full access to depositions storm the room crying foul about secrecy and backrooms.
Yeahhh, I’m gonna need your age here buddy, mmmkay?
Unironic AC/DC ‘Current Fan’ Age Bracket Coolness Probability Indicator:
90=90%
70=50%
50=30%
40=20%
30=5%
20=2%
All numbers purely fabricated, but totally true.
So another one of those glorious victories for the Dems that doesn’t do anything right now but will surely pay off in some way at an unspecified time in the future?!
Didn’t SCOTUS already say that gerrymandering was totes okay?
Oh, we’re up 70-0? That’s interesting, cause Donald Trump is still the fucking president.
Chris Coons needs to be primaried
Again, you guys are overthinking and frankly being over credulous to the Ds stated reason for not taking the vote previously.
Voting for the impeachment inquiry is a fuck you to Trump. So why wouldn’t all of us want it now on the record? The real D reason for not voting previously had nothing to do w/ whether a vote was required, nor is caving to R’s BS arguments the real reason it’s being held now.
Ds didn’t hold a vote previously because a small but meaningful number of Ds in swing districts weren’t ready to go on the record to tell Trump to fuck off (though they would have if a vote was forced) and now they are.
When it comes to the Ukraine scandal and how hearings have gone? Yes.
They said it was a political question that court not be resolved under the US Constitution by federal courts. I believe this is a state court matter involving the state constitution. As a general matter, the Supreme Court cannot overturn the decisions of state courts interpreting state law.
"That display of chutzpah [arguing the the gerrymandering was done for political, no racially discriminatory, purposes] already came close to derailing Republicans last year, when a federal court found that partisan gerrymanders did indeed violate the U.S. Constitution. The GOP was bailed out, though, when conservatives on the Supreme Court ruled that claims of excessive partisanship in electoral maps couldn’t be litigated in the federal court system. However, Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his opinion that such maps could be challenged in state court under state constitutions—advice the plaintiffs took to heart.
With the GOP’s smoking gun confession in hand, the plaintiffs relied solely on state constitutional protections to invalidate the map, and it’s now the second time this decade that North Carolina Republicans have seen their congressional map struck down. This latest defeat also comes right on the heels of another loss for Republicans: A September ruling saw this same court unanimously throw out the GOP’s legislative gerrymanders, all but guaranteeing that Republicans will lose at trial if the congressional case goes that far."
Everyone is bitter, but we here are Really Bitter and believe nothing which is healthy except when it becomes toxic
Nah, just that federal courts have to be all ¯_(ツ)_/¯ about it. This was a state panel.