At the risk of being in the minority here, that whole Garcia / Garcia political handoff will not end well. If Democrats want to establish a reputation of "better than", they need to be willing to do things like reprimand one of their own - especially when one of their own does something slimy.
Although technically "legal", add this backroom maneuver to the list of Congressional practices that need to be reformed and eliminated. They're supposed to working for us - the citizens of their districts - not themselves.
I was going to post similar thoughts. You can’t be the pro-democracy party and pull this kind of shit and not expect people to want to oust you from the halls of power.
Well said! And spot on - being a ‘country boy’ originally, I would have gone for “horse-shit” or, “cow-shit”. But anyway you slice it, the manager represented a heapin’ helpin’ of shit for the voters to swallow. I might add it puts the prospective incumbent Garcia right behind the 8 ball to start her term, and might, even in Illinois, draw a rebuke from the electorate.
Any Democrat who gets in a primary fight will have to explain why they supported this under -the-table maneuver. And so many of them richly deserve to be opposed in a primary.
Thank you for this comment and for planting the suggestion in my mind. I've just sent the following to my Rep - Seth Moulton, who is running to replace Ed Markey in the US Senate.
Extremely disappointed to see that you were one of the Democrats that FAILED to support the Gluesenkamp Perez motion to condemn the bait-and-switch maneuver pulled by Rep Garcia to bypass ethical procedures and hand-select his Chief of Staff (Patty Garcia) as his replacement. Where is YOUR integrity? Where are YOUR ethics? If you want the Democratic Party to represent something "better than" the Republican and MAGAt alternatives, then you need to stand up and speak up when your own side pulls a slimy maneuver of this sort. Will your lack of backbone be one of your talking points in the 2026 Senate race? Is your acquiesce something you're proud of? Essentially you're just as slimy with your silence as Rep. Garcia was in subverting the democratic process by denying the voters of his District the opportunity to select the candidate they want to represent them. And the worst part of this is that the Gluesenkamp Perez motion would do nothing to reverse Rep. Garcia's slimy maneuver - Patty Garcia will likely be elected and the seat will remain Democratic - so your inability to stand up for what is right instead of what is politically expedient is truly disappointing and reveals your true character. As ineffective as Sen. Markey is, at this point I'll be sticking with the disappointment I know and not the disappointment that may be worse.
I may be lazy and 'borrow' some of this for my own missive to my Massachusetts Congress people. Young people see this BS and use it to explain their cynicism and consequent apathy when comparing Red & Blue, "Oh, they're all the same!"
Unfortunately, quite often it can look very much exactly that way.
And eating their own for doing the ethically 'right' thing? Despicable! Yet one more reason to keep pulling back on Democratic Party donations. (The way they've treated Mamdani is another!)
Exactly right. I don't think you're in the minority at all. I think most people prefer that their leaders have some kind of reliable code of honor that doesn't get ejected into space every time it runs into conflict with a tribal loyalty. Thank you for stating this. And please run for Congress.
I agree with you 100%. What is the downside of condemning Garcia's move by the Dems, I don't understand what they are so upset about? It's not like approving the resolution would have lost them a seat, it seems like an obvious thing to support. Garcia is leaving anyway, they should metaphorically screw him.
I disagree, in the sense that people should know what time it is. I find this akin to partisan gerrymandering. Ideally, yes, you have non-partisan commissions and you make the process fairer and less partisan. But in this moment, when one side is grabbing all the power they can get away with, it is not the time to focus on being fair while the other side will take maximum advantage and destroy any future chance of fairness.
Now I wouldn't have done this myself. But I would be fine with Dems, if asked, simply saying they don't like the tactic that was used here. And then adding that in a world of the president's blatant crypto corruption and violation of emoluments, murdering people in the Caribbean, imprisoning people in violation of the Constitution, rendering people to places that will torture and kill them, brutalizing peaceful protestors, Epstein files, illegal federal firings and shutting down funds, and passing of bills that will make life worse for most Americans.... why on earth is *this* is the priority for a Dem to focus on smacking someone down? How about she sponsor resolutions to censure basically anyone in the administration that is doing horrible things? Literally every cabinet member is 100000x more deserving of repudiation.
I think plenty want to be as cynical about lots of dubiously moral/ethical party maneuvers these days - just not this one! Because it is such a narcissistic & arrogant sleight-of-hand that is akin to what happened between Bernie and Hillary. Taking away a voter's ability to choose never ends well because machine politics is way out of fashion and people will take this personally, thus immediately undermining whoever wins in such a fashion. And it also increases apathy tenfold all because someone was afraid to make their case to actual voters - hardly the stuff of an inspired leader!
I mean, sure. It's not great and there are costs to the people in that district. I would argue the costs are relatively small compared to almost any other issue those constituents might be having right now. I want to be the good guys who do everything right. I think it's worth a brief mention, if asked.
I'm a finance manager, so I often tell people, "Show me your budget, and I'll show you your values and priorities."
Similar to money, we all have budgets of our time and attention. The rep spending her time and attention, and demanding the time and attention of all the other reps in Congress, is not spending that time serving her constituents, helping those unlawfully detained, overseeing detention facilities, fighting to preserve federal funding that's been ostensibly "cut" but probably illegally withheld, planning creative ways to stop or slow this regime's illegal power grabs, etc. That tells me that she thinks knocking the Dems here is worth it, that it's a big deal worthy of the investment of time, insisting on attention. Has she done the same for the many other abuses of power occurring? The problem here is that there is an opportunity cost to focusing on this.
I agree that Dems should not be eating their own. If this were an Al Franken scenario, I would agree that they should ignore and brazen it out.
However, in this case having an open primary was a low stakes way to give voters a voice and differentiate from the corrupt Republicans. It is bad macro politics.
I agree with all of your points - there are many, many, many, larger fishes to fry.
But your disagreement actually highlights why this is important. Nothing in the Gluesenkamp Perez motion to condemn this bait-and-switch maneuver will change any of the facts at hand:
* Rep Garcia knew he wasn't going to run for re-election.
* He coordinated this with his Chief of Staff (Patty Garcia), so that she could - through clandestine maneuvers - accumulate the necessary number of signatures required to be listed on the ballot as a candidate.
* These actions removed from voters their opportunity to select who they wanted to represent them in Congress.
* Patty Garcia will most likely be elected and, as such, the seat will remain Democratic.
The motion was essentially saying "we know what you did, it was a slimy maneuver, and we're not happy that you did it". The unsaid addendum is that the rest of the Democrats in the House are actually happy about this because the seat will remain in the Democratic column.
That's why voting for the motion is a no-brainer that's become a publicized Democratic blunder, and headline generator.
If Democrats endorsed the motion when it came up, they could point to it and say "see, we are able to call out our own members when they do something unethical". A vote "for" the motion changes NOTHING yet scores the Democrats some ethical cred. Rep. Garcia doesn't give two hoots about this - he's already announced his intentions, he can't be punished for this slimy maneuver, and his hand-picked successor remains his hand-picked successor.
It's small actions (such as supporting the Gluesenkamp Perez motion) that mean nothing individually, but do act as building blocks towards a stronger Democratic Party going forward.
If a chihuahua is biting your ankle at the same time a bear is coming for your throat, using your focus and energy to kick the pup away is gonna have a very bad outcome. We need our reps to combat the bear, and keep their focus there. So no, I do not think this highlights why this issue is important. It's worth a brief mention if asked, not a vote in the House that uses up the time of 435 Reps who should be doing other things, not to mention the attention of the people reporting on and thinking about it.
Speaking of which. I only wrote the original comment because I was surprised how many people think we *should* be spending more attention on this in this moment. So I suppose I'll take myself out of spending more time on it.
Chuy's behavior was squalid, but as a long-time (former) Chicagoland resident who still loves the place -- warts and all -- let me assure you that the blowback that he and his anointed successor can expect at home approximates Zero. It's Chicago Rules, right up there with "We don't want nobody that nobody sent!" and "Politics ain't beanbag." My own Congressman, not the brightest light in the House but not the worst Democrat, either, was selected that way, and his successor probably will be, too.
Gluesenkamp Perez's motion was well-intentioned and I'm sure that she meant well, but it should have been presented to the House Democratic Caucus, not to the whole House. If she'd done that, it would have appeared that the Party had at least some interest in killing its own cockroaches. The way she chose just provides one more unnecessary example of the Dems organizing circular firing squads, with the novelty that Mike Johnson and his goons get free shots, too.
Hey Joe, Next time you run into Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, please tell her she has at least one fan in Chicago who appreciates her for trying to save us from ourselves.
And one in MA. She is also trying to implement a cognitive test for members of Congress. I hope she can stay down to earth and resist being corrupted by it all.
You cannot convince me Chuy Garcia wasn't trying to pass his seat to his chief of staff. And if the Dems want to attack Rep Gluisenkamp Perez for calling a spade a spade, they're not the party for me. We need to start demanding integrity, transparency and consistency from our leaders, not ideological obedience. Shame on Hakeem Jeffries and on the Dems who heckled and attacked her.
I would not go that far on the Dems but their activist class still doesn’t know what time it is. If the bulwark types have softened up on economic, social and foreign policies to hold hands with the Dems, shouldn’t the progressives also need to give an inch.
Left wing nuts cannot think logically, in this monk’s very humble opinion. For example: It seems that very few people are concerned that mamdani support for the hamas concept of “from the river to the sea” is basically the advocacy of Israeli genocide. Need not say more.
Well, the resolution story is disappointing. Kudos to Perez. Wrong is wrong. If they want to run his CS, she should have campaigned. I'm a dem thu and thru, and I think it stinks. 206 dems are on the wrong side of the issue and may hand the election to a repub.
How is it a major rebuke when they explicitly got permission from their supreme leader? I’ll consider it a rebuke when Republicans overwhelmingly defy Trump. Their excuses for passing it are weak as hell. They didn’t vote yes because they care about justice or transparency, but because they want to “move on” from the “democrat hoax.” They are parroting Trump’s talking points by claiming this was all a conspiracy to make Trump look bad (so they’re admitting whatever is in the files will make him look bad?).
I predict we’re going to get files with entire pages redacted except where democrats are implicated. I just hope people are smart enough to see through the DOJ’s games.
Just cannot have a president of the US that is a pedophile.
If the Epstein Files reveal that he is a pedophile, which it certainly likes like they will, or aided and abetted, which he certainly did, there is nothing left to do except the US Marshals walk into the WH with a warrant for Trump’s arrest and them book him. We’re way past impeachment territory.
The Garcia story is absolutely fucking infuriating. The national party is already struggling to shake off the reputation of “coronating” their nominees. This only adds fuel to the fire of the MAGA narrative that it’s democrats who are the undemocratic, authoritarian party. And in this instance, they are not wrong. People like this, who put their own personal ambitions ahead of the county and party, should be shunned and pressured with the force of the deep ocean to step aside and retire from politics.
Joe writes, “…investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious human trafficker, sexual abuser, and pedophile who committed suicide in 2019.” Shouldn’t be “allegedly committed suicide in 2019?” I thought there was some missing video tape.
Sorry Joe. He let the house off the hook; too much heat. He’s on to plan B. Then there is plan C. Pocket veto. Plan D. “Ongoing investigation” plan E. Redaction. Destruction.
Dollars to donuts the senate republicans don’t give the bill that many votes. They would let the R senators up for reelection in ‘26 the liberty to vote for release, and have the rest vote no counting on a fickle polity to have moved on by 28 and the big presidential election.
So MTG, Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace and Thomas Massey stood up to Trump and won. But Jamie Dimon, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. come to the WH repeatedly and lick Trump’s toes. Ponder that.
Kudos to Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez. Power hungry Congressional staff members can keep their elected on life support to keep their jobs and influence. I’m thinking Feinstein, and others.
"Ex cathedra" the perfect latin phrase to encapsulate Republican's adoration of Trump's infallibility. That is, until their own self-interest dispossessed Trump of all status...
Is it a major rebuke, though? Won't the DOJ simply hold back as much as they want without even disclosing that they are doing so since now they have open (pro forma) investigations?
Trump doesn't care about rebukes. They can rebuke away, he'll order the DOJ to NOT release anything and bog it down forever with 'investigations'. He'll continue to play the victim-strong man, whining about how 'they' won't let him release the files.
All this is SOP. But *why* did almost all the House Republicans vote for release? Are they now in open revolt? If this was only a strategic retreat, it was a doozy. And why doesn't Trump just issue an Executive Order to close Congress, or some shit? I thought he was infinitely powerful and could have Marines kill anybody he wanted?
The operating theory appears to be that they see that Trump's popularity is tanking and they don't want to face the next election cycle -- to the extent that it will be free or fair -- enabling their opponents to point at them and say they protected pedophiles.
Trump's power is declining along with his popularity. Other dictators (Erdogan, Orban) had the sense to maintain their popularity while consolidating power. This regime has failed utterly at that, but we will always need to be vigilant for the next dictator wannabe, because there WILL be another, and another, and another... Thiel and Musk still want Yarvin's wet dream, after all, and they're not going to give up while they still live.
Agreed. The next wannabe will not be met with blank, uncomprehending stares from us, though. We've been to the monkey show. We're well aware of what it smells like.
Thank you! In case it's not obvious, it's a blending of amygdala and Magdalene, as in the biblical figure Mary Magdalene. My real name is also kind of in there, but I won't say quite how.
A lot of people will do what many of us did when Biden took office after Trump 1.0: Heave a sigh of relief and consider things to be "back to normal." There will never be a back to normal. Voting is a not just a right, it's a duty. We have to install more protections for democracy, as the Founders didn't appear to think Congress would ever surrender its power to the executive. We know now that they will. We will never be able to let our guard down again.
At the risk of being in the minority here, that whole Garcia / Garcia political handoff will not end well. If Democrats want to establish a reputation of "better than", they need to be willing to do things like reprimand one of their own - especially when one of their own does something slimy.
Although technically "legal", add this backroom maneuver to the list of Congressional practices that need to be reformed and eliminated. They're supposed to working for us - the citizens of their districts - not themselves.
I was going to post similar thoughts. You can’t be the pro-democracy party and pull this kind of shit and not expect people to want to oust you from the halls of power.
Well said! And spot on - being a ‘country boy’ originally, I would have gone for “horse-shit” or, “cow-shit”. But anyway you slice it, the manager represented a heapin’ helpin’ of shit for the voters to swallow. I might add it puts the prospective incumbent Garcia right behind the 8 ball to start her term, and might, even in Illinois, draw a rebuke from the electorate.
Any Democrat who gets in a primary fight will have to explain why they supported this under -the-table maneuver. And so many of them richly deserve to be opposed in a primary.
I will be contacting my Democratic rep about this.
Thank you for this comment and for planting the suggestion in my mind. I've just sent the following to my Rep - Seth Moulton, who is running to replace Ed Markey in the US Senate.
Extremely disappointed to see that you were one of the Democrats that FAILED to support the Gluesenkamp Perez motion to condemn the bait-and-switch maneuver pulled by Rep Garcia to bypass ethical procedures and hand-select his Chief of Staff (Patty Garcia) as his replacement. Where is YOUR integrity? Where are YOUR ethics? If you want the Democratic Party to represent something "better than" the Republican and MAGAt alternatives, then you need to stand up and speak up when your own side pulls a slimy maneuver of this sort. Will your lack of backbone be one of your talking points in the 2026 Senate race? Is your acquiesce something you're proud of? Essentially you're just as slimy with your silence as Rep. Garcia was in subverting the democratic process by denying the voters of his District the opportunity to select the candidate they want to represent them. And the worst part of this is that the Gluesenkamp Perez motion would do nothing to reverse Rep. Garcia's slimy maneuver - Patty Garcia will likely be elected and the seat will remain Democratic - so your inability to stand up for what is right instead of what is politically expedient is truly disappointing and reveals your true character. As ineffective as Sen. Markey is, at this point I'll be sticking with the disappointment I know and not the disappointment that may be worse.
I may be lazy and 'borrow' some of this for my own missive to my Massachusetts Congress people. Young people see this BS and use it to explain their cynicism and consequent apathy when comparing Red & Blue, "Oh, they're all the same!"
Unfortunately, quite often it can look very much exactly that way.
And eating their own for doing the ethically 'right' thing? Despicable! Yet one more reason to keep pulling back on Democratic Party donations. (The way they've treated Mamdani is another!)
Exactly right. I don't think you're in the minority at all. I think most people prefer that their leaders have some kind of reliable code of honor that doesn't get ejected into space every time it runs into conflict with a tribal loyalty. Thank you for stating this. And please run for Congress.
I'm a Democrat and that slimy maneuver is wrong, absolutely trumpian in fact.
Completely agree. It is not a good look for the Dems if they condone this sort of activity.
I agree with you 100%. What is the downside of condemning Garcia's move by the Dems, I don't understand what they are so upset about? It's not like approving the resolution would have lost them a seat, it seems like an obvious thing to support. Garcia is leaving anyway, they should metaphorically screw him.
I disagree, in the sense that people should know what time it is. I find this akin to partisan gerrymandering. Ideally, yes, you have non-partisan commissions and you make the process fairer and less partisan. But in this moment, when one side is grabbing all the power they can get away with, it is not the time to focus on being fair while the other side will take maximum advantage and destroy any future chance of fairness.
Now I wouldn't have done this myself. But I would be fine with Dems, if asked, simply saying they don't like the tactic that was used here. And then adding that in a world of the president's blatant crypto corruption and violation of emoluments, murdering people in the Caribbean, imprisoning people in violation of the Constitution, rendering people to places that will torture and kill them, brutalizing peaceful protestors, Epstein files, illegal federal firings and shutting down funds, and passing of bills that will make life worse for most Americans.... why on earth is *this* is the priority for a Dem to focus on smacking someone down? How about she sponsor resolutions to censure basically anyone in the administration that is doing horrible things? Literally every cabinet member is 100000x more deserving of repudiation.
I think plenty want to be as cynical about lots of dubiously moral/ethical party maneuvers these days - just not this one! Because it is such a narcissistic & arrogant sleight-of-hand that is akin to what happened between Bernie and Hillary. Taking away a voter's ability to choose never ends well because machine politics is way out of fashion and people will take this personally, thus immediately undermining whoever wins in such a fashion. And it also increases apathy tenfold all because someone was afraid to make their case to actual voters - hardly the stuff of an inspired leader!
I mean, sure. It's not great and there are costs to the people in that district. I would argue the costs are relatively small compared to almost any other issue those constituents might be having right now. I want to be the good guys who do everything right. I think it's worth a brief mention, if asked.
I'm a finance manager, so I often tell people, "Show me your budget, and I'll show you your values and priorities."
Similar to money, we all have budgets of our time and attention. The rep spending her time and attention, and demanding the time and attention of all the other reps in Congress, is not spending that time serving her constituents, helping those unlawfully detained, overseeing detention facilities, fighting to preserve federal funding that's been ostensibly "cut" but probably illegally withheld, planning creative ways to stop or slow this regime's illegal power grabs, etc. That tells me that she thinks knocking the Dems here is worth it, that it's a big deal worthy of the investment of time, insisting on attention. Has she done the same for the many other abuses of power occurring? The problem here is that there is an opportunity cost to focusing on this.
What is right remains right, even if there are big wrongs littering the landscape.
I agree that Dems should not be eating their own. If this were an Al Franken scenario, I would agree that they should ignore and brazen it out.
However, in this case having an open primary was a low stakes way to give voters a voice and differentiate from the corrupt Republicans. It is bad macro politics.
I agree with all of your points - there are many, many, many, larger fishes to fry.
But your disagreement actually highlights why this is important. Nothing in the Gluesenkamp Perez motion to condemn this bait-and-switch maneuver will change any of the facts at hand:
* Rep Garcia knew he wasn't going to run for re-election.
* He coordinated this with his Chief of Staff (Patty Garcia), so that she could - through clandestine maneuvers - accumulate the necessary number of signatures required to be listed on the ballot as a candidate.
* These actions removed from voters their opportunity to select who they wanted to represent them in Congress.
* Patty Garcia will most likely be elected and, as such, the seat will remain Democratic.
The motion was essentially saying "we know what you did, it was a slimy maneuver, and we're not happy that you did it". The unsaid addendum is that the rest of the Democrats in the House are actually happy about this because the seat will remain in the Democratic column.
That's why voting for the motion is a no-brainer that's become a publicized Democratic blunder, and headline generator.
If Democrats endorsed the motion when it came up, they could point to it and say "see, we are able to call out our own members when they do something unethical". A vote "for" the motion changes NOTHING yet scores the Democrats some ethical cred. Rep. Garcia doesn't give two hoots about this - he's already announced his intentions, he can't be punished for this slimy maneuver, and his hand-picked successor remains his hand-picked successor.
It's small actions (such as supporting the Gluesenkamp Perez motion) that mean nothing individually, but do act as building blocks towards a stronger Democratic Party going forward.
If a chihuahua is biting your ankle at the same time a bear is coming for your throat, using your focus and energy to kick the pup away is gonna have a very bad outcome. We need our reps to combat the bear, and keep their focus there. So no, I do not think this highlights why this issue is important. It's worth a brief mention if asked, not a vote in the House that uses up the time of 435 Reps who should be doing other things, not to mention the attention of the people reporting on and thinking about it.
Speaking of which. I only wrote the original comment because I was surprised how many people think we *should* be spending more attention on this in this moment. So I suppose I'll take myself out of spending more time on it.
Chuy's behavior was squalid, but as a long-time (former) Chicagoland resident who still loves the place -- warts and all -- let me assure you that the blowback that he and his anointed successor can expect at home approximates Zero. It's Chicago Rules, right up there with "We don't want nobody that nobody sent!" and "Politics ain't beanbag." My own Congressman, not the brightest light in the House but not the worst Democrat, either, was selected that way, and his successor probably will be, too.
Gluesenkamp Perez's motion was well-intentioned and I'm sure that she meant well, but it should have been presented to the House Democratic Caucus, not to the whole House. If she'd done that, it would have appeared that the Party had at least some interest in killing its own cockroaches. The way she chose just provides one more unnecessary example of the Dems organizing circular firing squads, with the novelty that Mike Johnson and his goons get free shots, too.
Joe was ready to hit submit as soon as the vote happened! Love it 😂
from inside the House chamber!
That's the kind of reporting we like! Great job, Joe!
He just had to fill in the numbers. 427-1 - sheesh!. All the world hates a pedophile...
Can someone please ask Clay Higgins why he voted to protect the pedo?
Political self preservation.
Don't waste our time! Or space.
Hey Joe, Next time you run into Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, please tell her she has at least one fan in Chicago who appreciates her for trying to save us from ourselves.
And one in MA. She is also trying to implement a cognitive test for members of Congress. I hope she can stay down to earth and resist being corrupted by it all.
And one in Pennsylvania.
You cannot convince me Chuy Garcia wasn't trying to pass his seat to his chief of staff. And if the Dems want to attack Rep Gluisenkamp Perez for calling a spade a spade, they're not the party for me. We need to start demanding integrity, transparency and consistency from our leaders, not ideological obedience. Shame on Hakeem Jeffries and on the Dems who heckled and attacked her.
💯 I am rather livid. Haven’t the Dems done enough for driving Jared Golden out?
I would not go that far on the Dems but their activist class still doesn’t know what time it is. If the bulwark types have softened up on economic, social and foreign policies to hold hands with the Dems, shouldn’t the progressives also need to give an inch.
Left wing nuts cannot think logically, in this monk’s very humble opinion. For example: It seems that very few people are concerned that mamdani support for the hamas concept of “from the river to the sea” is basically the advocacy of Israeli genocide. Need not say more.
It is ridiculous that the Dems are treating Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in such an ungraceful manner. She is their best chance of keeping WA-03 blue.
Well, the resolution story is disappointing. Kudos to Perez. Wrong is wrong. If they want to run his CS, she should have campaigned. I'm a dem thu and thru, and I think it stinks. 206 dems are on the wrong side of the issue and may hand the election to a repub.
How is it a major rebuke when they explicitly got permission from their supreme leader? I’ll consider it a rebuke when Republicans overwhelmingly defy Trump. Their excuses for passing it are weak as hell. They didn’t vote yes because they care about justice or transparency, but because they want to “move on” from the “democrat hoax.” They are parroting Trump’s talking points by claiming this was all a conspiracy to make Trump look bad (so they’re admitting whatever is in the files will make him look bad?).
I predict we’re going to get files with entire pages redacted except where democrats are implicated. I just hope people are smart enough to see through the DOJ’s games.
Just cannot have a president of the US that is a pedophile.
If the Epstein Files reveal that he is a pedophile, which it certainly likes like they will, or aided and abetted, which he certainly did, there is nothing left to do except the US Marshals walk into the WH with a warrant for Trump’s arrest and them book him. We’re way past impeachment territory.
Pretty sure that's just for criming while presidenting...but I hear you.
He does not have immunity from deeds that occurred out of office.
Only for actions performed during a presidential term.
Thought that was a state case and conviction? The appeal route then is to the NY State Supreme Court.
The Garcia story is absolutely fucking infuriating. The national party is already struggling to shake off the reputation of “coronating” their nominees. This only adds fuel to the fire of the MAGA narrative that it’s democrats who are the undemocratic, authoritarian party. And in this instance, they are not wrong. People like this, who put their own personal ambitions ahead of the county and party, should be shunned and pressured with the force of the deep ocean to step aside and retire from politics.
Joe writes, “…investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious human trafficker, sexual abuser, and pedophile who committed suicide in 2019.” Shouldn’t be “allegedly committed suicide in 2019?” I thought there was some missing video tape.
Or two, or three . . .
Sorry Joe. He let the house off the hook; too much heat. He’s on to plan B. Then there is plan C. Pocket veto. Plan D. “Ongoing investigation” plan E. Redaction. Destruction.
If the senate votes in a veto proof majority, which the house just did, Trump cannot veto the release.
Dollars to donuts the senate republicans don’t give the bill that many votes. They would let the R senators up for reelection in ‘26 the liberty to vote for release, and have the rest vote no counting on a fickle polity to have moved on by 28 and the big presidential election.
Rs will make sure the vote count is one shy of 2/3.
This is possible, but I dont think its likely.
He can veto. Both Houses then vote to override.
In face of a veto, the R leadership will arrange things so that the 2/3 majority is missed by one vote in either House or Senate.
I don't think they would have good luck on that one, Republicans would be lambasted as fellow pedophiles if they tried that.
Why? He never cared about heat before.
So MTG, Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace and Thomas Massey stood up to Trump and won. But Jamie Dimon, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. come to the WH repeatedly and lick Trump’s toes. Ponder that.
Can we get a Tim Miller rant for Clay Higgins? Seems like he deserves at least what Jeff Landry got. :)
I bet if Roy Moore had been elected to the Senate, he'd vote "no" on this bill too.
Kudos to Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez. Power hungry Congressional staff members can keep their elected on life support to keep their jobs and influence. I’m thinking Feinstein, and others.
"Ex cathedra" the perfect latin phrase to encapsulate Republican's adoration of Trump's infallibility. That is, until their own self-interest dispossessed Trump of all status...
I came here to say the same thing!
"Ex cathedra" has strong religious roots and as such, it perfectly captures the idealogical fervor embedded in the Trump Cult.
Is it a major rebuke, though? Won't the DOJ simply hold back as much as they want without even disclosing that they are doing so since now they have open (pro forma) investigations?
But if the narrative of a coverup persists, it’s probably still a problem for him.
Here's hoping.
Trump doesn't care about rebukes. They can rebuke away, he'll order the DOJ to NOT release anything and bog it down forever with 'investigations'. He'll continue to play the victim-strong man, whining about how 'they' won't let him release the files.
All this is SOP. But *why* did almost all the House Republicans vote for release? Are they now in open revolt? If this was only a strategic retreat, it was a doozy. And why doesn't Trump just issue an Executive Order to close Congress, or some shit? I thought he was infinitely powerful and could have Marines kill anybody he wanted?
The operating theory appears to be that they see that Trump's popularity is tanking and they don't want to face the next election cycle -- to the extent that it will be free or fair -- enabling their opponents to point at them and say they protected pedophiles.
Trump's power is declining along with his popularity. Other dictators (Erdogan, Orban) had the sense to maintain their popularity while consolidating power. This regime has failed utterly at that, but we will always need to be vigilant for the next dictator wannabe, because there WILL be another, and another, and another... Thiel and Musk still want Yarvin's wet dream, after all, and they're not going to give up while they still live.
Agreed. The next wannabe will not be met with blank, uncomprehending stares from us, though. We've been to the monkey show. We're well aware of what it smells like.
Love your avatar name!
Thank you! In case it's not obvious, it's a blending of amygdala and Magdalene, as in the biblical figure Mary Magdalene. My real name is also kind of in there, but I won't say quite how.
A lot of people will do what many of us did when Biden took office after Trump 1.0: Heave a sigh of relief and consider things to be "back to normal." There will never be a back to normal. Voting is a not just a right, it's a duty. We have to install more protections for democracy, as the Founders didn't appear to think Congress would ever surrender its power to the executive. We know now that they will. We will never be able to let our guard down again.