|Submited on :||Thu, 14th of Mar 2019 - 15:09:52 PM|
|Post ID :||b11g3m|
|Post Name :||t3_b11g3m|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2cneq|
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
That's surprising. How many times has the house been unanimous on anything?
That time everybody in our government minus 5 people voted to keep sanctions on Russia: The vote was 419-3 in the House and sailed through the Senate with a 98-2 vote.
Vetoed completely ignored it and just did what he wanted anyway.
Edit 2: Really dude? you can't say that in the thread?
Trump has never vetoed anything, largely thanks to McConnell doing it for him most of the time. We'll probably see the first one today or tomorrow when he vetoes Congress's rebuke of the national emergency declaration
This is the crazy thing about the Republicans. They’ve turned the role of majority leader into a co-President with a procedural veto, and they use it to make sure nothing gets to him that they don’t want him to sign, then turn a blind eye when he steals powers from the legislature.
McConnell should be held up as the mastermind of this. Why isn’t anyone starting an investigation into him?
it’s because they didn’t want him to be president they just needed his base’s support. they LOVE giving mitch more and more power and baby-proofing the president’s office
The Legislature should have more power, and the executive less. That’s always been the idea, but Congress keeps being too lazy to do anything, and pawns it off on executive agencies.
Trump didn't veto it, he just signed it and then didn't bother to actually follow through with what it demanded of him (he clearly considers the whole "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" thing to just be a suggestion, like how much you contractually agreed to pay a contractor).
And since no one is going to hold him accountable, why not? Which is what most of our government thinks because the people don't do anything about it either.
Isn't it scary to find out that most of our presidents only "behaved well" because they were worried about public image and foreign relations?
It's eye-opening to see how dangerous someone can be in that seat when they simply don't give a shit and we realize there's literally no way to actually check/balance his power.
I get that he has no regard for the law or the different houses of government but how is this even possible? If congress voted overwhelmingly to keep the sanctions then what do they even need Trump for? Can't they go ahead and enact the actions they need on their own?
Executive branch executes the laws. If some US firm bought things from Russia in violation of the sanctions, and Congress order, say, the FBI to arrest their leaders, that would be unconstitutional.
There were four who voted present.
Just 4 - that's progress in my book.
And there are 3 vacant seats. That still doesn't add up to 435. Who else is missing?
North Carolina is currently down a rep, due to cheating.
*Republican-backed election fraud
Call it what it is.
Edit: to all those who keep replying 'It was cheating, that's what it is!' you're missing the point.
Point being this is institutionalized cheating by an elected official of the GOP which loves to sing about voter fraud, all the while were,at least in this circumstance that came to light, facilitating election fraud, not voter fraud, and the two tend to be limited together in popular speech and writing.
That sounds like cheating TBH
420 (yea) + 8 (did not vote) + 4 (present) + 3 (vacant) does in fact = 435.
Ah so it isn't entirely unanimous
Well they didn't vote no.
I don't know the definition of "unanimous" well enough to say it was or wasn't.
Looks like 8 didn't vote at all and 4 voted present. Damn near unanimous
What does it mean to vote “present”?
It's to say "I was present at the vote, but I didn't want to vote either way".
Can anyone tell me a situation where that kind of vote is appropriate and not simply the person being to afraid to actually have conviction and choose a side?.
Maybe your constituency is split down the middle on a certain issue.
It might be that the voter fundamentally disagrees with the premise of the vote, so feels that it would not be right for them to vote either way. Voting present is better in this circumstance than just not showing up as it shows that the non-vote was a deliberate action.
In this scenario, though, I can't see the benefit, other than that they knew voting against it would hurt them politically and they didn't want to vote in favour of it.
They abstain from voting
It means you voted, but specifically didn't choose a side. It's got all sorts of implications. The likely implication here is that these four would have voted No, except that would paint such a massive target on thier backs for being the detractors. So, they voted against Yes anyway, even if that meant it was against No as well.
Nah they just wanted the 420 meme. But really, the support isn't necessarily unanimous, given that some didn't vote, but the vote itself is. In the end it passed unanimously.
I looked it up, and assuming I'm reading it correctly, it's actually happened 9 times just in this session. Note most of these are resolutions or motions - not actually passing bills.
That being said, only 4-5 people voting other than 'Yea' is somewhat less common.
This also holds no merit. It does not make the report public. It just lets Barr know that they want it to be public. Its nothing more than an optics move.
That one time when they ruled that commercials can't be louder than the TV programs
y'all think I'm kidding but.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Advertisement_Loudness_Mitigation_Act
I don't know if it is because the FCC is just failing to enforce that law or if my dad is right and advertisers can just loophole their way around it by compressing the audio file, but there are still way too many ear splittingly loud commercials these days.
I think another loophole is that it is either an average or goes by the loudest point in the tv show or radio. I don’t think it matters the note, so they could play a super loud low note, or for example the Law and Order “gavel” sound and that raises the loudness the commercials can be. Not sure I explained that well but feel that’s one of the loopholes.
I haven't watched traditional TV in a while, but I did notice a reduction in this practice in online advertising (except Netflix previews for some damn reason, those things are was splitting)
Anytime there's a non-binding resolution that makes them look good to their constituents but doesn't actually accomplish anything.
WASHINGTON — House Republicans joined Democrats on Thursday to overwhelmingly demand the Department of Justice release to Congress and the public the full findings of the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and the possible involvement of President Trump’s campaign.
Though the resolution is nonbinding and cannot force the Justice Department to take an particular action, Democrats who put it on the House floor are trying to build public pressure on Attorney General William P. Barr in advance of the investigation’s anticipated conclusion to share what Robert S. Mueller III produces. Far from standing in the way, Republicans joined Democrats en masse. On the 420-0 vote, four Republicans voted present.
Amash Gaetz Gosar and Massie were the ones that voted Present.
Gosar, the gosarian
Gosar the Gosarian? Good evening. As a duly-designated representative of the City, County and State of New York, I order you to cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin, or to the next convenient parallel dimension.
Is that a "we dont want to be on record against it" vote? Whats even the point? Like, we see exactly what youre doing you shit stain cowards, no one is going to misinterpret your action.
"If I vote no it'll be run in 2152684 commercials against me in 2020 if the POTUS ends up in jail anyway, but if I vote present it's slightly less likely" is the thinking.
Easy for dems: Gaetz couldn't even be bothered to vote Yes to release the Mueller report.
These four probably have already drank poison and believe Trump's pardons are the antidote.
Gaetz on campaign trail:
"I did NOT vote to keep the report under wraps. I wanted it as much as anyone else, but since the resolution was non-binding anyway, it made little difference to vote. So as a statement against government waste, in this case "time" being wasted, I refused to vote either way"
This is the soundbyte he was laying the groundwork for when voting "present". And honestly, it's not a terrible strategy in his position.
He's a Republican Congressman in Florida. He could be a kiddy diddler and he'd get reelected.
this is basically all of the U.S. The thing is, metro areas are where people live. This is why those maps that show how red the country is are misleading - that red represents a lot of land where few people live. And more people will continue to move to the metro areas because, surprise, that's where the jobs are.
New Mexico has blue rural areas. One of the reasons I enjoy living here. But I don't know anywhere else in the country like that. Colorado is shifting in that direction but for different reasons from us.
Fuck that. If I were running against any of them, I'd just straight up say they were against releasing the report, assert the narrative.
It signals to their base that they're not on Mueller's side, but it also makes it a little harder to quickly say "you voted against exposing the Mueller report." In practice, it doesn't really accomplish anything. It's like when you plead "no contest" instead of guilty.
4 Republicans Amash Gaetz Gosar and Massie voted Present.
The douche canoe crew, doing their douche canoe, uh...row.
Gaetz that piece of garbage.
Gaetz was the only “no” vote on an anti-human trafficking bill, but can’t vote yes for releasing the Mueller Report? The stupid/evil makes my head hurt.
What was his excuse on the bill? Was it full of other garbage (pork)?
He's friendly with Cindy Yang.
How fun would it be if he got wrapped up in all of this Russia investigation? God damn 2019 might just be Mueller Time!!
Edit: omg thank you for this. made my day
How hasn't he? He's all in on team trump, I can't imagine still holding that position unless he's balls deep in Russia. ...or more likely, vice versa...
"It's devastating to my side, I vote no"
"Your honor, we object to the evidence on the grounds that it's devastating to our case!"
TL;DR: "yeah human trafficking is bad, but we should really be focusing on more important issues like abolishing the EPA and department of education."
Nope, it a bad bill just with a title that requires a yes vote, it was to include anti-trafficking education and other measures for commercial truckers.
His stated reasoning was "mission creep" because in his mind the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration shouldn't be responsible for safety related to motor carriers.
His stated reasoning was "mission creep" because in his mind the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration shouldn't be responsible for safety related to motor carriers.
Pretty standard for most of the wackjob Republicans. They seem to think that most federal agencies shouldn't exist to begin with, and those that do shouldn't actually be doing the thing that's in their agency name. They don't think the IRS should be levying or collecting taxes, the EPA shouldn't protect the environment, and the FBI should only investigate Democrats.
But the ICE should definitely be doing intelligence work!
Very cool, and very legal.
and the FBI should only investigate Democrats.
Good point, the GOP would love to create the FSB
Your last sentence really just summed up the republican platform in general.
They also don’t think the consumers financial protection bureau should protect consumers, or that the environmental protections agency should protect the environment. It’s basically their calling card, to go against logic.
That's why the vote for the 'leopards eating faces' party. They didn't really think they would eat their faces.
Too busy driving drunk to the spa to get a handie
Too busy getting his dad to use his political influence to get the charges dropped and the arresting officer fired.
Floridaman was elected to Congress.
I choose to believe that Amash only voted present so that the tally would land at 420
"Smoke weed everyday" – Amash Dogg
Yeah, Amash is the only proper libertarian in congress. Unfortunately he's also firmly right, so despite him legitimately hating Trump, he also did weird shit like this due to small government or some other weird reasonings. Some of it were reasonable, in veins of something like Bernie's protest votes due to some improper languages. Some, however, just plain libertarian bulls.
Right, but we should be okay with that. Despite disagreeing with him on almost every issue, at least he is consistent in his views and isn't trying to destroy our democracy like every other Republican in Congress.
He has fairly reasonable views that I 100% agree with on things like drug laws, gerrymandering, and government surveillance programs.
He also actually asked a proper question during the Cohen hearing, which is nice.
I'm surprised that Amash voted present, since he's been willing to vote in favor of things like making Trump's tax returns public. Gosar and Gaetz, though, yeah. That makes sense.
Amash is a weird one.
He's certainly no fan of Trump, but he has some pretty extreme libertarian views. So who knows what his problem was with this.
Check his twitter- he usually explains the reasoning for his votes. I don't agree with him on everything but he's a strict Constitutionalist (not just in name like Ted Cruz) and he has some real line of reasoning in eahc vote that goes along with this. He may be the only Republican in Congress with integrity at this point.
Different political views *should* be present in congress... so long as they are actually views and not just convenient arguments picked for certain situations. If more Republicans had the integrity of Amash then we would be in a far different (and better) political situation today.
He was the only R during the Cohen hearing that asked a real question (and an interesting one at that!) then listened to the answer instead of just bitching about a book deal.
OH that was him? Yeah it was a real surprise when that one republican actually started having a proper and well lead interrogation. I agree that that we need more people like him in congress, even if we disagree with their views.
Yeah, he's young and from a family of Palestinian lawyers from Michigan. He's not part of the old boy racist Republican crowd.
Yeah, he's young and from a family of Palestinian lawyer from Michigan.
Did he voice his opinion on the recent Israel discussion? In recent history he was one of very few who weren't super-pro-Israel.
In 2011, Amash was one of six members of Congress who voted against House Resolution 268 reaffirming U.S. commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli–Palestinian negotiation, which passed with 407 members in support.
In 2014, he was one of eight members of Congress who voted against a $225 million package to restock Israel's Iron Dome missile defenses, which passed with 398 members in support. He supports a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
He’s the only one who was even curious about what Cohen has to say about Trump too... I don’t understand that
Ya seriously. Was going to comment he was the only GOP who came across as being calm and collective and actually wanted some stuff answered. Cohen even thanked him for his questions and they had a little laugh together at one point. At the end Amash even came across looking like he understood the position Cohen was in and showed some remorse for him.
Amash baffles me. Sometimes I like him, sometimes I scratch my head.
Both ends of the political spectrum tend to agree with Libertarians half the time and wonder what the hell these people are thinking the other half.
4 Republicans have a sense of humor about the weed number.
Weed is now legal federally. I don't make the rules.
The douche canoe crew
"Someone say crew?" - Lori Loughlin
That resolution is non binding, meaning that Mueller and Attorney General William Barr would not be forced to make any materials public, other than what the special counsel regulations dictate.
The Republican-controlled Senate is not expected to take up the resolution.
It can stil be released by the House. Any member can read it and make public if I am remembering correctly.
The Justice Department doesn't have to give the report to the House, so it could be that no member sees it, only a summarized version possibly heavily editorialized, censored or redacted by AG Barr.
They could subpoena either the full report or Mueller himself to testify before a committee.
And if Barr refuses Congress can refer charges for prosecution to... Barr.
Congress could subpoena anybody in custody of the report, not just Barr.
He would have done goofed if someone other than him is in custody of the report.
When Mueller closes up shop it's not like everyone goes home with a goodie bag containing the final report, a stress ball and a really cool pen.
If Chelsea Manning can do it someone in Mueller's office can too. The intern who steals the report and releases it to the public will be a national hero.
Honestly I have no idea how Mueller himself doesn't keep a copy himself in the event it is redacted past usefulness or altered by Barr or someone else. He's invested far too much to just say "eh, it'll all work out"
This whole thing seems awfully cyclical.
Makes it tough to not be cynical.
And if Barr refuses Congress can refer charges for prosecution to... Barr.
Actually, the house could do a number of actionable things. An no, Barr would not be in charge of his prosecution.
Barr wouldn't be in charge of his own prosecution. Also, the House can hold people in contempt of Congress for refusing to submit to a subpoena can't they?
Whatever you thought about him before, if McConnell blocks the Senate from voting on this, he’s officially an enemy of the people, straight up
He already has been for years.
Yeah there are only so many lines in the sand before we've run out of beach
Mitch will be a foot note in history but we need to make sure it accurately says "Traitor to the people who was imprisoned for life"
Tortiouses live a remarkably long time it will take multiple life sentences
Yeah that's about where I'm already at with him. Same ole Mitch
being an enemy of the people is the prereq to being a republican atm
Well there you have it.
Mitch McConnell: "Doesn't look like anything to me."
Ugh. He’s ruined Westworld now too.
Yeah, I'm so tired of explaining that this will just get shafted in Senate, allowing the GOP to look like they care without actually doing anything meaningful.
And others are equally tired of pointing out that the House noes not need the Senate to release it, so this is just a courtesy to them anyway.
And the Senate probably will not even bring it up for a vote. The GOP must protect the president (putin)
Doubtful. There's a different binding resolution introduced in the Senate to force Mueller to present a report to Congress directly. McConnell will 100% kill that one.
Can’t the House just release it on their own through the House Intelligence Committee? Nunes seemed to be able to release whatever information he wanted when he ran it (even highly cherry picked info).
It would be hard for the GOP to argue against It too, since they all just voted for it to be released..
Yes. Any member of the House that gets it can read it in to the record, making it public. Without legal consequence.
I assume it is 'read' in to the record in the same way I 'read' an EULA? Because someone having to stand on the house floor and actually read through what will likely be a multi-thousand page document is both hilarious and horrifying.
They can, and probably will read parts of it themselves, but they merely state "I want this read in to the record" and it is so. Then anyone who wants to read it can do so.
They should request that and then actually read the important parts. Relying on the public to actually look through and read a document that size is probably not a wise move. Reading excerpts which can then be recorded and used in news broadcasts and quoted by journalists immediately seems like a smarter thing to do.
reporters know the entire report is there. It will get out.
Because someone having to stand on the house floor and actually read through what will likely be a multi-thousand page document is both hilarious and horrifying.
You should read how the Senate used to filibuster. You couldn't be kicked off the Senate floor until you yielded your time, so senators who wanted to filibuster would stand there with a phone book reading names out of it for hours on end until at the supporters of the bill got fed up and left to go home.
Without breaks, too! Can't go to the bathroom, can't sit down (I'd make an exception for Tammy Duckworth on that), need 60 votes to shut the talker up.
I wish we'd go back to that rather than just saying "filibuster" and having it force a cloture vote.
yeah, I get it. reading a phone book for 60 hours isn't exactly productive. but at least it required massive committment by the filibusterer. People wouldn't do it unless they felt really strongly about it.
I hope it's AOC who reads it.
I want them to MAKE a Republican read it one way or another.
As long as AOC sits nearby and uses her teacher voice. As I recall she said she would be a teacher if it weren't for the mess Trump is causing. I could hear her telling the reader, "Say it again, but louder and clearer so we can all hear you."
I expect lots of mumbling over the incriminating parts and loud bursts of faux outrage anytime a Democrat or Cohen is mentioned.
As it stands, the special counsel is required to submit a report to Barr. Barr, in turn, decides what (if anything) to release to congress. That's why these resolutions are being introduced, but with McConnell they're unlikely to go anywhere.
Schiff and House committees can subpoena the report (which will probably turn into a court battle) or Mueller himself to testify. And that's exactly what Schiff has been threatening if Barr holds anything back.
I thought that under the special counsel rules if the attorney general decides to not make the report public it's automatically sent to Congress.
No, that's not one of the regulations. You may be thinking of this one:
Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
That's notifying congress if Mueller wanted to take some action but the AG killed it. But that's different than the final report and Mueller's report is only sent to the AG.
This would be a great opportunity for 69 Senators to vote yes on it.
which is why R's in the house had no problem voting yes.
Wait, am I reading this title right? Republicans voted to make it public too?
Yeah cuz then they can play the "good guy" card all while knowing it's not gonna go anywhere in the senate. Not to mention it's non-binding and the DoJ doesn't have to do anything with it.
House GOP can for for this because they know the gop Senate will vote it down. Gives them a "both sides non partizan" bullshit narritive to run on.
McConnell probably won't even let it go to a vote, because they are so scared that a wildcard GOP might actually do the right thing.
It's gotten to the point where republicans voting rationally feels quite disconcerting. Like, I know it's silly and paranoid, but I can't help but feel like they're up to something.
Everyone should want the Mueller report to be public!
Half the nation thinks it will be the undoing of Drumpf and the other half think it will somewhat clear the president. I have a feeling it will leave both sides unsatisfied.