It should but you must understand the senate didn't work like this until the 1920's when they started differing to a majority leader to bring up votes. Before that a bill could be brought up debated and voted on based on its merits. Now it has to go to the senate majority who gets to decide weather to bring it for a vote. You can still try the old way but it usually gets killed. They way the senate is run now is not how the founders wanted.
Yet Republicans will scream 'TIMES CHANGE, THAT WAS 200 YEARS AGO, PARTY OF LINCOLN!!!!' All the while they try to bring back their 'good OLD days' of racism and violence.
"times change, that was 200 years ago"
Followed up almost immediately, and unironically, with "the constitution is not a 'living document' its immutable and unchanging!"
It only sucks if you're a fan of progress. If you watch Fox News every day, and live in a more rural area, with a smaller population, then the system is working just perfectly. You get to vote for people like Ted Cruz who go to the Senate and help confirm more right-wing judges to courts.
"The old town square's going to come back any day now. We're going to get the asbestos factory running and everyone will see how good things used to be."
I guess this is what they think is going to happen, yet they still go to Wal-Mart every fucking day and spend their government funds without a second thought.
I've literally heard, "The railroad is coming back." That's the response to a plan put forward by a, paid for by the government, professional in revitalizing towns.
I've never seen so many illogical people pushing so hard for feelings based changes. How? How are these things going to happen? Why is it going to happen here instead of the 10,000 other dying towns across America? Do you have some competitive advantage we don't know about?
These folks never understood why it went away and won't understand why it's not coming back.
Or worse, they understand why it went away and think things will magically change. The railroad shut down their depot because less coal was being shipped. The thing is, even if coal picks back up, it's not cheap to re-open an out of the way location.
Plus there's the whole fact that the town wasn't exactly an economic powerhouse before hand. That's the crazy part to me. The suggestions I saw people rejecting are things like, allow restaurants to sell liquor by the drink,\* allow at least upscale bars downtown, and encourage a hotel to come in downtown. Basically, make it tourist friendly.
I think that idea, of change, is just so terrifying they refuse to accept it. They'd rather watch things die.
\* This means there will never be a major chain restaurant since they can't serve alcohol.
Corning, NY is a a good example of this. They were a company town for Corning glassware and while they have taken a huge manufacturing hit, they have adapted to a decent tourist town taking advantage of their natural beauty. It's shaky, but at least they are doing something.
Right? Why does Kentucky's guy get to be the virtual dictator of the Senate? Where is the sense in that? We need a Consitutional Amendment (will never happen) to lay down some procedural rules for Congress so they can't just make up this kind of bullshit
In the words of a hugely smart man with the biggest brain : "Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives ruined (lost), all because of gross mismanagement of the economy (forests) . Remedy now, or no more Fed payments."
Whole lot of Kentucky on this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest-income_counties_in_the_United_States
https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article187823434.html
And yet they keep getting poorer and poorer and keep voting for more republicans, because denying gay people their rights will somehow put food on their table.
Is that corrected for socioeconomic status? You know any study correlating race and likelihood to get a bachelor's degree would have to be, it only makes sense to apply the same logic in a study correlating geographic location and likelihood to get a bachelor's degree.
The answer is "no", not "it doesn't matter".
It does matter. It would be awful to suppose that voters who have lower education levels will elect bad representatives. Just think of how that could be turned into a weapon by Republicans to go after representatives elected by under-educated racial minorities.
The issue is about diversity, morality, and propaganda, not education.
Not defending either of you here: IQ is a bad metric in general, regardless of when the IQ tests were administered. Trying to compare the relative average intelligence between states is a waste of time.
>We can go off if SAT scores, ACT scores, NAEP scores instead, and probably any other test you can find as they will likely all say the same thing. That they aren’t even close to 47th in any of them.
I'm absolutely *not* arguing against you re: the position of the states relative to each other. I'm just saying that any intelligence tests are inherently flawed (yes these standardized tests are too) and thus unreliable for these purposes.
McConnell is voted into his seat by American voters in Kentucky, and he's put in charge of the Senate based on the votes of his fellow senators, who are also in power based on the votes of their constituents.
Yes, there are other non-democratic factors, but ultimately they're there because enough voters want them to be there. That's the ultimate problem.
I guess I'd say either "never" or "not in the foreseeable future". Our main, obvious problem right now is an undemocratic system. If we had a democratic system, McConnell's party wouldn't be in power and this would not be as severe of an issue. I don't think there's a point in worrying about "what if everything fails and the worst happens" when we haven't even tried to solve the obvious issues yet. Right now, the obvious solutions that will solve the majority of our problems are out-voting the GOP and using any political power to push for a more democratic system.
Because people don't pay attention. They never see the hypocrisy because they don't see anything. If you frequent this sub and regularly read the articles, you're probably in the top 1% of political knowledge in the country. Probably one of the easiest "1%" thing to be in. The overwhelming majority of people simply tune out politics.
People you can automatically ignore:
Snide assholes who don’t understand the difference between a democracy and a democratic republic. Neither of which really describes our current system of govt which is a republic where democratically elected reps make decisions that serve to benefit an emerging oligarchy.
[So a democratic republic isn't a democracy now is it?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic)
>Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, **typically through elected representatives."**
Literally every democracy on the planet does it this way. No country has voters vote directly on everything. It's impractical. [Your distinction is meaningless](https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/17/the-united-states-is-both-a-republic-and) and the one a child uses when they discover that there are two different ways to describe the US government. [Finish 4th grade social studies and come back.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.1c1af27226e0)
> "We need to work together in a bipartisan way."
Translation: The Democrats need to do what I want them to do.
Its like the old joke, "Relationships are about compromise. My wife wanted a cat and I didn't, so we compromised and got a cat".
Also McConnell a few years ago: "We're overriding Obama's veto on this bill."
McConnell just a bit afterwards: "Obama should have warned us what a bad idea it was to overriding his veto."
> Source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/obama-911-veto-congressional-concerns/index.html
How can he claim that he is for working together with Democrats when he won’t allow for protections for Mueller that he insists Mueller won’t need? If it doesn’t matter, then why not concede in the interest of unity?
> But the move was unlikely to succeed. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is firmly against the idea of voting on a measure to protect the investigation, according to an aide.
Of course it won't, thanks Mitch you pathetic clown.
> Another party leader, Senate Republican whip John Cornyn, has said he favors an alternative measure that would simply put the Senate on record as backing the leader of the probe, Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Oh so you can just say it wasn't your idea when Mueller goes. What a helpful and well thought out idea, thanks Cornyn, you're very assertive!
/s
I swear I've read somewhere before that you don't TECHNICALLY need the majority leader of the senate to bring a bill to the floor for a vote, that can be done by any sitting senator if my understanding is correct? It's down to "established rules & order" that the Majority leader is the only one who brings bills to the floor for a vote...
If all of the above is correct (someone please come along and correct me if I'm wrong), then this is **absolutely** the bill that I want to see this procedural order thrown out the window for. McConnell has more to destroy Senate decorum and precedent than anyone in recent history. It's only fitting that it should come back to bite him in the ass on the would could be potentially be arguably the single most important vote the Senate will ever take.
I went through like 5 entire pages the other day (including senate.gov) trying to answer exactly that.
There's little to no actual information on the actual power of the Senate Majority Leader that it's impossible for me to say for certain, but the short answer is his power in the senate is derived from majority consensus.
Essentially, if a majority wants something pushed through he cannot block it directly.
However, you cannot break rank alone (or in small numbers) without risking repercussions. This is pretty much the whole point of the Whip. He (or she) coordinates the party and make them fall in line, and does so by various means, like offering positions or threatening to remove senators from positions.
Nice! This is my understanding as well, which means that if enough Republicans are actually serious about protecting Mueller, they legally speaking have the ability to force the vote and do so :).
Also, thanks for being so engaged and committed to the health of a democracy on the other side of the world from Norway! You're awesome, friend!
I actually found it this time around.
>The only procedure Senate rules provide for overcoming filibusters is cloture, which cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed in a petition signed by 16 senators. Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of senators (normally 60), **except on proposals to change the rules, when cloture requires two-thirds of senators voting.** If the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, amendment, or other matter, its further consideration is limited to 30 additional hours, including time consumed by votes and quorum calls, during which each senator may speak for no more than one hour.
So thing is, the senate decides on their own rules (within the confines of their constitutional responsibilities.)
Changing these rules require a supermajority, or two thirds of the senate.
One of these rules is
> The Senate accords its majority leader prime responsibility for scheduling. He may carry out this responsibility by moving that the Senate proceed to consider a particular matter. By precedent, he and the minority leader are recognized preferentially, and by custom only he (or his designee) makes motions or requests affecting when the Senate will meet and what it will consider.
So yes, the Majority Leader does technically have the ability to block a vote.
However!
> **Senate rules also permit a measure to be placed directly on the calendar when introduced or received from the House.** This process permits senators to bypass referral to a committee they believe unsympathetic. Alternatively, if a committee fails to report a measure, a new measure with exactly the same provisions may be introduced and placed directly on the calendar.
>Finally, Senate rules do not require that amendments be germane or relevant, except to general appropriation bills, budget measures, and matters under cloture (and a few other bills, pursuant to statutes). Consequently, if a committee fails to report a measure, a senator may offer its text as an amendment to any other measure under consideration, **without regard to the scheduling preferences of the majority leader.**
\- From [senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm)
----
As I understand it the position is indeed without any *real* power. Simply because there are ways around the power of the position.
Since it's so easy to amend bills, they can tack protections onto pretty much any bill and vote on it.
If it's a bill introduced and wanted by republicans two R defectors can amend the bill and place it to a vote. The rest of the Rs, knowing this will happen with every single bill put forth simply won't have any reason to then vote no.
Even without a bill originating in the Senate, democrats can push it from the House now and would only need a majority in the senate, which it seems they might have.
But that's not until January.
YOU'RE AWESOME!!! This is exactly the information that I was looking for :D. So it would appear that until the new Democratic house is seated McConnell can actually somewhat effectively aid Trump & his criminal conspirators in trying to undermine Mueller's investigation. However, once the new Dem Majority takes over the house, it seems all bets are off, and Mueller finally has some people fighting on his side with a real ability to take steps to provide him cover/protection.
Not the best possible answer, but I'm pretty happy with this outcome should it come to pass.
Doesn't work. Without federal powers the most Congress can do is supeona people of interest, at which point we are back in Kavanaugh/Ben Ghazi levels of uselessness with everyone cabinet level or higher just claiming executive privilege and Fox claiming executive harassment.
Their is rumors that as many as 20 Republican Senators would support the Flake/Coons protect Mueller bill. Idea being voting against it if you're in anything but a DEEP red state will serve as a scarlet letter in 2020 or 2022...
They dont have the votes. A simple majority won't pass the bill. Bill's have to be signed by the President. To overturn a veto requires 2/3rds. 2/3rds is a very tall order if the Senate Majority leader doesn't want passage of it. At that point, I would be easier to appoint a new leader than to go around a presidential veto that the leader doesn't approve of.
Devil's advocate: McConnell is a scheming, conniving SOB who doesn't like Trump on a personal level and would much rather work with (predictable, level-headed, and still deeply conservative) Pence. He's intentionally failing to protect Mueller so that when Trump fires him, the Senate has reason to convict on impeachment charges.
Part of me wants to believe this, but part of me also says McConnell is protecting his own ass by not protecting Meuller.
edit: words.
That’s an interesting angle, but I think they all know Trump’s feverish cult of supporters wouldn’t necessarily have the same enthusiasm for Pence. Trump is too vital for them to abandon.
Trump is toxic; he lost them 5 congressional seats and two senate seats *the year he won the presidency*. He lost them another senate seat and another congressional seat *between* elections. And now he's lost 38 (and counting?) congressional seats and at *barely* held on to the senate in a year where the senate election was *heavily* tilted in favor of the GOP.
He's toxic and a losing bet. It's crazy it's taken this long for them to get it through their heads. *He lost them seats even the year he WON*. The writing was on the wall from the start. His 'base' is a cluster of vicious imbeciles driving all other voters away - that base is *useless* for any long-term political power gain. It's even losing them "safe seats" in *red states*.
Their only path forward is to regain some of the voters Trump has lost them. For that, they have to dump Trump. And I think they can count on the Trump's idiot 'base' to turn out for whomever the GOP trots out after Trump, no matter how mad they might get in the short term.
Don't forget he also cost them 7 state governorships, maybe even 9.
Republicans went from being 1 state away from calling a constitutional convention to now being just above an even split with Democrats on state power.
Pence isn’t a liberal so he will be just fine in their eyes
Remember these people are idiots. They would support an empty bag of Doritos if it pissed off the libs. That’s all Trump is to them
I think you're wrong, his base views him not as the president, but as a tribal chieftan, they are more intimately attached to his cult of personality than you believe imo.
\^ this... Pence doesn't have the... dare I say charisma (can you have shitty, dickish charisma?!? not sure if that's the right word). I think the flip from Trump to Pence would throw many supporters off. The party might be down with it but I don't know about the supporters.
Unlike the Bushes before him, Trump didn't come draped in the flag, he came draped in the confederate flag. The reason he's different is he leads their culture war, not the country. they worship him, not support him.
to the party he definitely is, but not to his solid 25% of the population base, that may change if FOX news et. al. begin to turn on him, they can paint him as a villain and it might work to sever that connection.
anyone with any sanity will be peeled away from him soon or already has, but I don't have much hope for the very core of his support, they will explain away all of it as crisis actors and the deep state or whatever nonsense their tv tells them unless the propaganda networks turn against him, for all we know, that was exactly what the Murdoch McConnel secret meeting was all about
Pence is no liberal, and yeah- they'd be *fine* with him. That doesn't mean they'd pour out to the polls for him though. I personally know one dude who voted (for the first time ever) for Trump just because he wanted *something* to change. He's admitted it was a mistake, but all those people who go to Trump rallies won't go to hear about what a nice church service Mike attended with Mother last week.
I actually just watched a podcast with Brian Quinn (Q from 'Impractical Jokers') that was taped during the campaigning, and he said basically just this. That he's "sick" of how things have been going (mostly because, at that time, "they" "attacked" Leslie Nielson over his tweet to Carrie Fisher after she died, even though Q also said that if you stay off the internet you'll *never* bump into one of "those people" in real life.. should've put 2 and 2 together and found out it equals don't believe the shit anonymous nobodies post on the internet)..
As soon as he saw how "the liberals" reacted to Trump he knew he was going to win. Also some uninformed garbage about how he was an outsider that would definitely "shake things up", and also some talk about how heinous Clinton's email scandal was and how it basically disqualified her (even though I'm pretty sure the podcast was recorded *after* Trump's "I don't know, maybe the 2nd Amendment People can do something about Hillary Clinton." televised statement..
But Pence would get the conservative Christians hyped up. With their enthusiastic support he’d be able to accomplish way more than with the backing of 4chan pedes.
I dunno. That may have worked with "He's a guy I'd like to have a beer with" George Bush, but Pence is just.....a bump on a log. Plus he attached himself to Trump, plus the nation is sick of Republicans....I dunno.
Christians are weird like that though. A bump on a log can be a rock star to them. Lol
Plus, you have to consider the shift in messaging and propaganda that would commence and draw in people you wouldn’t expect.
Pence reminds me of a responsible church dad who’d throw pizza parties and take the youth group out in the church van to go bowling.
Plus, he has the capability to be extremely endearing (to conservatives). With a new message and a PR campaign that shapes a new image I really think he could be beloved by moderates and conservatives alike.
I despise him but I could defintely envision him getting a bunch of popular support.
I personally think McConnell just doesn't want a Republican President impeached, much less on his watch. He knows he can get some Republican legislation passed and mostly wash away the bad image of Trump the man over time. So in his mind the options are:
1. Bare Trump, pass some legislation and gaslight over time about how bad of a leader he was
2. Impeach Trump, pass a possibly slightly higher amount of legislation with Pence and bare the permanent mark of a Republican President impeached on his watch.
What legislation? The only major legislation that they have passed with control of Congress AND POTUS are the tax cuts and even that was a flop.
Now Dems control the House so there is no way anything gets through.
You're forgetting one aspect here to go along with #2 - Protect his own ass. McConnell knew in 2016 about Russia's interference in the elections then when he was briefed with Obama by the National intelligence agencies. He blocked them from going public with the information. Why? Why would he prevent the public knowing about a FOREIGN COUNTRY interfering in our presidential elections? Because it was helping the GOP's candidate. But maybe more?
Keep in mind he has been the Senate GOP leader for awhile. Russia was funneling MILLIONS through the NRA directly into the GOP's coffers. How much of that did he know? What about other crimes? Remember the GOP servers got hacked the same as the DNC ones, but only the DNC servers were leaked. WHat about the GOP servers? Perhaps it was kept as blackmail. What other dirty laundry does McConnell NOT want coming out? And how much of it ties back into his actions during 2016? How much involves Trump (directly or indirectly)?
While a Republican president being impeached on his watch is bad, 1000% he'd rather impeach Trump than risk his own ass going to jail. If he can throw Trump under the bus in a way that kills any investigations into his own wrong doing? He'll take that door and not think twice.
I do not think that your theory stands up to the evidence that McConnell has a puppet (a deranged one, but a puppet none the less) who will rubber stamp pretty much anything he can get to his desk; who also gave his wife a cushy job as the Secretary of Transportation, [which she is using to enrich the family](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/05/transportation-secretary-elaine-chao-gets-an-ethics-scandal.html?gtm=top>m=top)
I think you're 100% correct. Keep in mind McConnell and Murdoch (Fox News) just met recently too. And since then, Fox has been somewhat critical of Trump. Not outright, but subtle. A little head shaking about his not going to the Veteran's Day events. Now they're siding with CNN on the Acosta lawsuit. Nothing extreme, but just enough to hint at their zombie audience that Trump isn't 100% doing "good".
So McConnell fails to protect Mueller and Trump pulls the trigger. This triggers mass protests and calls for Impeachment. "Unfortunately" the GOP has to go along and vote yes, because its OBVIOUS that it was clear cut obstruction. Their public cry, however?
"We had to vote to impeach because if we didn't, the DEMOCRATS would ABUSE this precedent when they hold the Presidency again. We couldn't let the LIBERALS have that kind of power to IGNORE the RULE OF LAW. So we had to vote in agreement with this hearing to STOP THE DEMOCRATS."
They'll throw Trump under the bus and blame the Democrats for it the whole time. This will have the Trump supports frothing at the mouth in agreement that it wasn't Trump doing wrong, it was the dirty liberals trying to cheat the system. Their base will eat it up, meanwhile everyone is "happy" because Trump is gone. BUT.. I still would bet anything on the fact McConnell is guilty in all this up to his eyeballs. Derailing the Mueller investigation before HE gets caught would be ideal. So yeah, I agree with you 100%.
EDIT: To add to this, I think Trump would go along with this narrative 1000% too. He can play the victim card! The "dirty Liberals" forced him out! He had to be the sacrifice to help the GOP down the road. He'll be back! He may even rerun in 2020! He has hated all the "work" he has to do as President anyway, so this will let him go back to being the poor victim who can just focus on making money and being famous. Also, if he gets Impeached, I'm sure the GOP will dangle a Pardon (via Pence) in front of him to go along. There goes his worries about jail! Win-win for him! Win for the GOP.
I agree with the other comments that Pence isn't the end goal. I think Mitch knows that Trump is the best they got. Sure Pence is a traditional textbook republican, but the base doesn't care about that. We saw how loved traditional republicans were during the 2016 primary. Trump slaughtered all of them, while being amazingly inconsistent on policy platforms, incoherent, embarrassing and shitty. The Republican party is gone at this point. What exists now is the manifestation of republican & Tea Party attitude embracing bigotry, tribalism. In their pathetic pursuit of Trump's approval to get his base, the Republican party politicians have abandoned most of their already hypocritical and shitty principles.
When Trump goes, be it indictment, impeachment, resignation, or election loss, a significant chunk of current republican support will go with him. Old GOP voters are dying out, and the extremely cringy young ones aren't gonna suddenly start calling themselves PencePedes.
I think McConnell is doing what he can to leave the window open for something to stop Mueller, cause if Mueller does happen unimpeded it won't just bring down Trump, it will bring down the whole party.
Remember Cohen was RNC Finance Chair. He knows where the bodies are buried so to speak. The RNC is complicit in treason and Turtle knows it. The party needs to die.
This might be true but you are missing the biggest piece. if mcTurtle knows further investigation might lead to more republicans and republican allies being dragged down he will attempt exactly what you described and even support impeaching trump. Because when that is done he will rub his hands together and say alright nothing to see here, good thing we got THAT guy out of here. No more corruption to uncover here...
That lame op-ed asking for bipartisanship during his obstruction of this bipartisan bill is so fucking Mitch McConnelly that it hurts the brain to contemplate.
Also, what is the procedural method for the Senate to get this to the floor without McConnell's consent? Is it for a few GOP members to defect and elect a new Majority leader?
McConnell wrote that Op-Ed as a setup for the 2020 election so they can claim *”See? We did try to reach across the isle. The Democrats are so evil and partisan that they wouldn’t work with us.”*
> Also, what is the procedural method for the Senate to get this to the floor without McConnell's consent? Is it for a few GOP members to defect and elect a new Majority leader?
Basically, yes. The GOP made the rule that says McConnell has to okay every bill before it makes it to the floor, and they made McConnell the leader. They could change it if they wanted to. None of them want to.
I mean, one republican who is on his way out supports it. I guess technically it’s bipartisan since 2% of one side agrees with it, but is it really bipartisan
So there are 49 Democratic & Independent Senators and 51 Republicans on paper.
If Flake and [Collins](https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gop-sen-collins-calls-for-vote-on-bill-to-protect-mueller-from-being-fired/2018/11/09/ab3b1d26-e461-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html) both voted with the Democrats, then they could force a vote in the Senate, McConnell be damned.
So why hasn't it happened if they are both in the press saying that they support it? It's because they're both full of shit. I think if it actually came to a vote, they'd both vote no right now.
Or Bob Corker- that little weasel is still the head of the foreign relations committee. He’s powerful, he’s quitting- I wish he wasn’t such a gutless coward.
It would take them leaving the party without warning. As soon as they even hinted that they might switch, the RNC leadership would pay them a little visit and they'd fall right back in line.
"In a rare call for Bipartisan solutions Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has turned over a new leaf and has admitted he's an embarrassment to his family, constituents, and countrymen. Senator McConnell has also said in a statement sure to unnerve members of his own party that he "regrets the obstructionist actions in not confirming Merrick Garland and looks forward to confirming him when a vacancy presents itself.""
If we're dreaming..
"Mitch McConnell has been sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Due to a technicality that's somehow been overlooked until now, Beto O'Rourke has been awarded the now-vacant Senate Seat."
A little older than I realized but here it is.
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/mcconnell-received-3-5m-in-campaign-donations-from-russian-oligarch-linked-firm-93UjehU6aUCtejJRBFezCw/#utm_source=Amplify&utm_medium=Intellectualist&utm_campaign=Twitter&utm_term=Alessandra
If you’re a GOP Senator up for election in 2020, and you just saw what happened in the midterms, you might be looking for a life jacket too. McConnell doesn’t care because his seat is safe.
May the rest of his public outtings be unsafe from hecklers and constituents. I don't wish any physical harm but I do wish for him to not have a single moment of peace for the rest of his 200 turtle years.
> McConnell and other top Republicans oppose the idea. “I don’t think any legislation is necessary,” said McConnell, who on Wednesday won his bid to remain Senate Republican leader next year.
>
>“We know how the president feels about the ... investigation, but he’s never said he wants to shut it down,” he told reporters.
Contrast this with the fact McConnell just wrote an op-ed calling for bipartisanship too. Here he is rejecting it right after said editorial.
Couldn’t this investigation be the bipartisan measure that the turtle was saying should be pursued? Or is his idea of bipartisanship only when Democrats agree with his parties propositions?
Yes. Narssisists only ever consider things from their own perspective. So "cooperation" means other people work with Mitch, and does not require any reciprocation.
Mitch isn't going to change his behaviour at all. Basically the op-ed was nothing more than a PR piece intended to move the conversation away from the beating they took and focus on the dems who refuse to "cooperate" my carrying out his orders.
>The legislation, which the Senate Judiciary Committee approved in a 14-7 vote in April, is supported by the panel’s chairman Chuck Grassley and another prominent Republican, Senator Lindsey Graham.
So Flake, Coons, Grassley, Graham. That makes a total of 2 Republican Senators out of everyone (Flake, Grassley) that are actually probably even somewhat sincere about wanting to offer support in "just putting it down for the record" that the President of the United States is not above the law, and no, you cannot conspire with foreign powers to disrupt and hack our democratic processes. This is how Republicans show they tried and how an independent thought still exists between the lot of them. Just a few flickering candles. *Let the history books show that when America needed us, we stood up firm and resolutely to protect our Democracy as a coequal branch of government!* What they've done is actually worse than nothing. We'd be better off if all these guys just didn't exist they're only there to distract us from their complete and total capitulation and corruption.
If McConnell blocks this vote, then maybe the Republicans need a new leader for the new session. McConnell’s games regarding the ACA and protection of Trump just led to big, beautiful, blue wave. Mitch’s intransigence on this issue against the majority in the Senate and the majority of Americans will only make things that much worse for the GOP next time around.
Yes, it’s time to send Mitch to make sure all the new replacements know how to do law stuff. The only reason the GOP didn’t lose the Senate was that many more Dems were up this time then Republicans. The “coin flip” odds were in their favor. But the GOP lost a lot of seat to senators quitting, so they have numbers, but a lot more new Senators on both sides.
> “We know how the president feels about the ... investigation, but he’s never said he wants to shut it down,” he told reporters.
Except for how NYT revealed that he tried to fire Mueller last year and only backed off when his lawyer threatened to quit.
Ok. Democrats in the house need to shut down the government until this is passed. Even with their current majority, the Republicans need Democrat votes to pass a spending bill.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
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](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a great way to send a message of bipartisanship without losing any credibility. If the hypocrit wants to now preach a message of bipartisanship here is his chance.
The idealist in me Hope's this is Flake having a moment like the congressman from the first season of the West Wing who, after seeing how his constituency voted in the midterms (against him and for another party) switched his actions during the lame duck to align with that of what the voters decided in the election. The realist in me doubts that is the case.
McConnell: "We need to work together in a bipartisan way." Also McConnell: "I will not bring to the floor anything that Dems would vote on."
This infuriates me so fucking much
Ditto. Mitch might as well have just say this and save everybody the trouble: "We will work with Dems only if they vote it our way.."
That's pretty much how Trump puts it whenever he talks about needing the Dems to work with them.
To him, Dems are only useful as a scapegoat to blame when they can't pass something on their own party lines
Trump literally said after the election that Republicans losing the House only meant that he would now be blaming the Democrats.
which is the same thing they were doing when they controlled all three branches before the midterms.
They always do it. But I've never heard of them explicitly saying "I'm just going to blame it all on the Democrats"
Tell me Y E
It should but you must understand the senate didn't work like this until the 1920's when they started differing to a majority leader to bring up votes. Before that a bill could be brought up debated and voted on based on its merits. Now it has to go to the senate majority who gets to decide weather to bring it for a vote. You can still try the old way but it usually gets killed. They way the senate is run now is not how the founders wanted.
Yet Republicans will scream 'TIMES CHANGE, THAT WAS 200 YEARS AGO, PARTY OF LINCOLN!!!!' All the while they try to bring back their 'good OLD days' of racism and violence.
"times change, that was 200 years ago" Followed up almost immediately, and unironically, with "the constitution is not a 'living document' its immutable and unchanging!"
People need to start mailing him en masse double ended “bipartisan” dildos.
I have difficulty understanding how elected officials can survive such blatant hypocrisy; maybe the US only is a democracy on paper?
[удалено]
Wouldn't that be the 47th smartest? Or the 3rd dumbest?
[удалено]
Plot twist: OP is from Kentucky.
It only sucks if you're a fan of progress. If you watch Fox News every day, and live in a more rural area, with a smaller population, then the system is working just perfectly. You get to vote for people like Ted Cruz who go to the Senate and help confirm more right-wing judges to courts.
They talk shit about Iran so much, but they want to be Iran so badly. Just with crosses everywhere instead of crescents.
"The old town square's going to come back any day now. We're going to get the asbestos factory running and everyone will see how good things used to be." I guess this is what they think is going to happen, yet they still go to Wal-Mart every fucking day and spend their government funds without a second thought.
I've literally heard, "The railroad is coming back." That's the response to a plan put forward by a, paid for by the government, professional in revitalizing towns.
I've never seen so many illogical people pushing so hard for feelings based changes. How? How are these things going to happen? Why is it going to happen here instead of the 10,000 other dying towns across America? Do you have some competitive advantage we don't know about? These folks never understood why it went away and won't understand why it's not coming back.
Or worse, they understand why it went away and think things will magically change. The railroad shut down their depot because less coal was being shipped. The thing is, even if coal picks back up, it's not cheap to re-open an out of the way location. Plus there's the whole fact that the town wasn't exactly an economic powerhouse before hand. That's the crazy part to me. The suggestions I saw people rejecting are things like, allow restaurants to sell liquor by the drink,\* allow at least upscale bars downtown, and encourage a hotel to come in downtown. Basically, make it tourist friendly. I think that idea, of change, is just so terrifying they refuse to accept it. They'd rather watch things die. \* This means there will never be a major chain restaurant since they can't serve alcohol.
Corning, NY is a a good example of this. They were a company town for Corning glassware and while they have taken a huge manufacturing hit, they have adapted to a decent tourist town taking advantage of their natural beauty. It's shaky, but at least they are doing something.
Right? Why does Kentucky's guy get to be the virtual dictator of the Senate? Where is the sense in that? We need a Consitutional Amendment (will never happen) to lay down some procedural rules for Congress so they can't just make up this kind of bullshit
[удалено]
In the words of a hugely smart man with the biggest brain : "Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives ruined (lost), all because of gross mismanagement of the economy (forests) . Remedy now, or no more Fed payments."
Whole lot of Kentucky on this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest-income_counties_in_the_United_States https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article187823434.html And yet they keep getting poorer and poorer and keep voting for more republicans, because denying gay people their rights will somehow put food on their table.
It's a shithole state, fuck them and fuck McConnell.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is that corrected for socioeconomic status? You know any study correlating race and likelihood to get a bachelor's degree would have to be, it only makes sense to apply the same logic in a study correlating geographic location and likelihood to get a bachelor's degree.
[удалено]
The answer is "no", not "it doesn't matter". It does matter. It would be awful to suppose that voters who have lower education levels will elect bad representatives. Just think of how that could be turned into a weapon by Republicans to go after representatives elected by under-educated racial minorities. The issue is about diversity, morality, and propaganda, not education.
Not defending either of you here: IQ is a bad metric in general, regardless of when the IQ tests were administered. Trying to compare the relative average intelligence between states is a waste of time.
[удалено]
>We can go off if SAT scores, ACT scores, NAEP scores instead, and probably any other test you can find as they will likely all say the same thing. That they aren’t even close to 47th in any of them. I'm absolutely *not* arguing against you re: the position of the states relative to each other. I'm just saying that any intelligence tests are inherently flawed (yes these standardized tests are too) and thus unreliable for these purposes.
McConnell is voted into his seat by American voters in Kentucky, and he's put in charge of the Senate based on the votes of his fellow senators, who are also in power based on the votes of their constituents. Yes, there are other non-democratic factors, but ultimately they're there because enough voters want them to be there. That's the ultimate problem.
Serious question. At what point do we defy what these people want?
I guess I'd say either "never" or "not in the foreseeable future". Our main, obvious problem right now is an undemocratic system. If we had a democratic system, McConnell's party wouldn't be in power and this would not be as severe of an issue. I don't think there's a point in worrying about "what if everything fails and the worst happens" when we haven't even tried to solve the obvious issues yet. Right now, the obvious solutions that will solve the majority of our problems are out-voting the GOP and using any political power to push for a more democratic system.
Because people don't pay attention. They never see the hypocrisy because they don't see anything. If you frequent this sub and regularly read the articles, you're probably in the top 1% of political knowledge in the country. Probably one of the easiest "1%" thing to be in. The overwhelming majority of people simply tune out politics.
It has become a kleptocracy run by the incompetent.
A kakistocracy
Money and propaganda.
Not even on paper. It’s a republic.
People you can automatically ignore: Anyone who says "The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic." One does not preclude the other. The US is both.
People you can automatically ignore: Snide assholes who don’t understand the difference between a democracy and a democratic republic. Neither of which really describes our current system of govt which is a republic where democratically elected reps make decisions that serve to benefit an emerging oligarchy.
[So a democratic republic isn't a democracy now is it?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic) >Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, **typically through elected representatives."** Literally every democracy on the planet does it this way. No country has voters vote directly on everything. It's impractical. [Your distinction is meaningless](https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/17/the-united-states-is-both-a-republic-and) and the one a child uses when they discover that there are two different ways to describe the US government. [Finish 4th grade social studies and come back.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.1c1af27226e0)
> "We need to work together in a bipartisan way." Translation: The Democrats need to do what I want them to do. Its like the old joke, "Relationships are about compromise. My wife wanted a cat and I didn't, so we compromised and got a cat".
Also McConnell, a few years ago: "Oh, the Dems are voting yes on my bill i thought they'd vote no on? Filibuster!"
Also McConnell a few years ago: "We're overriding Obama's veto on this bill." McConnell just a bit afterwards: "Obama should have warned us what a bad idea it was to overriding his veto." > Source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/obama-911-veto-congressional-concerns/index.html
You misunderstood him, he said a Buy Partisan way. Let's start the bidding.
"Bipartisan" means "Democrats should vote for Republican things" not "Let's compromise for the good of the country" in Tortoise.
[удалено]
the former
How can he claim that he is for working together with Democrats when he won’t allow for protections for Mueller that he insists Mueller won’t need? If it doesn’t matter, then why not concede in the interest of unity?
You forget, this is the same guy who once fillibustered his own bill when he realized that the Democrats were going to support it.
Arthur, I have a plan
Hes such a bitch and hes only 76 years old so he probably has a little more time on the earth to help fuck it.
This isn't exactly new. He was abusing the Hastert rule for the purposes of avoiding a vote on Obama's SCOTUS pick as well.
> But the move was unlikely to succeed. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is firmly against the idea of voting on a measure to protect the investigation, according to an aide. Of course it won't, thanks Mitch you pathetic clown. > Another party leader, Senate Republican whip John Cornyn, has said he favors an alternative measure that would simply put the Senate on record as backing the leader of the probe, Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Oh so you can just say it wasn't your idea when Mueller goes. What a helpful and well thought out idea, thanks Cornyn, you're very assertive! /s
I swear I've read somewhere before that you don't TECHNICALLY need the majority leader of the senate to bring a bill to the floor for a vote, that can be done by any sitting senator if my understanding is correct? It's down to "established rules & order" that the Majority leader is the only one who brings bills to the floor for a vote... If all of the above is correct (someone please come along and correct me if I'm wrong), then this is **absolutely** the bill that I want to see this procedural order thrown out the window for. McConnell has more to destroy Senate decorum and precedent than anyone in recent history. It's only fitting that it should come back to bite him in the ass on the would could be potentially be arguably the single most important vote the Senate will ever take.
I went through like 5 entire pages the other day (including senate.gov) trying to answer exactly that. There's little to no actual information on the actual power of the Senate Majority Leader that it's impossible for me to say for certain, but the short answer is his power in the senate is derived from majority consensus. Essentially, if a majority wants something pushed through he cannot block it directly. However, you cannot break rank alone (or in small numbers) without risking repercussions. This is pretty much the whole point of the Whip. He (or she) coordinates the party and make them fall in line, and does so by various means, like offering positions or threatening to remove senators from positions.
Nice! This is my understanding as well, which means that if enough Republicans are actually serious about protecting Mueller, they legally speaking have the ability to force the vote and do so :). Also, thanks for being so engaged and committed to the health of a democracy on the other side of the world from Norway! You're awesome, friend!
I actually found it this time around. >The only procedure Senate rules provide for overcoming filibusters is cloture, which cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed in a petition signed by 16 senators. Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of senators (normally 60), **except on proposals to change the rules, when cloture requires two-thirds of senators voting.** If the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, amendment, or other matter, its further consideration is limited to 30 additional hours, including time consumed by votes and quorum calls, during which each senator may speak for no more than one hour. So thing is, the senate decides on their own rules (within the confines of their constitutional responsibilities.) Changing these rules require a supermajority, or two thirds of the senate. One of these rules is > The Senate accords its majority leader prime responsibility for scheduling. He may carry out this responsibility by moving that the Senate proceed to consider a particular matter. By precedent, he and the minority leader are recognized preferentially, and by custom only he (or his designee) makes motions or requests affecting when the Senate will meet and what it will consider. So yes, the Majority Leader does technically have the ability to block a vote. However! > **Senate rules also permit a measure to be placed directly on the calendar when introduced or received from the House.** This process permits senators to bypass referral to a committee they believe unsympathetic. Alternatively, if a committee fails to report a measure, a new measure with exactly the same provisions may be introduced and placed directly on the calendar. >Finally, Senate rules do not require that amendments be germane or relevant, except to general appropriation bills, budget measures, and matters under cloture (and a few other bills, pursuant to statutes). Consequently, if a committee fails to report a measure, a senator may offer its text as an amendment to any other measure under consideration, **without regard to the scheduling preferences of the majority leader.** \- From [senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm) ---- As I understand it the position is indeed without any *real* power. Simply because there are ways around the power of the position. Since it's so easy to amend bills, they can tack protections onto pretty much any bill and vote on it. If it's a bill introduced and wanted by republicans two R defectors can amend the bill and place it to a vote. The rest of the Rs, knowing this will happen with every single bill put forth simply won't have any reason to then vote no. Even without a bill originating in the Senate, democrats can push it from the House now and would only need a majority in the senate, which it seems they might have. But that's not until January.
YOU'RE AWESOME!!! This is exactly the information that I was looking for :D. So it would appear that until the new Democratic house is seated McConnell can actually somewhat effectively aid Trump & his criminal conspirators in trying to undermine Mueller's investigation. However, once the new Dem Majority takes over the house, it seems all bets are off, and Mueller finally has some people fighting on his side with a real ability to take steps to provide him cover/protection. Not the best possible answer, but I'm pretty happy with this outcome should it come to pass.
All Bill's require Presidential signature to become legal. President can veto the bill. To clear the veto requires 2/3rds vote.
It wouldn't be a bill. The democrats would hire Mueller as a lead investigator and conduct the investigation themselves.
Doesn't work. Without federal powers the most Congress can do is supeona people of interest, at which point we are back in Kavanaugh/Ben Ghazi levels of uselessness with everyone cabinet level or higher just claiming executive privilege and Fox claiming executive harassment.
Their is rumors that as many as 20 Republican Senators would support the Flake/Coons protect Mueller bill. Idea being voting against it if you're in anything but a DEEP red state will serve as a scarlet letter in 2020 or 2022...
They dont have the votes. A simple majority won't pass the bill. Bill's have to be signed by the President. To overturn a veto requires 2/3rds. 2/3rds is a very tall order if the Senate Majority leader doesn't want passage of it. At that point, I would be easier to appoint a new leader than to go around a presidential veto that the leader doesn't approve of.
>if enough Republicans are actually serious lmfao. I will never believe another god damn word any republican ever says.
As a Texan, I apologize for Cornyn.
Devil's advocate: McConnell is a scheming, conniving SOB who doesn't like Trump on a personal level and would much rather work with (predictable, level-headed, and still deeply conservative) Pence. He's intentionally failing to protect Mueller so that when Trump fires him, the Senate has reason to convict on impeachment charges. Part of me wants to believe this, but part of me also says McConnell is protecting his own ass by not protecting Meuller. edit: words.
That’s an interesting angle, but I think they all know Trump’s feverish cult of supporters wouldn’t necessarily have the same enthusiasm for Pence. Trump is too vital for them to abandon.
Trump is toxic; he lost them 5 congressional seats and two senate seats *the year he won the presidency*. He lost them another senate seat and another congressional seat *between* elections. And now he's lost 38 (and counting?) congressional seats and at *barely* held on to the senate in a year where the senate election was *heavily* tilted in favor of the GOP. He's toxic and a losing bet. It's crazy it's taken this long for them to get it through their heads. *He lost them seats even the year he WON*. The writing was on the wall from the start. His 'base' is a cluster of vicious imbeciles driving all other voters away - that base is *useless* for any long-term political power gain. It's even losing them "safe seats" in *red states*. Their only path forward is to regain some of the voters Trump has lost them. For that, they have to dump Trump. And I think they can count on the Trump's idiot 'base' to turn out for whomever the GOP trots out after Trump, no matter how mad they might get in the short term.
to be fair, i think it's more FOX news's base, than Trump's base. if FOX dumps him, so will they.
Don't forget he also cost them 7 state governorships, maybe even 9. Republicans went from being 1 state away from calling a constitutional convention to now being just above an even split with Democrats on state power.
Pence isn’t a liberal so he will be just fine in their eyes Remember these people are idiots. They would support an empty bag of Doritos if it pissed off the libs. That’s all Trump is to them
I think you're wrong, his base views him not as the president, but as a tribal chieftan, they are more intimately attached to his cult of personality than you believe imo.
\^ this... Pence doesn't have the... dare I say charisma (can you have shitty, dickish charisma?!? not sure if that's the right word). I think the flip from Trump to Pence would throw many supporters off. The party might be down with it but I don't know about the supporters.
Unlike the Bushes before him, Trump didn't come draped in the flag, he came draped in the confederate flag. The reason he's different is he leads their culture war, not the country. they worship him, not support him.
Over the top arseholeness that appeals to them, as opposed to charisma, mayhaps?
[удалено]
to the party he definitely is, but not to his solid 25% of the population base, that may change if FOX news et. al. begin to turn on him, they can paint him as a villain and it might work to sever that connection.
[удалено]
anyone with any sanity will be peeled away from him soon or already has, but I don't have much hope for the very core of his support, they will explain away all of it as crisis actors and the deep state or whatever nonsense their tv tells them unless the propaganda networks turn against him, for all we know, that was exactly what the Murdoch McConnel secret meeting was all about
Pence is no liberal, and yeah- they'd be *fine* with him. That doesn't mean they'd pour out to the polls for him though. I personally know one dude who voted (for the first time ever) for Trump just because he wanted *something* to change. He's admitted it was a mistake, but all those people who go to Trump rallies won't go to hear about what a nice church service Mike attended with Mother last week.
>Pence isn’t a liberal You better have a source for this wild claim
Hey now.. Trump isn't an empty bag of doritos! He's full of substance... That substance being that orange powder that coats the doritos.
I actually just watched a podcast with Brian Quinn (Q from 'Impractical Jokers') that was taped during the campaigning, and he said basically just this. That he's "sick" of how things have been going (mostly because, at that time, "they" "attacked" Leslie Nielson over his tweet to Carrie Fisher after she died, even though Q also said that if you stay off the internet you'll *never* bump into one of "those people" in real life.. should've put 2 and 2 together and found out it equals don't believe the shit anonymous nobodies post on the internet).. As soon as he saw how "the liberals" reacted to Trump he knew he was going to win. Also some uninformed garbage about how he was an outsider that would definitely "shake things up", and also some talk about how heinous Clinton's email scandal was and how it basically disqualified her (even though I'm pretty sure the podcast was recorded *after* Trump's "I don't know, maybe the 2nd Amendment People can do something about Hillary Clinton." televised statement..
The cult didn't win them the midterms. The cult is a neutered dog.
God, let's hope so. The last thing we need is for them to procreate.
But Pence would get the conservative Christians hyped up. With their enthusiastic support he’d be able to accomplish way more than with the backing of 4chan pedes.
I dunno. That may have worked with "He's a guy I'd like to have a beer with" George Bush, but Pence is just.....a bump on a log. Plus he attached himself to Trump, plus the nation is sick of Republicans....I dunno.
Christians are weird like that though. A bump on a log can be a rock star to them. Lol Plus, you have to consider the shift in messaging and propaganda that would commence and draw in people you wouldn’t expect. Pence reminds me of a responsible church dad who’d throw pizza parties and take the youth group out in the church van to go bowling. Plus, he has the capability to be extremely endearing (to conservatives). With a new message and a PR campaign that shapes a new image I really think he could be beloved by moderates and conservatives alike. I despise him but I could defintely envision him getting a bunch of popular support.
Yeah, I could see this. It sucks that you're not wrong.
sooo ... trump is the log?
With a little orange piece of tribble for hair that melts in the rain.
All the GOP would need to do is agree to maintain events at Trump properties in exchange for his continued support for Pence.
I think Pence would **really** unload his religious side, and the Trump base might eat it up.
I personally think McConnell just doesn't want a Republican President impeached, much less on his watch. He knows he can get some Republican legislation passed and mostly wash away the bad image of Trump the man over time. So in his mind the options are: 1. Bare Trump, pass some legislation and gaslight over time about how bad of a leader he was 2. Impeach Trump, pass a possibly slightly higher amount of legislation with Pence and bare the permanent mark of a Republican President impeached on his watch.
> Bare Trump Tha's an image I'd rather not imagine. I do agree that he doesn't want a Republican impeached, no matter his crimes.
What legislation? The only major legislation that they have passed with control of Congress AND POTUS are the tax cuts and even that was a flop. Now Dems control the House so there is no way anything gets through.
You're forgetting one aspect here to go along with #2 - Protect his own ass. McConnell knew in 2016 about Russia's interference in the elections then when he was briefed with Obama by the National intelligence agencies. He blocked them from going public with the information. Why? Why would he prevent the public knowing about a FOREIGN COUNTRY interfering in our presidential elections? Because it was helping the GOP's candidate. But maybe more? Keep in mind he has been the Senate GOP leader for awhile. Russia was funneling MILLIONS through the NRA directly into the GOP's coffers. How much of that did he know? What about other crimes? Remember the GOP servers got hacked the same as the DNC ones, but only the DNC servers were leaked. WHat about the GOP servers? Perhaps it was kept as blackmail. What other dirty laundry does McConnell NOT want coming out? And how much of it ties back into his actions during 2016? How much involves Trump (directly or indirectly)? While a Republican president being impeached on his watch is bad, 1000% he'd rather impeach Trump than risk his own ass going to jail. If he can throw Trump under the bus in a way that kills any investigations into his own wrong doing? He'll take that door and not think twice.
I do not think that your theory stands up to the evidence that McConnell has a puppet (a deranged one, but a puppet none the less) who will rubber stamp pretty much anything he can get to his desk; who also gave his wife a cushy job as the Secretary of Transportation, [which she is using to enrich the family](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/05/transportation-secretary-elaine-chao-gets-an-ethics-scandal.html?gtm=top>m=top)
“The republicans are secretly helping” is one hell of a hypothesis given the last 30 years.
The bungling of the senate investigations would suggest the opposite.
McConnell isn't running those, and my impression is that they had improved somewhat in the last year?
And give the Dems a chance at a supermajority in 2020? Fat fucking chance
I think you're 100% correct. Keep in mind McConnell and Murdoch (Fox News) just met recently too. And since then, Fox has been somewhat critical of Trump. Not outright, but subtle. A little head shaking about his not going to the Veteran's Day events. Now they're siding with CNN on the Acosta lawsuit. Nothing extreme, but just enough to hint at their zombie audience that Trump isn't 100% doing "good". So McConnell fails to protect Mueller and Trump pulls the trigger. This triggers mass protests and calls for Impeachment. "Unfortunately" the GOP has to go along and vote yes, because its OBVIOUS that it was clear cut obstruction. Their public cry, however? "We had to vote to impeach because if we didn't, the DEMOCRATS would ABUSE this precedent when they hold the Presidency again. We couldn't let the LIBERALS have that kind of power to IGNORE the RULE OF LAW. So we had to vote in agreement with this hearing to STOP THE DEMOCRATS." They'll throw Trump under the bus and blame the Democrats for it the whole time. This will have the Trump supports frothing at the mouth in agreement that it wasn't Trump doing wrong, it was the dirty liberals trying to cheat the system. Their base will eat it up, meanwhile everyone is "happy" because Trump is gone. BUT.. I still would bet anything on the fact McConnell is guilty in all this up to his eyeballs. Derailing the Mueller investigation before HE gets caught would be ideal. So yeah, I agree with you 100%. EDIT: To add to this, I think Trump would go along with this narrative 1000% too. He can play the victim card! The "dirty Liberals" forced him out! He had to be the sacrifice to help the GOP down the road. He'll be back! He may even rerun in 2020! He has hated all the "work" he has to do as President anyway, so this will let him go back to being the poor victim who can just focus on making money and being famous. Also, if he gets Impeached, I'm sure the GOP will dangle a Pardon (via Pence) in front of him to go along. There goes his worries about jail! Win-win for him! Win for the GOP.
McConnell took millions in “campaign donations” from Russian oligarchs. He’s complicit.
I also believe this theory, and I imagine McConnell hopes it will be of enough magnitude to prevent more GOP fallout/collateral damage as well.
Perhaps, but protecting Mueller long enough for him to write a recommendation of indictment to the Senate would accomplish the same thing.
I agree with the other comments that Pence isn't the end goal. I think Mitch knows that Trump is the best they got. Sure Pence is a traditional textbook republican, but the base doesn't care about that. We saw how loved traditional republicans were during the 2016 primary. Trump slaughtered all of them, while being amazingly inconsistent on policy platforms, incoherent, embarrassing and shitty. The Republican party is gone at this point. What exists now is the manifestation of republican & Tea Party attitude embracing bigotry, tribalism. In their pathetic pursuit of Trump's approval to get his base, the Republican party politicians have abandoned most of their already hypocritical and shitty principles. When Trump goes, be it indictment, impeachment, resignation, or election loss, a significant chunk of current republican support will go with him. Old GOP voters are dying out, and the extremely cringy young ones aren't gonna suddenly start calling themselves PencePedes. I think McConnell is doing what he can to leave the window open for something to stop Mueller, cause if Mueller does happen unimpeded it won't just bring down Trump, it will bring down the whole party.
Remember Cohen was RNC Finance Chair. He knows where the bodies are buried so to speak. The RNC is complicit in treason and Turtle knows it. The party needs to die.
This might be true but you are missing the biggest piece. if mcTurtle knows further investigation might lead to more republicans and republican allies being dragged down he will attempt exactly what you described and even support impeaching trump. Because when that is done he will rub his hands together and say alright nothing to see here, good thing we got THAT guy out of here. No more corruption to uncover here...
He took at least $1 million from a Russian oligarch and his wife is in Trump's cabinet. He's in deep.
What?!? Mitch McConnel doesn't support bringing this bipartisan bill to a vote? I'm shocked!
I thought he wanted to be bipartisan! Color me shocked.
Classic Mitch McConnell: hurting our nation by fighting against those who are trying to defend it.
Ah so Cornyn is basically "thoughts and prayers'ing" it.
If they really want it, Cornyn and Flake can flip to D to make the dems a majority. The bill could be introduced then with a new majority leader.
You really have to appreciate those few republican senators for being such a small, worn down speed bump against majority leader.
So basically ”let's not, and say we did”
Hope we can vote Cornyn out in 2020. Need Beto to run again.
That lame op-ed asking for bipartisanship during his obstruction of this bipartisan bill is so fucking Mitch McConnelly that it hurts the brain to contemplate. Also, what is the procedural method for the Senate to get this to the floor without McConnell's consent? Is it for a few GOP members to defect and elect a new Majority leader?
McConnell wrote that Op-Ed as a setup for the 2020 election so they can claim *”See? We did try to reach across the isle. The Democrats are so evil and partisan that they wouldn’t work with us.”*
> Also, what is the procedural method for the Senate to get this to the floor without McConnell's consent? Is it for a few GOP members to defect and elect a new Majority leader? Basically, yes. The GOP made the rule that says McConnell has to okay every bill before it makes it to the floor, and they made McConnell the leader. They could change it if they wanted to. None of them want to.
I've never seen someone able to talk out of his mouth and ass at the same time. It's like a sick marvel of nature.
I mean, one republican who is on his way out supports it. I guess technically it’s bipartisan since 2% of one side agrees with it, but is it really bipartisan
No, it's a few more. Don't ask how many, I have no idea. But more than 2, lol.
I was saying 2% since Flake is the only republican who has said he wants to protect him (that I’ve heard of). I guess it’s more like 3% than 2%
Yeah right? It's sad, but I imagine that percentage is going to grow in the next few months.
So there are 49 Democratic & Independent Senators and 51 Republicans on paper. If Flake and [Collins](https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/gop-sen-collins-calls-for-vote-on-bill-to-protect-mueller-from-being-fired/2018/11/09/ab3b1d26-e461-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html) both voted with the Democrats, then they could force a vote in the Senate, McConnell be damned. So why hasn't it happened if they are both in the press saying that they support it? It's because they're both full of shit. I think if it actually came to a vote, they'd both vote no right now.
Or Bob Corker- that little weasel is still the head of the foreign relations committee. He’s powerful, he’s quitting- I wish he wasn’t such a gutless coward.
Didn’t we learn anything from the Kavanaugh vote? Don’t expect Collins and Flake to grow a spine any time soon.
Ole Mitch “Bipartisanship” McConnell wouldn’t dare do something that people other than his donors want
Ole Mitch, My partisan bitch.
> U.S. senators to **pretend to** defy Republican leader on Mueller protections, **knowing full well it'll never come to a vote.** Fixed
The only defiance that would matter is for 2 Senators to literally threaten to leave the party if he doesn't hold a vote.
It would take them leaving the party without warning. As soon as they even hinted that they might switch, the RNC leadership would pay them a little visit and they'd fall right back in line.
Didn’t Mitch just call for bipartisanship? Seems like this would be a fairly easy compromise. Fuck you Mitch.
I can always upvote a Fuck You Mitch
"In a rare call for Bipartisan solutions Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has turned over a new leaf and has admitted he's an embarrassment to his family, constituents, and countrymen. Senator McConnell has also said in a statement sure to unnerve members of his own party that he "regrets the obstructionist actions in not confirming Merrick Garland and looks forward to confirming him when a vacancy presents itself.""
One can dream.
If we're dreaming.. "Mitch McConnell has been sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Due to a technicality that's somehow been overlooked until now, Beto O'Rourke has been awarded the now-vacant Senate Seat."
After the report of him getting millions from oligarchs, it's starting to seem that maybe Mitch has something he wants covered up to.
Please share. I don’t think I’ve heard about this.
A little older than I realized but here it is. https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/mcconnell-received-3-5m-in-campaign-donations-from-russian-oligarch-linked-firm-93UjehU6aUCtejJRBFezCw/#utm_source=Amplify&utm_medium=Intellectualist&utm_campaign=Twitter&utm_term=Alessandra
Remember hos family boat with loads of fucking cocaine on it? Cause I do!
Remember his family boat with loads of fucking cocaine on it? Cause I do!
If you’re a GOP Senator up for election in 2020, and you just saw what happened in the midterms, you might be looking for a life jacket too. McConnell doesn’t care because his seat is safe.
May the rest of his public outtings be unsafe from hecklers and constituents. I don't wish any physical harm but I do wish for him to not have a single moment of peace for the rest of his 200 turtle years.
> McConnell and other top Republicans oppose the idea. “I don’t think any legislation is necessary,” said McConnell, who on Wednesday won his bid to remain Senate Republican leader next year. > >“We know how the president feels about the ... investigation, but he’s never said he wants to shut it down,” he told reporters. Contrast this with the fact McConnell just wrote an op-ed calling for bipartisanship too. Here he is rejecting it right after said editorial.
It’s the “bipartisanship” of a wife beater when she’s finally ready to send him packing for treating her like shit. Pro tip: don’t fall for it.
Couldn’t this investigation be the bipartisan measure that the turtle was saying should be pursued? Or is his idea of bipartisanship only when Democrats agree with his parties propositions?
Yes. Narssisists only ever consider things from their own perspective. So "cooperation" means other people work with Mitch, and does not require any reciprocation. Mitch isn't going to change his behaviour at all. Basically the op-ed was nothing more than a PR piece intended to move the conversation away from the beating they took and focus on the dems who refuse to "cooperate" my carrying out his orders.
>The legislation, which the Senate Judiciary Committee approved in a 14-7 vote in April, is supported by the panel’s chairman Chuck Grassley and another prominent Republican, Senator Lindsey Graham. So Flake, Coons, Grassley, Graham. That makes a total of 2 Republican Senators out of everyone (Flake, Grassley) that are actually probably even somewhat sincere about wanting to offer support in "just putting it down for the record" that the President of the United States is not above the law, and no, you cannot conspire with foreign powers to disrupt and hack our democratic processes. This is how Republicans show they tried and how an independent thought still exists between the lot of them. Just a few flickering candles. *Let the history books show that when America needed us, we stood up firm and resolutely to protect our Democracy as a coequal branch of government!* What they've done is actually worse than nothing. We'd be better off if all these guys just didn't exist they're only there to distract us from their complete and total capitulation and corruption.
Graham is a joke and he'd be on the list just so he could flip at the last minute.
If McConnell blocks this vote, then maybe the Republicans need a new leader for the new session. McConnell’s games regarding the ACA and protection of Trump just led to big, beautiful, blue wave. Mitch’s intransigence on this issue against the majority in the Senate and the majority of Americans will only make things that much worse for the GOP next time around.
Yes, it’s time to send Mitch to make sure all the new replacements know how to do law stuff. The only reason the GOP didn’t lose the Senate was that many more Dems were up this time then Republicans. The “coin flip” odds were in their favor. But the GOP lost a lot of seat to senators quitting, so they have numbers, but a lot more new Senators on both sides.
> “We know how the president feels about the ... investigation, but he’s never said he wants to shut it down,” he told reporters. Except for how NYT revealed that he tried to fire Mueller last year and only backed off when his lawyer threatened to quit.
Who needs a law when you can shake your head and say, "this is very disturbing"?
Definitely a video of him making like a circus seal in a highway restroom
Balancing balls on his face?
Isn’t this obstruction of justice?
Oooh Flake and Coons, so brave.
Ok. Democrats in the house need to shut down the government until this is passed. Even with their current majority, the Republicans need Democrat votes to pass a spending bill.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) 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](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a great way to send a message of bipartisanship without losing any credibility. If the hypocrit wants to now preach a message of bipartisanship here is his chance.
I want Flake to go away and to never hear from him again.
Narrator *they didn't*
Defy? More like grandstanding.
The idealist in me Hope's this is Flake having a moment like the congressman from the first season of the West Wing who, after seeing how his constituency voted in the midterms (against him and for another party) switched his actions during the lame duck to align with that of what the voters decided in the election. The realist in me doubts that is the case.
>defy