It’s getting harder and harder to stay optimistic for any reasonable future. Trump is packing the courts so election results won’t even matter. Elizabeth Warren is said to be a favored opponent but, according to a recent opinion article in USA Today, Warren “exudes capability, but she also exudes .... a professorial intensity that turns some people off.” America prefers dumb. How do you win over that?
20
I thought throughout the Kavanaugh hearings at least 1 Senator would have had the sense to ask him: “What will you do if the president refuses to abide by a Court order/decision”. Obviously not an important circumstance (and likely circumstance) for Senate to pursue.....
8
(1)
Of all the tools that Pelosi and the House has at their use Pelosi selects the courts. How tedious. What a slow-walk. What a waste of crucial time & money & an insult to voters & the law. All the tools built-in by our founding fathers and years of carefully crafted laws, not to mention the U.S. Constitution. But Pelosi selects the courts to decide on the obvious instead of implementing the law, honing new laws & calling out the Senate & Trump when they refuse to act and comply. Pelosi’ weak approach is painless to Trumpsters & toothless to all.
But to do the lifting involved takes sweat equity, visceral contact with the electorate, determination, courage, coordination and an open trust within your party. Pelosi has none of these traits or spent them long ago & thats why she goes to courts to do her job. Her main cheerleader Paul Krugman proclaimed that Pelosi is by far “the greatest speaker of modern times and surely ranks among the most impressive people ever to hold that position”.
4
(2)
And Forget about Speaker Sam Rayburn who implemented New Deal legislation, including the Securities Exchange and the Rural Electrification Act & his strong support of Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was the house speaker from 1940-1961 with a short gap after WWII. Rayburn oversaw several significant achievements in the American government. In 1957, Congress voted on the passage of the Civil Rights Act & another Civil Rights Act was passed in 1960. Also the the passage of the Hospital Survey and Construction Act, the first legislation which provided federal grants for construction of hospitals and healthcare facilities. And we would not have had President Kennedy without him.
Forget about Speaker John McCormack, who was speaker of the House from 1961 to 1971 during the Great Society Congress, which passed Medicare, Medicaid, immigration reform, and of course, Civil Rights Act. He was in the chair when all these massive Lyndon Johnson reforms came about.
Totally ignore House Speaker Carl Albert
who mastered the impeachment inquiries and hearings on President Richard Nixon who resigned during the Watergate scandal, the resignation of Vice President Spiro Agnew, & the conclusion of the Vietnam War.
Point is that none of this legislation was easy
to achieve. No courts were used to achieve these great laws with one exception during Watergate. Speaker Pelosi is winging it and will be lost in History.
4
These cases may leave SCOTUS choosing between two alternatives they do not like, or ducking the decision on a technicality. They can greatly expand Executive Privilege as Trump wants, or they can invite endless litigation over every dispute between those branches. What is needed is another unanimous decision like the Watergate tapes decision which clarifies more fully the proper separation and oversight aspects of the two branches. It is unlikely that the current court is capable of reaching such a unanimous decision.
In that Justice department memo Robert Muller kept referring to solicitor general Robert Bork wrote that the limit of oversight on the president was that he could not be indicted for crimes while in office. Bork went on to write that the vice president certainly could, and indeed Agnew was charged. If Executive Privlidge did not extend even to the vice president, then how can it extend to cabinet members and staff? If they resist congressional oversight they do not except in exceptional cases have protection from indictment court actions or indictment. The case could be decided on that basis, but I fear that it will not.
2
WHICH IS IT, a malignant narcissist with delusions of grandeur, exhibiting every sign of becoming an autocratic ruler, after the manner of Putin, Erdogan, Xi JinPing, Orban... OR a pusillanimous Congress, with Republicans cowed by Trump into silence and a no-compromising angry Democrats ?
We all know what a dis-functional family looks like, but alas, we have a totally dis-functional Government...while we as citizens 'hold the bag'
7
Pelosi is creating a Democratic power vacuum by not impeaching Trump. He will defy every law on the books to prevent the truth of his crimes from coming out under oath. Trump only understands force...Use it!!
5
Impeachment proceedings already.
Forget your vacation this year!!
2
This seems to be an act of desperation on the part of a desperate Democratic Congress, but then these are desperate times. Gone are the days when Tip O‘Neill could jostle elbows with President Reagan on Saturday night and then compromise with Republicans in the house Monday. It is quite rich that we now have Harry Reid calling to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate given that he first skirted it and this has led inexorably to more partisan stacking of judicial appointments. The problem of politicising the courts is now endemic to a system that has lost the art of negotiation and compromise. Hopefully we will see a new generation of legislators with mutual respect and the intellect to bring the US out of the mire into which it has bogged. However that is not likely to be possible while the chief executive is bent on pushing back on the rule of law by forcing litigation. In the latter case and without prudent guidance by the legislature it certainly appears that falling back on the backstop of justice is a last resort. One can only hope that the courts recognise they serve as the last stop before the slide into an authoritarian jungle.
4
There has historically been WAYYYYY too much reliance on “norms” to resolve Constitutional separations.
If it wasn’t glaringly obvious before, it dang sure should be now. There needs to be clear, defined precedents regarding power. This idea that somehow it would be a bad thing to finally address executive power at the Supreme Court comes from someone who probably doesn’t live in the real world with the rest of us.
I 100% guarantee that a person who thinks it would be bad to test Constitutional power at the SCOTUS is not an immigrant who was abused at one of Trump’s detention centers. I 100% guarantee that person is not a farmer going bankrupt because of the trade war. I 100% guarantee it’s not a person who believes the law SHOULD apply to everyone equally.
For far too long, the legislature has been happy to cede power to ever increasingly unaccountable executives. Bush led us into a $3 Trillion war. Obama used drones to assassinate American citizens overseas. Trump has committed so many over-reaches of executive authority they are too numerous to mention. It’s high time the office of the president was put into check. That’s the entire point of the Constitution. Checks and balances. Without a check on executive power there’s no point to the Constitution or laws.
13
What happens when/if the courts decide against the democrats? Where will their trump tantrum take them next?
How much more of 'nothing' will they accomplish? Of course accomplishing 'nothing' might be the best thing that could happen, and probably the only thing that the democrats are good at.
7
"The House v. Trump: Stymied Lawmakers Increasingly Battle in the Courts
Lawmakers say President Trump’s disregard for their authority leaves them no choice but to use the courts with greater frequency, but that could have constitutional consequences."
The House Democrats are absolutely right in the way they are going about dealing with Trump and his republicans. I am glad to see the publicity each new Federal Law Suit brings. Each action gives the Democrats that much more truth to use in their campaign against Trump, McConnell and House republicans. The Democrats are upholding the Rule Of Law and bring Trump and his ilk to a legal public forum where Trump and his republicans can be shown for all of their disrespect for the Law and breaking of their Oath of Office.
8
Democrats UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW! Don’t make me laugh. We have them escorting immigrants across our southern border! What a joke your comment is. The Democrats think they are above the law. Requesting Trumps tax returns is another area where they prove this. Leaks, fishing for crimes, etc are other areas....
4
I’ve lost faith in balance of powers, executive branch, and SCOTUS, and DOJ. I feel so disgusted I don’t even want to read the news anymore because it upsets me. I guess this was the plan all along.
4
Democrats have no choice but to sue this administration every day, from now until the end of time.
8
We cannot wait for the next election to vote out this tin-pot despot. And the Republicans lack any spine whatsoever.
So yes, we should start impeachment proceedings ASAP. Not because it will win political favor for the Democrats or stir up the wacko trump supporters. We should do it because it is the right thing to do. We cannot let this outrageous dictatorship behavior continue. It's truly 'high crimes and misdemeanors".
Until impeachment can get started, by all means go to a full-court press at the courts for all his outrageous and illegal acts.
Before the Republicans gloat too much over trump's executive power, consider your reaction when a Democratic president is inevitably elected. Will you be so happy when she (or he) ignores Congress and the American people? And Congress has no oversight? Think about it, long and hard.
5
“Hidden financial dealings”
What does it mean other than crafted to sound sinister?
Private?
Things the government mandates to be disclosed but were not?
Do these mandates apply to POTUS?
Do you know these these things exits and what specifically? And if you know it is it still hidden?
1
This article refers to "Mr. Trump’s norm-busting presidency." I picture a maverick blazing an exciting new trail. Hardly. Euphemisms like "unprecedented" and "norm-busting" are damaging when referring to an Administration that flouts the U.S. Constitution and seeks to do harm to the most vulnerable among us.
14
We are in the throes of a Constitutional crisis.
We have an executive that leans hard toward the autocratic. The (Republican) Senate defers to the current inexperienced and incompetent executive, something that it would never have done under a Democratic president. That leaves the House, the legislative body that more directly represents the citizenry—and is primarily responsible for the distribution finance and the provenance of laws—to grapple with an increasingly partisan executive whose threadbare performance has been upheld by a rigged Supreme Court, an institution so now out of favor that we have, essentially, no checks on a chaotic president and no confidence in a last tribunal to vote to do what is the correct thing for the greater number.
The process of decision-making will take years to sort out and when—or if—that happy day occurs—what will be left of our country? Neither this president nor his enabling Senate care about anything but the rich and their narrow interests and the regressive John Roberts Court stands ready to rule in favor of anarchy and lynch mob governance. The House, the one most urgently needed, is handcuffed by a presidential defiance so baldly disrespectful of law and custom that the courts are its only redress.
A Court, as said above, that confers no confidence upon the great majority of the nation’s citizens.
16
Democrats in Congress are engaged in silly stuff and that is why no one cares.
Even in the New York Times, does anyone even read this stuff.
In the House many of them are going crazy over an AOC showing up.
In the Senate the Democrats stay away from a Judiciary Committee hearing to deny a quorum.
On the Senate Floor the Democrats make the Republicans go through a full 2 hours each before voting on federal judges.
Every single one of the 13 voted on is confirmed.
Schumer then proudly announces that they were able to prevent another 6 from being confirmed until they come back from vacation.
It's all silly games.
The older Democrat judges don't care. Many of them are past the stage where they even care if they get a nice write-up in the New York Times.
The younger Democrat judges take outlandish positions hoping to be bumped up to Appellate if a Democrat makes President.
As soon as it becomes clear that Trump will have another term, things will settle down.
7
Once again the Dems have been outflanked by Republicans. Dems in the Senate have sat by and watched for close to three years now as Republicans packed the courts at all levels with right-wing ideologues. The Dems keep on saying that we must follow the rules, while Republicans say "what rules? we can do anything we want".
Now the Republicans have declared all out war against Congressional power to oversee the executive branch and Dems are forced to turn to the courts to try to defend it. Too late once again Dems! The Republicans have already covered that base. If you're hoping that SCOTUS will uphold Congressional oversight power, you're whistling past the cemetery. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts too will all fall in line and do what the right wing wants: declare that Congress has no oversight power.
It's becoming clearer every day that Republicans have no intention of giving up power, ever. Look at the stranglehold that they already have on the government. They have another 15 months to consolidate their position before the election. If they lose, they will declare massive election fraud and manipulation and Bill Barr will launch an immediate investigation and nullify all of the results. And Dems will still be sitting there quietly complaining, "wait, you can't do that."
9
The model that trump has in his mind, such as it is,
is the authoritarian system with democratic trappings
such as found in Hungary, or, of course, Russia. There are
institutions that have democratic sounding names but have
no independent authority except that granted to it by the dear leader in charge of everything and anything. Here this means, especially, that power to embody and impose the people's will to which he alone has authority to interpret.
The sickness is not limited to the delusion or monumental
ego required to actually believe such idiocy, it is found in
those tens of thousands of yelling panting shrieking
devotees at each of his faith rallies. It is found in those who have increasingly approved his "performance" over the last many months. They too find nothing wrong with this authoritarian model.
The symbiosis of his delusions of grandeur and their vitiated model of citizen, content now to lap up his rants, raves, and tweets in real time, has created the most
recent very dark period in this country's history.
No single voice of loud and clear moral authority has yet
emerged from the cacophonous outrage surrounding each of his staged announcements /cretinous tweets. Too much of the forest has been obscured by the many limbs of trees. Perhaps this is inevitable given how people now interact with the outside world.
As a result, it's difficult to discern where is
the middle of the country and how it's processing
the present.
3
Ironic that Congress actually made themselves obsolete. They looked to lobbyists to write their own legislation, and now they find themselves at the bottom of a very slipery slope.
4
Pretty soon we’ll see if the beer-guzzling friend of Squi is, as John Roberts would profess, a Judge (and not a Republican stooge and Trump Toady). Never in our history has the Executive Branch had absolute power, no was it ever intended to. The concocted concept of a “Unitary President” is a purely Republican ploy to affect a hostile takeover of our government.
As soon as the New Democratic President takes power, and has the support of Congress, there must be some very serious Constitutional limitations of Presidential power codified and executed. Not even Democrats should have that, and they are the good guys. Trump has proven, beyond a doubt, that insane despots can be elected to high office when the people are lazy and take their freedoms for granted.
10
There is no reason to think that an arrangement of a Democratic congress and President would life a finger to limit Presidential power, if the Obama years are any indication. Only those persons dedicated to the Constitutional system and limited government will act to limit themselves in any significant way. If we want real limits on presidential power we must hope for divided government with one party holding the executive branch and the other party in command of both houses of Congress. Even that may not be enough.
1
@John Eley
Stalemate and stagnation are NOT admirable goals, and THAT is what we would get with that arrangement. It has happened MANY times before, only to result in shut downs and more hypocritical bloviation in D.C. as we go further down the scale of developed countries.
I can at least HOPE that under a decent Democratic Administration our Constitution will be brought up to date to reflect these times and not 200 years ago. We all KNOW the Republicans (and the Heritage Foundation/Society) will not do that, so I have no choice but to bet on some sane leadership other than their insanity.
3
They should use the courts - frequently, and not just talk about it or talk abut using subpoenas. it may be the only chance that the USA does not descend into a dictatorship.
9
I think the courts, especially SCOTUS, will see through all the democrats attempts to undermine the administration as pure politics.
The courts should make Nadler pay all of the legal fees and court costs the government is wasting on these ridiculous actions.
3
Lest we forget: Vladimir Putin and Rupert Murdoch triggered this cascading chaos and damage to our democratic institutions without firing a shot.
A few million bucks worth of computer hacking, social media and cable tv propaganda, with one vulgar, loudmouthed reality tv personality and demagogue as front man, proved to be all that was required to undermine the foundations of a Constitutional government that had weathered over two centuries of challenges before this sad chapter in our history.
11
Did you mean Putin as in the Steele Dossier? The collusion story? Not sure where Murdoch fits in those hoaxes.
@chambolle
I'm dying to find out how they were able to alter the Electoral College vote without anyone noticing their vote had been changed.
1
Governance by lawsuit? What a joke! The Holder case finally got settled last year. Oh and because there are not enough staff attorneys to handle the lawsuits, they are asking for volunteers. At some point one might hope the nonsense would stop, but given Trump and the GOP’s nature, combined with Nancy’s no impeachment mantra, this political theater is what government has devolved into, if you can even call it a government.
In recent interviews the editor, Dean Baquet, describes the current period as a normal variant of US history. This article and many others reported in the NYT and WaPo show that these times are not a normal variant. The country faces an existential risk. The rule of law is being undermined by the executive and the principles on the Statue of Liberty are mocked. The tools available to the opposition are feeble. Yet, much of the reporting and editorial process follows the both-sides paradigm; attention to facts yields to attention to access. Get better, NYT. The rest of us are doing what we can by supporting these law suits and the few avenues available to preserve our nation.
4
Nothing new. See the book, "The Imperial Presidency" by Arthur Schlesinger, published in 1973.
1
Forget about the courts - impeach Trump with the power of the U.S. Constitution backing such a move
1
So Trump is Emperor, and has little use for the Legislature. The Senate is a rubber stamp anyway. Why is this news?
“The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.” - P. J. O'Rourke
6
The alternative to suing the President is impeaching him.
A president who does not submit to congressional oversight should be impeached and removed from office, and the threat of impeachment should compel cooperation with congressional oversight.
The Senate, or at least its Republican majority, is not interested in defending congressional power. Its loyalty is to a party and a president of that party, and it prefers to let this president do whatever he wants rather than see his power checked by the other party.
The House's options are to acquiesce in what is a coup d'etat against our form of government, try to get the judiciary on its side against this coup, or essentially go on strike, create gridlock, and thereby make it necessary for the other side to pay attention to them. The other side will probably respond by making its coup more official and visible, and at that point either the coup succeeds or is opposed by the sort of events we saw in Puerto Rico, Kiev, Cairo, or Beijing, and are seeing now in Hong Kong. What will differentiate this from Cairo is that we have a long tradition of democracy to reinvigorate while the Egyptians had to more or less invent something from scratch, and ultimately failed.
6
It is stunning that foreign interference in our government is never mentioned in this and similar articles. To ignore that the President, some Cabinet members, key GOP Senators and Representatives, are under the financial and moral influence of Russia is to ignore what is actually happening to our government.
Vladimir Putin is using the GOP to re-engineer our government’s operations to the economic and political advantage of his push for a global axis of authoritarian kleptocracies. Any article that fails to recognize this almost invisible third party is inadequate in portraying what is happening in Washington.
7
“That trend line suggests that even if the number of congressional lawsuits declines when the next president takes office…”
Absolutely wishful thinking.
If a Democrat is finally elected president in 2024, she will face a wall of resistance.
It will be immediate, massive, comprehensive, and persistent. It will occur in Congress, it will occur in the courts, and it will occur in the media.
The harvest of what the Democrats are now sowing will be reaped at that point.
It will be a bountiful harvest indeed.
1
I don't even recognize our broken, non-functioning government anymore. What happened to obeying laws?
2
Using the courts may fail (too many Republican judges and justices) but Trump and McConnell allow no alternative. Change, for better or worse is imminent.
1
The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to conduct investigations is implied since Congress possesses “all legislative powers.” The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation. George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”
— history.house.gov
No provision appears to have been made, nor was it intended, by the framers of our constitution, for the federal judiciary to stand between the house and the executive in the exercise of the “inquisitorial powers” mentioned above.
That is, should a cabinet member be supoenaed to appear before congress — that is that. Allowances for months or years of stonewalling, by making appeal after appeal through the levels of the federal courts, is clearly outside, and damaging to, “all legislative powers” granted to the congress.
It seems our founding fathers thought it much more likely that a single chief executive might act in a tyrannical manner than were the many representatives of the people. Taking collective action has a moderating effect on outcomes.
The Trump administration should be blocked in their efforts to confound the oversight of congess, quickly and decisively.
4
The great majority of these lawsuits should not be laid at COngress’s door. They have a specific constitutional mandate: oversight of the Exec branch and, specifically, the President.
It is Trump’s refusal to allow ANY oversight that is the precipitating factor. And he is aided by AG Barr who has become his personal lawyer, rather than the people’s head of the Justice Dept.
And,yes, it is a terrible precedent to have any of our 3 gov branches in a perpetual adversarial fight.
3
This is the same tactic as the various attempts to legislate through the courts what cannot be openly debated, defended and won. Most every sine qua non in the liberal pantheon was achieved this way and thus is delegitimized in the eyes of much of the voting public. By way of objectivity, any non-legislative bans on surgical procedures would be similarly bogus; either have the honesty to ban abortions through consensus legislation or ban intrusion into personal medical decision-making. The avoidance of this either through frustration, revenge, impatience or self-importance is what has corroded the process and jaundiced the vast majority of the public. Every "issue" suffers from this malady and it is killing the host.
4
Its sad to see America come to this. This is no more plain old Republican values vs Democratic values debate. This no more pro-choice vs pro-life debate or debate about fiscal policy and government oversight. Today's Republican party is the one that does not believe in science, does not care about how many innocent children die due to gun violence and does not care about Americans who did not vote for republicans.
GOP has realized that the only way to win elections and keep power is to spread hate and propaganda and suppress voters. Instead of trying to change their policies and explaining it to their base, they have resorted to unpatriotic acts like blocking election security legislation. Likes of Mitch McConnel have made a mockery of democracy in this country. Politics was never about wishing your opponent was dead. But when all you are blinded by power and money and have a propaganda news network at your disposal, there are no limits to how deep you can sink. May be last true Republican was indeed McCain.
There are bad policies being floated on Democratic side too, for instance, why should tax payers pay for medicare for an illegal immigrant ? Why do democrats think all immigrants are the same ?
While the leaders play their political games the commoners suffer in a nation that has become a place where you've to be constantly worried about not getting shot in a public place.
1
Bothsideism strikes again! Right, right, it is the unbending Democrats' unreasonable straying from the political norms that makes negotiating with the completely reasonable Republican party impossible! If the Democrats would just give in, everything would be fine!
Trump is probably betting on the Supreme Court to bail him out.
Yes, the USA didn't need these lawsuits at all before Nixon and Trump. Because the other presidents weren't criminals.
Thanks for yet again corroding America, Republicans.
5
I hesitatingly predict that the SCOTUS will reestablish some balance between Congress' oversight responsibiities and the president's obligation to respond to Congressional oversight responsibilities. The court's conservative majority is leaning towards less limited presidential powers than prior courts, which suggests that some of the House's lawsuits will be rejected. This assumes that some of the cases reach the court for a decision in the October 2019- June 2020 term. The cases the court will hear may also be influenced by their political impact on the 2020 elections (I do not expect the justices to be politically neutral). No case will be decided in the subsequent term starting in October 2020, less than a month from the elections.
The worst case scenario is for Trump to be reelected with another term that may allow him to nominate as many as two more SCOTUS justices. Both Breyer and Ginsburg are presently already in their eighties. Even with a Democratic Senate majority (no guarantee for that to happen in 2020), Trump would be able to play out his stonewalling of Congress as the Court would be in an increasingly conservative majority should either Ginsburg and/or Breyer resign or become incapable of serving. Trump will name reliable conservatives for their replacement and is no hurry if a Democratic Senate rejects them. A total epoch-creating disaster would occur with a Republican led Senate.
10
I’ve been on the fence about Trump. I don’t respect him as a businessman or political leader, but I actually do agree with many of his policies.
I have many gripes against the Republican Senate and the Democratic House.
But there’s no question in my mind that the Administration steadily erodes trust in all government when it so casually ignores any directive Trump doesn’t like.
14
@David G, I agree with you. Trump was elected for a reason, and I think people get a bit myopic and just cast aside everything he does or represents because they don’t agree with him. People stop being friends and have fights with family members over him. Etc. Get a grip. Don’t hate the player hate the game.
1
Don't just vote out Trump. Vote out the Vichy Republicans in his royal corrupt court.
1) Get out the vote.
2) VOTE THEM OUT.
62
@Jbugko
Or we could vote for Trump to make sure that one of those democratic candidates doesn't mess up the economy with their gargantuan government programs. Just sayin'.
5
@Jbugko Not likely to vote out the Republicans as long as the Democrats promise socialism, open borders, higher taxes, and attacks on jobs.
6
Shallow pointless nonsense.
So it would be better if the membership of Congress worked together?
Thanks a lot Times.
So enlightening.
4
Looks pretty normal to me. Neither side wants to talk to the other. The Democrats, still in mourning for the Anointed One's loss, can now use their powers in the House to harass the President. Perpetuating their dream of unseating him.
Of course the Republican's are just as bad. Including President Trump.
Has the appearance of a playground spat. Unfortunately there's no grownups around to give them all a good whipping.
3
@Mark
Hmm..
Are you saying "there are good people on both sides"?
It seems to me that integrity, rectitude and moral standards are definitely not equally distributed on both sides. As long as false equivalencies are dominating with this administration, its supporters and the substantial number of uncritical fence sitters we will only sink deeper into the morass of increasing irrelevance as a country.
2
I don’t accept aloof both-sides-ism — it adopts the tone of a parent, but doesn’t take responsibility for making choices and solving problems.
A stalemate only means the players have equal influence. It doesn’t mean that they’re morally comparable.
1
@Mark
Enough with the “Anointed One” nonsense. Every party’s presidential candidate is considered special. In fact, Trump has literally been described as anointed by evangelicals.
1
Remember that this guy did his business the same way. Do what he asks, you’re a sucker, ‘cos you’re gonna get stiffed. Don’t do it, you’re a target, ‘cos you’re gonna get sued. Sue him, you’re a patsy, as he countersues.
And he proudly boasts that he HAS two judges on the supreme court!
33
It is ironic that the Democratic leadership in the House, so concerned with holding on to its power, have ceded its power to the White House.
By refusing to impeach, which would give them legal authority to compel the Trump administration to comply with information requests (one can hope), they have in essence said that ignoring those requests is a-okay with them.
It also shows how willing they are to look the other way when faced with blatant criminal behavior and abuses of power.
Someday we may have representatives who put the Constitution and the rights and obligations of the America people above their own political career. But I don't see that happening any time soon, particularly when there is no one in power to compel them to do so.
26
@avrds I see both sides. Many of them realize that if we don't win in 2020 there will be 4 more years of this despicable administration and so they are proceeding with an overabundance of caution. While I believe he should be impeached (or at least try to do this) if the dems lose (and they will since Republicans run the Senate) it will give Trump fodder for his base and for those undecided voters who already like the economy under him. This is a really big dilemma...one like we have never faced before and hopefully never will again. We need Trump and his people GONE.
9
@avrds
Impeachment is at best a draw, an inconsequential battle. I prefer to win the war by defeating Trump at the polls.
7
@Rudy Ludeke and J Bagley:
There are times when leaders need to rise to the occasion and do the right thing, as in protect the Constitution and the American people, not just do what's politically expedient at the time.
It makes the Democrats look weak and incompetent to not act on impeachment when the crimes are now documented and ready for them to act.
It makes them look equally weak and incompetent to not call their members back from recess -- who wouldn't like the month of August off? -- to address gun violence and white supremacy in this country. They could outlaw weapons of war today if they weren't so afraid of what ... Mitch McConnell?
This isn't a zero sum game. They need to be leaders on these issues. And it makes them look weak when they are afraid to rock the boat for fear of upsetting Trump's base.
If they think that tip toeing around their constitutional responsibilities is going to get them back the White House, I fear Nancy Pelosi has miscalculated big time.
2
The Constitutional consequences?
Would that be the upholding of the law, and the Constitution, against Donald Trump and the others in his Administration who feel and act as if they are above them? Because those are exactly the kinds of "consequences" this country needs if it's going to have any future worth having.
I'm still reeling from the Constitution consequences of Mitch McConnell's theft of a Supreme Court seat. An act which, for all intents and purposes, means that no future President of the United States will ever be able to seat a nominee, unless his party controls the Senate. Then again, there is no precedent which the power addicted GOP is not willing to set aside for political expediency.
33
@Chicago There is no law that requires Trump to hand over his Tax Returns. So when partisan Democrats ask and he says no, they go to the Courts and say what?
3
@William
"There is no law that requires Trump to hand over his Tax Returns."
This is precisely what we are going to find out.
And the fact that you use the term "partisan" when describing Democrats exposes your right-wing propagandist view on the current state of affairs.
It's the same as when people talk about politicians "politicizing" a particular issue - a term which is as inane and meaningless as saying that someone was using "oxygen" and "words" during a speech - as if there was some other way of doing so.
All human conduct is "political" by definition. Just as identifying with one political party makes one "partisan". So, pointing this out is trenchant as trying to point out, with derision, that 2+2=4 is an "equation".
@William No federal law. NY state has one. Stay up to speed. Also, the House IS given the right to ask for them, sorry, I can't remember the rule or circumstance.
Stay up to speed, and away from Fox. You'll be smarter.
Trump has accidentally found a rich vein of immune privilege to exploit in the black hole of his presidency. The next Democratic president will also surely avail him / herself these same despotic luxuries.
Can't wait.
1
"The Justice Department under Mr. Trump has refused to defend... a law against female genital mutilation."
That's not something I expected to learn today. I mean, I'm not surprised there's a law against that, nor am I surprised Trump won't defend that law. I'm just surprised to hear about it only now.
Not sure the country could handle four more years of this.
31
How is fishing for some crime by getting hold of Potus’s tax returns legitimate oversight?
9
@Charles Segal how is it not? That's the definition of oversight.
3
How is directing the Treasury to violate the law requiring the provision of tax returns to certain committees legitimate administration?
2
Wouldn’t it be good business practice to look into the background of a partner, employee or client who lies to your face every day?
3
The answer is obvious, the Democrats need to begin an, official, impeachment inquiry to give weight to their requests, their legal standing and their seriousness. When the farmboy asked the farmer why he brought the two by four to hitch the mule to the wagon, the response could apply here too, “The first thing you’ve got to do is get the mule’s attention.”
8
What the heck else are Democrats supposed to do besides go to court? This is the most obstructionist and I would say criminal administration that this country has ever had. Hoping for compromise with the Republicans is a vain exercise. They view it as a dirty word themselves.
And should Democrats have to compromise? The Trump administration's obstructionism is just wrong. Mr Tiefer's wish for compromise would be along the lines of if one person stole a dollar from another, then the compromise to resolve the situation would be for the thief to return fifty cents. Problem solved! That seems to be what Democrats are expected to accept throughout their dealings with Republicans.
13
When a president decides he is above the law and wants to be a dictator, what choices do we have?
The courts? If not, take to the streets in violent protests like other bananna republics?
Of course we have to vote this despot out of office, but that is too long.
The House of Representatives and thr courts are our best hope to check this tyrant's power grab.
12
So, this is really just Donald Trump the Con Man's act introduced into the Political System: Litigate everything and prosecute by delay. What Trump ultimately does is place the Courts in the position of policing the political branches. And if you pack the Supreme Court, so much the better.
There is only one fool-proof way to end Donald Trump in government: Get a State's court system involved in prosecuting him for state crimes, just like what happened with Vice President Spiro Agnew and the State of Maryland when he was Nixion's VP. So far, New York's legal system seems incapable or unwilling to move forward and I'm surprised the US Attorney for the SDNY hasn't turned over incriminating information to the State for criminal prosecution. Go figure.
Until, then, more federal court gymnastics for the fat government apprentice.
12
@jayhavens
People are afraid. (Whether it's fear of a huge stock market crash (greed) or having their dirty laundry exposed, of suicide, fear is the dominant emotion when nothing is done.
Freedom is another word for nothing more to lose.
I have to grit my teeth when clicking on these kinds of critically engaged and deeply revealing summaries of tRumplicans' constant behind-the-scenes shenanigans, though I thank the gods of journalism that insightful reporters are still being paid to write them.
Frankly, it is exhausting to read about how deeply the GOP has disavowed any allegiance to democracy as it relates to governing America. Like so many who grew up during the postwar period of general prosperity when both parties regularly compromised on almost every issue in order to form a more perfect future nation for all Americans, I find it depressing to watch the profoundly antidemocratic and antigovernment legacy of Reagan, Gingrich, et al. propelling us toward an arrogant and authoritarian oligarchy of mostly white so-called Christians desperate only for material wealth and power. (Which is why Hulu's dramatization of Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale feels way too real for some of us to watch.) As this story documents, it is hardly a stretch to conclude that Republicans under Mitch & trump have zero respect for the rule of law and therefore absolutely no concern for maintaining a functioning democracy.
Keep it up, NYT! May sunlight and the Fourth Estate help to save America from our lesser demons...
21
Trump is successfully destroying our democracy and Republican party is more than happy to help him doing it! Trump seems to be an existential threat to GOP and not sure what would be the consequences to that party once Trump leaves the office, hopefully after Jan 2021 or may be till he is living to make him a lifelong President of the Kingdom of America in the line of his friend Putin, Kim Jung Un, and China's Xi.
3
Trump’s refusal to hand over requested/subpoenaed information is itself a basic violation of the Constitution in that the “power”of the government as described by the Founders was to rest with the Congress — not with the President. That makes it ipso facto an impeachable offense.
And the reason they made Congress the supreme holder of government power was, among others, that they had seen in the history of the British system, how easily abused citizens were through actions of the King and they were determined to rein in the power of the Executive.
Any judgment from our Supreme Court that says otherwise is a major overturning of the relationship that the Founders intended in crafting our government’s law making. If the Senate Republicans were not in thrall to the money men and the plutocracy that pays for their elections and if they had any freedom of action and thought of their own, not to mention courage, they would be working with the House Democrats to remove this incipient fascist from office.
27
That is exactly what Trump wants...distraction and delays. All the while Mitch McConnell will stack those courts..
11
Trump has demonstrated how our checks and balances really don't work.
6
Democrats need a strong candidate and platform to win 2020. Don't let 45 distract us from the goal otherwise the democracy is lost.... For Certain.
7
The proper, responsible and effective way to protect America from "Trump’s norm-busting presidency" is for the US House of Representatives to finally stop shirking its Constitutional duty and to impeach him, for offenses worse than Watergate.
9
Trump could end much of this by simply releasing his tax returns.
Okay.
I know.
I laughed when I wrote it.
10
I don't care how the democrats stand up to trump! Just do something, anything!
Sometimes I wonder if the democrats are owned by the same groups that own the republicans.
3
“What is going on with this administration is no less than an all-out declaration of war on oversight.”
- Kerry W. Kircher, former (Republican) House counsel
Yes, and lack of Congressional oversight equates to unrestrained executive power. And what do we call an unrestrained executive? - King.
And what do we call supporters of the King? - Subjects.
You may say the courts will restrain him. But since the King appoints the high judges, I call that myopic.
16
Any way you look at this, it's still Trump's fault.
Who runs for President and thinks he is going to successfully hide his tax returns--after promising to release them at the conclusion of an "audit"?
And he's President, but he thinks he can avoid any scrutiny of his business deals with Russian oligarchs, after his campaign and his family met with a Russian operative to obtain dirt on his political opponent--which would be a violation of 52 U.S. Code § 30121 if a fool hadn't done it, but Junior's ignorance saved him.
Not to mention the help Trump received from the Russians ("if you're listening, Hillary's emails"), firing Comey as retaliation for the FBI's Russia investigation, and Trump's groveling before Putin in Helsinki.
If Obama or the Clintons had done one tenth of any of that, AND they had financial deals with Russian oligarchs, the Republicans would be scratching in the dirt demanding every scrap of paper and harassing anyone who went near the bank. Remember what they did in Whitewater?
Yet Trump gets to cover up all of his Russia-connected business deals and records notwithstanding the mountain of Russian dirt on him?
What a screaming double standard. Is there any bigger double standard than the Republicans' acceptance of Trump versus the way they attack Democrats?
14
The House of Representatives should do what they can. Impeach the president and the Attorney General. Get all the evidence out on the table where Americans can see for themselves the ruse that has been played to trick Americans. Embarrassing evidence that hasn’t been aired as of yet, get it out into the open. Trump and Barr are using the same plys that has kept trump out of jail all these years. Whether it was construction or real estate cons. He just keeps on suing to tie things up in court. Let the House of Representatives be the next court. Start arresting uncooperative witnesses.
14
Impeachment is the best option - you can’t do what we did back here in Puerto Rico.
4
Really, with this administration, we/congress should be pushing one thing: impeachment. If not, it's a cascading effect whereby the House could actually lose it's power to exercise it's oversight by them being ineffective and by losing the peoples confidence in them doing what they were elected to do. The reality is both the executive branch and the Senate are out of control and acting illegally.
4
And who has appointed a record number of judges to the court? Will there be an expeditious set of rulings handed down? Why, are the courts involved? What does the law say about ignoring or completely disregarding a congressional or any other form of subpoena? If I am called to appear for jury duty and decide I don’t want to play, what will happen to me? Apparently, where I am concerned, nobody is above the law. Equally apparently, some of the animals are more equal than some others...USA USA
4
This is the basic flaw in the article: " He said it is better if the two parties were able to resolve high-level policy disputes through compromise rather than through the “rigid and formalized system” of litigation, and suggested that routinely pushing those disputes into court could heighten politicization of the judiciary."
Between McConnell & DT, there's no possibility of compromise since there isn't even an attempt at dialogue. Both men have ridden rough-shod over the implicit & explicit workings of government & have to be corralled in any way possible.
5
Yes, and this process is undermining democracy, itself.
Trump trumps the democratic process, putting the nation at risk.
I think Trump's democracy destruction is creating a new wave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is, there's a reaction to Trump's constant democracy threats.
I wish the Times focused more on the future of democracy, itself.
They could consider the words of DEMOCRACY song (1992).
Leonard Cohen sang, "Democracy is coming to the USA." (1992)
I hope Democrats consider the song, as a theme for 2020.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
-------------------------------------------
1
Congress gave up its role years ago. It is a spectator. We all have zero confidence in the congress regardless which party is in the majority.
We are becoming a country like many other third world countries.
People don't vote because they see it as a waste.
5
What safeguards can be implemented so that moving forward “checks and balances” can really be CHECKS and BALANCES? Anyone?
3
If Congress “typically passes laws, appropriates funds and conducts oversight”, but this president and his GOP enablers obstruct and ignore all three functions, then I guess the House Democrats need to do something that isn’t typical. And if the House Democrats are prevented from “using the powers granted them by the Constitution” by a lawless president who couldn’t care less about the Constitution and a Justice Department that has forgotten that it works for the citizens to defend the Constitution, then I guess we need to find out if the third branch of government thinks that the Constitution still matters.
But, of course, none of this will matter if Trump wins in 2020 and gets four more years to complete the destruction of the federal judiciary.
Isn’t it remarkable that after all these years we have returned to the original question: Are the American people wise enough to live in a democracy?
7
I see no reason to believe that, when big push comes to big shove, Trump will obey even a Supreme Court decision that threatens him significantly. Thus far, he has shown no sign of considering that there might ever be any authority higher than himself. Besides, his here, Jackson, was none too friendly with the courts.
Power will rest with the lifetime appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice...if that position were heritable we would be back in middle age royal courts.
3
Schiff made it pretty clear: "The blanket refusal to comply with any legitimate process has forced us to go to court to validate Congress’s power of oversight,” he said. “If we don’t, we are at risk of losing that power, and that would be a tragedy for the country because it would take any limit off the executive.”
If thwarting the Congressional oversight is as simple as saying "I prefer not" to subpoenas, the balance of power in our three-part federal government is lost and I view THAT as significantly more dangerous than theoretical future concerns. This is completely the fault of Republicans who, quite rightly, wouldn't tolerate 1/100 of the nonsense, lies, incompetence, and corruption that daily emanates from the current Chief Executive.
8
For better or worse, Trump’s administration has exposed the massive shortcomings of an executive branch that is all but out of control. It’s regrettable that Trump and his aides can simply say “No” to congressional subpoenas and force the judiciary to weigh in, but if the courts do not uphold the lawful authority of our Congress to provide a check on the presidency...how can we view the Executive as a democratic institution if it can act with impunity on virtually any issue, accountable to no one?
64
This is the basic flaw in the article: " He said it is better if the two parties were able to resolve high-level policy disputes through compromise rather than through the “rigid and formalized system” of litigation, and suggested that routinely pushing those disputes into court could heighten politicization of the judiciary."
Between McConnell & DT, there's no possibility of compromise since there isn't even an attempt at dialogue. Both men have ridden rough-shod over the implicit & explicit workings of government & have to be corralled in any way possible.
2
Dealing with Trump reminds me of a story: A man goes into a grocery store and says he wants to buy his entire paycheck at his store. The store owner is elated. The man gets all of his items, walks up to the owner and gives the owner the check. The owner says, You have to sign the check. The man refuses saying that he's giving the owner his check. This goes on for 20 minutes, the owner says, If you go across the street to the other store and he takes your check without signing the check, I'll match your purchase. The man goes across the street and comes back about 20 minutes later. The store owner notices that the man's clothes are torn and disheveled, and his face is marked and bruised. The store owner says, Did you sign the check for him. The man says, Yes. The store owner asks, Why did you sign the check for him? And, the man says, He explained it differently. And, that is what hopefully the court will do with Trump, explain it differently.
9
This may have constitutional ramifications, but we are in a situation which would have been utterly incomprehensible to the framers, to wit: the current occupant of the office
- did not expect to become President;
- had no plan for what he would do as President, aside from whatever he felt like from one day to the next;
- was not aware of the duties of the office and had no interest in learning anything about them, and as a result
- is not now fulfilling his obligations as President, and
- is failing to do so with the express support of the party currently controlling the Senate.
In other words, we have been in a full-fledged Constitutional crisis ever since Donald John Trump falsely swore to his oath of office. Getting the federal government back to something like a normal constitutional basis is not going to happen until he is removed.
In an exceptional situation, exceptional measures have to be taken, but so long as they tend towards restoring our institutional framework they are not only justified but necessary.
12
The answer to all of the obstructionist ordained court activity is a re-ordering of the protocols acceptable as presentable to court and those that must be resolved by compromise. Strict rules can then be enforced accordingly by drop dead expiration dates for disagreement and resolution. Ad hoc agreements are then enforced.
1
"Something done Broke"
The seeds that were planted by Justice Marshall
in "Marbury vs Madison"
have now fully blossomed.
It seems the Courts,
not the people,
nor the States
nor Congress
nor the Executive Branch,
will now become the Supreme Power in and of our Land.
So much for our Constitutional Democratic Republic.
2
It is ironic that the Democratic leadership in the House, so concerned with holding on to its power, have ceded its power to the White House.
By refusing to impeach, which would give them legal authority to compel the Trump administration to comply with information requests (one can hope), they have in essence said that ignoring those requests is a-okay with them.
It also shows how willing they are to look the other way when faced with blatant criminal behavior and abuses of power.
Someday we may have representatives who put the Constitution and the rights and obligations of the America people above their own political career. But I don't see that happening any time soon, particularly when there is no one in power to compel them to do so.
16
The "norm-busting" President has created so many novel (and probably dubious) legal theories that litigation is inevitable, unless Congress wishes to let Trump define the limits of his own power. Thankfully we have not had many prior occasions to test just how far a president can go in defying Congress. But there is no reason to assume that future presidents will not want to proceed down the trail that Trump is blazing every day. If we have had to suffer through the attempts to destroy our democracy, perhaps that suffering can be put to use in creating precedent to lessen the burden on future generations. For this reason, it is essential that the Judiciary consider the issues and claims created by the norm-busting.
It will also be a good idea for Congress, when it has the opportunity, to reclaim the authority it unwisely delegated to the Executive, creating situations where a super-majority is needed to reclaim legislative power now in the hands of a veto-weilding Executive.
19
Although Mr. Trump assures us that he has nothing to hide, he will go to great lengths to hide it, including refusing to recognize the authority of the largest, most representative branch of government. His hand-picked court is not likely to be of much help, but what choice do we have?
34
Those judges he handpicked that have lifetime appointments can act as their consciences dictate. They owe Trump nothing. He cannot harm them now.
2
I don't know how to weigh the possible consequences of using the courts. I'm not a student of such things.... though it appears to me that we have seen enormous changes by the gradual increase of "executive orders," to bypass a Congress that refuses to function (or more precisely, a Senate which has been changed from a great deliberative body into a lead weight with no function except obstruction. Thanks, Mitch!)
We are watching the end of our Republic. We owe Ben Franklin an acknowledgement... he saw it coming.
72
Yeah, and guess who that started with? Obama! If u wanna blame someone, blame him. He’s the one that used Executive Orders excessively. I guess Trump is just following along....
1
We are now surely witnessing the decline of the United States of America as a once great power. Our constitution is not holding up well.
The divisions, polarization, and influence of billions of $$$ has turned our once great country into a pseudo non-functioning democracy.
I personally think Nancy Pelosi took the wrong path with all the lawsuits. She should have started impeachment proceedings long ago.
39
In refusing to comply with all House subpoenas, the Trump Administration has thrown down the gauntlet.
Trump has nothing to lose and a lot to gain by delaying the process well into the coming election cycle. They insist that the election is the equivalent of litigation. It is not.
The constitution gives Congress substantial authority to reign in the executive. If the courts opt out -- and that would be extraordinary -- the House still has inherent contempt authority to hale witnesses into committee hearings.
Can you imagine Donald Trump under oath? That would be the greatest sporting event of our lifetime.
94
@Occupy Government
As the president appears to be constitutionally incapable of speaking extemperaneously for more than a minute or two without uttering some falsehood, and lying under oath while testifying before congress, or a congressional committee, is a serious crime... Well. That would be that.
Donald Trump has a better chance of successfully recreating one of Evil Knevil’s most dangerous stunts, than he has of politically surviving testifying before congress.
13
It is a tremendous irony that the Democrats and their supporters in the left have for many years pursued their objectives in an undemocratic way. They use the Courts, the least democratic branch of government, to accomplish what they know they could not by a majority vote. So it is not a surprise that these 21st Century House Dems would try to find left-leaning judges to do what representative democracy will not. These Dems are no longer advocates for the common folk who make up the majority; they are advocates for the liberal elite.
7
@ehillesum
This is astoundingly inverted. Thanks for the moment of astonishment.
4
What specifically are you talking about?
You do realize that Republicans and “the Right” have controlled Congress from 1994 - 2008 and from 2010 - 2016, don’t you?
Roe v Wade was decided by a Supreme Court comprised of appointees of Eisenhower and Nixon and it wasn’t Democrats who initiated those proceedings, it was women desperate to control their own reproductive health.
All initiatives to force the states to respect federal guarantees of civil rights were championed by “liberal” members of both parties.
The Supreme Court decision to recognize the rights of gay couples to marry was written in part by a Republican appointed justice.
You need to elaborate about this assertion you have made. On its face, it appears easily disprovable.
7
I would love to hear the tune you sing when a Democratic president next takes office.
2
Be careful of what you ask for. In a few years the Democrats will be in charge at the White House and they will be the ones obstructing the Republicans. In American history, one party seldom gets control of both houses and the White House for more than two years.
9
@William
So what? The Executive defying the Congress is an inversion of our constitution.
4
How did we let others inflame us against each other so fast? We are not alone in our internal political troubles. Putin has been busy acting in all the Western nations, and I wonder when the West will stand up to him.
If we do not find out what Putin has on Trump we may never be free.
29
Ahh, "compromise", the lost art of compromise which is, after all, what politics is all about. In court, this is where you land when the parties in power are lorded over by the most fanatical, fringes of their constituencies, the extremists will certainly bring the ruination of us all.
What we need is someone, some leaders who can martial the vast electorate who reside between the radical fringes of the party extremes. How about this idea: a cross party presidential ticket. Here is one combination that I've seen mentioned: Hickenlooper/Kasich. This is certainly not the only possible combination but the idea could be worth considering.
We don't need any more rabid extremists in this country, we need to go after extreme unity.
2
@Bailey A third party (no matter what you call it, that's what it would be) will guarantee Trump's re-election.
Yeh--unity is a good idea. Probably the most elusive thing in the universe.... but a good idea. In the meanwhile, let's chose a strong, intelligent, rational Democrat like Liz Warren, and defeat Trump. There's an idea to unite us!
4
@Bailey
One is reminded of the extremism that led to the Civil War
and the extremism that led to the Reign of Terror
during the French Revolution
and how a small band of extremists seized control
of Saint Petersburg and then all of Russia.
The will of the Common Folk carries less and less
weight in this country everyday.
5
Clearly, in Donald Trump, you have a person who during his lifetime has always had his way. ALWAYS. That said, Trump believes he is above the law. And unlike Richard M. Nixon's case in which conservative Republican senators were Nixon's conscience, there is no one to remind Trump that regardless of who you, as Harry S. Truman once said, no one is above the law.
58
@Jean W. Griffith
According to the Mueller report or is it the DOJ ruling enacted under/fore the benefit of Clinton?? -- the president indeed is above the law, unless impeached.
What's wrong with Pelosi, her supporters I do not know!!
(Does Trump have major dirt on Nancy? Death threats implied? Why did Ross Perot drop out of the presidential race for X-weeks that year? More to the Epstien affair than you or I know?))
The most important authority of the House of Representatives is power over the purse.
It needs to learn how to use it with more skill and precision.
9
Outside legal services are provided for free? Yet I suspect some (or all) of these firms also represent clients with issues in front of Congress.
"Donating" legal services in exchange for influence and access to Congressfolks these same law firms are also lobbying? I bet that set off some investigative bells at the Times!
(JK.)
7
The shenanigans going on in DC make the average hard-working, tax-paying American wonder how relevant we are to our government and supposed leaders. Should we continue on our merry way and hope that somehow a change in leadership will right the ship? Or should we take to the streets (or airports a la Hong Kong) to register our supreme distaste for and distrust for those we have put in power? Heads in the sand or feet on the ground. It truly is up to us to take our country in the direction we want it to go.
25
Stop paying taxes en masse?
1
notice how it's ok for Republicans to go to court at the public's expense but when the Democrats are forced to use the courts the Republicans shout unfair/political
77
@Brassrat and notice how the mainstream media usually goes along with it by bringing focus on the democrats and paying less attention to the root of the problem... the republicans?
6
Trump has always skirted, toyed with or ignored the law. Now, 2 years into his "reign" he is completely above the law. The law wasn't written for "great" people like him.
25
"...his staff of seven lawyers have increasingly relied on volunteer lawyers at white-shoe law firms..."
I wish it were possible for these guys' identities could be revealed so a grateful nation, or wise members thereof, could send them thank you letters. On the other hand, such revelations would surely cause their firms to lost a lot of current and future clients.
By the way, is there any such thing as a 'saddle shoe law firm'?
1
If only the Constitution provided Congress with some kind of process that they could apply against a corrupt President.
66
@James McGill they have. It's called impeachment.
2
@Sitges Good grief -- he was being facetious!
4
This is great, just great. Our federal government needs to sue itself in order to function. Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves.
22
It all comes down, for the most part, to partisan politics, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the days of reconstruction. One thing is certain: the Nadler- and Schiff-led committees have become little more than the right arm of the Democratic 2020 election campaign.
4
Actually, it’s called “checks and balances” rather than your risible opinion. Try to keep up.
6
House lawyer Charles Tiefer worries "that routinely pushing those disputes into court could heighten politicization of the judiciary."
The right wing and the oligarchs are determined to achieve precisely that, as part of their attempted (and thus far successful) authoritarian takeover of the government. Indeed, this minority is gaining control, not only of the government, but of the entire country.
119
@Critical Rationalist
I would go a step further and suggest that we are already living under the tyranny of the minority. Their efforts today are intended to make that the permanent state of our nation, by any and all means necessary. A truly frightening state of affairs.
64
@Critical Rationalist
Yes, and this process is undermining democracy, itself.
Trump trumps democratic process, putting the US at risk.
Trump's democracy destruction is creating a new wave.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a reaction to Trump's constant democracy threats.
I wish the Times focused more on the future of democracy, itself. They could consider the words of DEMOCRACY song.
Leonard Cohen sang, "Democracy is coming to the USA."
I hope Democrats consider the song, as a theme for 2020.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
-------------------------------------------
13
@Critical Rationalist
That ship sailed when McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat.
10