there is no prospect of one succeeding in this remaining Congress and one which has a chance will have to wait for he incoming Congress and, even then, unless enough Republicans vote for it, it will have no lasting effect. The outrage at Democrats for not carrying it off or making the futile gesture in that direction is misplaced. Look at the history of impeachment and successful removal of the many, many criminal and otherwise impeachable members of a presidential cabinet. 0-2.
Blaming Democrats for the absurdly high bar to conviction set by the amateurs in the original Constitutional convention is ridiculous and ineffective. Blaming them for the immunities given to them from the Supreme and other courts and the so-called Department of "jusice" is equally absurd.
It's for the new congress to do in January, which they should do as soon as possible but with hearings that expose the crimes, lies, cover-ups and corruptions and they shouldn't abide by the rules of the so-called Department of "justice," and perhaps not even those imposed on the Congress by the Supreme Court if that inhibits their Constitutionally mandated oversight of the executive. Letting Trump set the rules is to enable a criminal conspiracy, one which the majority on the Roberts Court is a party to.
---------------------
Really. The Republicans in the House really want another mid-western wrestling coach with ties to a sex scandal and cover up of it as their party's leader in the House. I don't think Democrats in Congress or out of it should let the opportunity pass, not for a minute, to remind People of the sex abuse cover up that Jim Jordan has been named in and which has been covered up on his and others' behalf just as the Epstein scandal has been covered up.
The media should not be allowed to help in continuing to cover that up on behalf of him or his party, the party of the media's owners. They will cover it up, just as they have covered up for so many for so long.
---------------------------
I don't know if it's possible to get the Democratic leadership of the Senate and House changed from the ineffective, bordering on clueless Schumer and Jeffries. Some are saying that it might be possible in the Senate but not the House. If that's true, I'd take what we can get in ditching Schumer and put Jeffries on notice to cut the bullshit and maybe stop speaking in public about things that will only make things worse. His ineffectiveness in communicating opposition to the Trump regime and the Republican-fascism is is supported by is one of his biggest problems. As is him being beholden to the corrupt money system that the Court has kept us from ending. I've said enough about the down-side of having cowardly lawyers as leadership, though there are lawyers who are not as cowardly or who figure that there's nothing that can be done.
It's a mistake having New York City guys in those positions because they don't seem to get how the country works. Look at Schumer's withholding funding for candidates who had a real chance to take seats in Florida because Angie Nixon opposed the blank check to Israel Schumer said was his job to get as Democratic leader, and, I've read he also let a chance at getting a Democratic Senator from Louisiana. I have to ask how likely it is that New York City guys don't get having a real 50 state strategy. New Yorkers have such a tendency to be pretty clueless outside of the most over-rated urban area in North America. They tend to see the rest of the country as terra incognita. I want to have Democratic leaders from other places, not just big cities.
---------------------
One of the things that I'd love to see is a revival of the anti-corruption LAWS that were passed after Watergate with an addition that those laws will not be nullified as the Court did in Buckley v Valeo but will be the law of the land because the experience of our ever more corrupt and dangerous politics since them prove that the Court was both wrong and stupid in declaring that billionaires and millionaires corrupting money equaled "speech" and was protected by the stupidly written First Amendment. But I can't see a cowardly lawyer ever being bold enough to do that. Make the Supreme Court reauthorize corruption in our politics and don't be polite about calling that out and pointing out how they are trying to give the billionaires and millionaires and the fascist party that they support control over our politics. Which has been the effect of that and its subsequent "free speech" Supreme Court rulings as supported by the fucking lawyers of the ACLU and the media that profits mightily from that corruption in ad money and otherwise.
We take back and clean up our politics or we will allow another Trump, another Bush II, . . . another Nixon which is one of the things the original clean elections laws were put in place to prevent. Only a true idiot would do the things that Nixon and his campaign were allowed to do and expect a better outcome than we had and our lawyers and judges and "justices" are just such idiots OR THEY LIKE THE CORRUPTION WE GOT FROM THAT LAWYERLY CONCEPTION OF "FREE SPEECH."
The only reason "freedom of speech" had any status more elevated than childish notions of libertarianism was that it was supposed to be essential to have good government. And the lawyers and courts were too stupid to figure that out. I think that's related to the status that lies get in that profession and the ideology of it. Also that they make their money in the most profitable parts of that profession from getting rich people what they want. Some lawyers got past that, briefly, to pass that clean election legislation, but they were all in the Congress, some of them were Republicans back then, but, then, they remembered WWII and the fascists who brought it on.
No comments:
Post a Comment