Reddit Feeds

Sign up and stay connected to your favorite communities.

sign uplog in

Senate panel moving ahead with Mueller bill despite McConnell opposition

91% Upvoted
What are your thoughts? Log in or Sign uplog insign up
Moderator of r/politics, speaking officiallyScore hidden·1 month ago·Stickied comment

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, and other incivility violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

3 more replies

10.1k points·1 month agoGilded1

Linking the comment below.

TL:DR - Grassley is trying to sneak in a way to limit the investigation


Grassley is pushing this because he is adding a secret amendment to the bill that can limit the investigation according to Feinstein. Won't show it to anyone.

1.9k points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

Grassley said he was “at a loss” over Feinstein’s delay.

Told Feinstein is complaining she hasn’t seen the amendment, Grassley shot back that he was under no obligation to disclose it to her. “I don’t even have to mention I had an amendment!” he said.

Yet he still projects blame onto her for "delaying" legislation on the special counsel, and Graham says its the Democrats who have "screwed up"

“I don’t know what it is. I don’t know what the bill does, I don’t know what the amendment does. So you would want us to know what we are voting on, right?” Feinstein said.

Seems reasonable to me

edit: butchered formatting

As a Brit I really don't understand. How is it legal to not publicise the contents of an amendment to a law?

668 points·1 month ago

The law hasn't passed yet, it's still in committee, and the committee members are allowed to keep secrets. The law would have to be published before a vote on it, but it's legal to create a propose a law that's hundreds of pages long and vote on it the same day (as Republicans did with the tax bill).

Foreign550 points·1 month ago

Which is still unbelievably dumb. Why was it ever allowed?

There are a lot of things that aren't explicitly against the rules because we didn't think we needed a rule. It's like an evil version of the Air Bud scenario.

379 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

If anyone was confused, then suddenly had a "lightbulb" moment like I did:

"There's no EXPLICIT rule saying a dog can't play basketball" because people didn't think to add one, because who could have guessed that.

So the evil version is just that: "No one would be immoral/evil enough to propose a massively complicated and important law without proper time to discuss and iron out the problems before it's voted on and passed". So there currently isn't a rule against that.

296 points·1 month ago

We used to have norms in government. They were important. GOP decided a functioning government is for suckers.

That's the crux of their entire platform. Functioning government hurts their brand.

They complain about government not being able to function, then they intentionally hamper the government so it can't functioning properly then they can go 'See, I told you!' and give over control of everything to their corporate criminal friends because somehow the free market is better than government, even though one is supposed to work for the good of the people and the other has a fucking legal(?) responsibility to make their SHAREHOLDERS money above all else.

Comment deleted1 month ago(More than 1 child)

We really need to boot all of these firebrand tea-party crazies out and get back to sane and rational politics and the standard legislative process. This kind of behavior is not only petty, it undermines the cooperation that is suppose to be built in to Congress.

Texas38 points·1 month ago

The tea party was an AstroTurfed movement.
Ultra wealthy donors staged a coup against entrenched Republicans to get their lackeys in there.

2 more replies

7 more replies

Comment deleted1 month ago(2 children)

2 more replies

16 more replies

It's like an evil version of the Air Bud scenario.

I'm stealing this.

Go for it, it's not like there's a law against it.

7 more replies

18 more replies

I think their laws were made under the assumption that the people trying to pass these bills would at least pretend to be reasonable people. The check in place for doing a last minute vote would be for everyone to just vote no, unfortunately the people in power just don't care.

2 more replies

28 more replies

16 more replies

Because these are the same people that decide what's legal.

They also get to determine their own salaries.


19 more replies

3 more replies

The amendment has to be publicized when it is voted on. This is pre-vote negotiations. As I understand it, Democrats are working with Republicans on the committee to bring the bill for a vote, since not all R's on the committee are in favor, but D's are worried that a bait and switch is waiting for them in the amendment process.

4 more replies

18 more replies

"So you would want us to know what we are voting on, right?” Feinstein said.

Nope. That's the whole point. The GOP runs on ignorance and the sheer force of bullying their way through.

Minnesota47 points·1 month ago

So the GOP will pass a bill preventing Trump from firing Mueller, with an amendment that fires Mueller?

yep. that way they can fire and claim the democrats supported firing him. Or if the democrats say fuck that the repugs can claim the democrats are unconcerned about mueller being fired.

1 more reply

2 more replies

Oregon70 points·1 month ago

Dammit Chuck! Stop deselecting track changes! We're trying to maintain version control here!

3 more replies

17 more replies

As an Iowan, I sincerely appologize about Grassley and King. They're both fuckers

How is Iowa both so progressive and so backwards at the same time? I've never understood it lol

824 points·1 month ago

Koch has bought all the politicians and Iowans are too polite to argue

Pretty much, 1/2 the population highjacked by single issues supporting a party that acts against their own voters on everything outside the single issue.

Don't forget that the Single Issue will be some stupid social issue like abortion (solved) or guns (cant have a shooting without a gun) or welfare (god forbid we help our fellow country men)

Abortion, it seems to me, is the single greatest issue holding back good government. You say it’s “solved” but there are literally millions of people who disagree. And I don’t only mean the asshole hypocrites who want to control women’s sexuality or who are compassionate for the fetus, but toss the baby away.

There are (I know some of them) millions of people who are caring, compassionate, and relatively progressive people for whom abortion is literally baby murder. These are people who don’t have a problem paying taxes for government programs to help those in need, who would be in favor of single payer healthcare systems so that everyone can get help, people that aren’t dismissive of racial and gender issues in this country. But for these people, I mean murder is about the worst crime you can commit, and from their point of view it’s literally infanticide. They may dislike the cronyism, the corporate capture, and even recognize and hate the hypocrisy demonstrated by the Republican Party... but they still vote R because they believe abortion to be murder.

I’m actually kind of curious how you say abortion is solved. It’s an issue I’ve given a lot of thought to and while I have my own opinion about it, when it comes to a question of “murder” it boils down to when life begins. Is it at conception? Is it a few weeks after the blastula has started to speciate? Is it when the nervous system first forms? Is it when the heartbeat starts? Is it when the fetus is viable outside the mother’s womb? Currently legally it is defined as the last one, but philosophically speaking, there are strong arguments for any one of those points. And the philosophy of it is important because that impacts how people feel and vote on this issue. I’ve also concluded that it’s gonna be a long damn time before we all can agree philosophically on this point. Only then will this issue cease to become a huge political sticking point.

And yet, the Republicans have failed to make abortion illegal. At best, they've made it inconvenient and humiliating.

If I voted along single issue lines my entire life, and the party I voted for hadn't acted on that issue, I'd probably look elsewhere.

California20 points·1 month ago

Apparently people vote Republican expecting them not to do what they promised

4 more replies

6 more replies

Ok. While I was finishing my history BA, in my History of the U.S. Consitution course we literally spent a week breaking down the Rowe v. Wade decision. It is much more extensive and thoughtful than most people think. The following comes from the Wikipedia summary:

While acknowledging that the right to abortion was not unlimited, Justice Blackmun, speaking for the Court, created a trimester framework to balance the fundamental right to abortion with the government's two legitimate interests: protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life." The trimester framework addressed when a woman's fundamental right to abortion would be absolute, and when the state's interests would become compelling. In the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court left the decision to abort completely to the woman and her physician.[43] From approximately the end of the first trimester until fetal viability, the state's interest in protecting the health of the mother would become "compelling."[44] At that time, the state could regulate the abortion procedure if the regulation "reasonably relate[d] to the "preservation and protection of maternal health."[45] At the point of viability, which the Court believed to be in the third trimester, the state's interest in "potential life" would become compelling, and the state could regulate abortion to protect "potential life."[44] At that point, the state could even forbid abortion so long as it made an exception to preserve the life or health of the mother.[46] The Court added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general.[47]

TLDR: That itself is a SINGLE SECTION of a SUMMARY regarding Rowe v Wade. The decision understood how contentious the subject is. The problem is that most people against the decision have neglected to ever attempt to read or understand it. They take an absolute stance on an issue that is anything but, and because of this ignorance our political system has been held hostage ever since. Even if a “perfect” compromise could be struck, this lack of education and empathy would hamstring this hypothetical perfect compromise as well.

6 more replies

Well there is a Supreme Court ruling. As for a party's stance, I think it should be to "reduce abortions". This includes education, birth control, adoption support, and support of new families. Unfortunately, those against abortion also seem to not want to do any of those.

Florida109 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

It irks me to no end how people most who are anti-abortion are also against the things that help reduce the amount of abortions that happen. Planned Parenthood, Safe Sex Education, and increased social programs aimed to lift people out of poverty who are most at risk of having an abortion (particularly women of color). If "Pro Life" people actually cared about reducing abortion rates, they'd be fighting for Planned Parenthood, not protesting against them. But they don't understand what the organization does. They just obsess over pictures of aborted fetuses and scream at the wall.

The only rational conclusion to this irrationality is pro-life people don't care about reducing abortion rates. They don't care if safe sex education is more effective than abstinence education, they wouldn't even look at any statistics related to that if you put it in front of them on a gigantic sign in 72 512-point Futura. They care about returning America to "Puritanical Christian Values" and leverage outrage against abortion as a way to fuel this objective.

Edit: Apparently my hyperbole's font size should be even bigger.

9 more replies

28 more replies

Not who you replied to, but from my view abortion is solved in so much as the current legal state of it isn't going to change anytime soon, if ever.

1 more reply

I'm in Ireland right now where we're voting on this very thing in a few weeks.

Trust me when I say banning abortion has horrible consequences.

I suggest you read the reports of the citizens assembly we had on the issue and explore what they looked at.

Virginia28 points·1 month ago

Trust me when I say banning abortion has horrible consequences.

America knows, it's why we made it legal in the 70s. But some people are morons who don't learn anything from history.

1 more reply

1 more reply

Republican on gun control: “Prohibition does nothing, if people want it enough they’ll get it from somewhere else or 3D print one” (someone seriously said this once)

On abortion: “The only responsible thing to do is prohibition. That’ll stop it.”

5 more replies

107 more replies

4 more replies

9 more replies

Because of Iowa city, proud of my city a blue spot in a Red Sea.

Des Moines too.

11 more replies

4 more replies

There's an Iowa kind of special chip on the shoulder attitude we've never been without that we recall. We can be cold as our falling thermometers in December if you ask about our weather in July. And we're so by god stubborn, we could stand touching noses for a week at a time and never see eye to eye.

But what the heck, you're welcome, Join us at the picnic. You can eat your fill Of all the food you bring yourself.

3 more replies

1 more reply

populated cites vs rural small town farmers.

What small town farmers? Iowa is a Big Ag state. Those aren't hick village farmers, those are corporations.

27 more replies

6 more replies

23 more replies

No need to apologize. Just vote.

3 more replies

36 more replies

Oh FFS of course he is. Then they can say "Dems didn't vote for it either!" So damn annoying that they constantly try to pull this underhanded crap just so they can get a talking point on Fox News that the uninformed will eat up.

Maybe its because im on the outside looking in, but how can this be considered democracy? Pretending a bill is about one thing and then adding secret amendments in that do something completely different and hobble a criminal investigation. That sounds much more like a con than democracy at work to me. Is there no guidelines around when someone can add an amendment and if they have to tell people they are adding it or on how much time people are given to READ the bill they are about to vote on? I dont know, to me that just feels like dictatorship disguised as democracy in which the majority can just be underhanded as fuck to sneak laws in. It makes me sick knowing politicians not only do this, but get away with it as if its a totally acceptable thing to do.

Pennsylvania36 points·1 month ago

There's very little in terms of guidelines. Most of it had previously been held back by publically visible morals and common practices. The republicans over the past 9 years have destroyed those safeguards by doing almost everything outside of normal procedure and lacking any moral or ethical oversight. This was the reasoning behind McCain's 'no' vote to shut down the healthcare bill. He didn't really care about the bill, he was just upset that they rushed it through without anyone even knowing what was in the bill. He still remembered the huge debates over minutae in Obamacare and wanted to get back to that to avoid creating something full of loopholes and bad practices.

The next administration is going to have to codify those previously understood rules en masse if we want to bring the US back into some semblance of normalcy.

11 more replies

It’s completely fucked, but in reality they get away with it because we are a republic or a representative democracy. Technically we elected them to act on our behalf. But nothing is stopping these tools from being bought and paid for by special interests or corruption within their respective party forcing them to “toe the line”.

3 more replies

5 more replies

200 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

All we did was add a small amendment giving all Republicans lifetime terms for all elections, both federal and local, while requiring Democrats to run for re-election every 30 days.

FauxNewz headline--"Why are the Democrats refusing to support Mueller anymore?".

Not nearly partisan enough and runs the risk of their viewers thinking the dems did something they agree with. More accurate headline is something like "Hypocrite dems drop support for Mueller now that investigation not going their way"

Please don't give them any more ideas

2 more replies

1 more reply

169 points·1 month ago

"Hey we have added this amendment in this bill".

"Well, what is it."

"I can't tell you, its a secret"

Surprise amendments is no basis for government.

I'll take moistened bints lobbing scimitars over this sneaky shit

5 more replies

3 more replies

246 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

Wasn't there a state that recently passed a bill disallowing adding amendments and riders to bills that were either irrelevant or straight up contrary to the bill. Basically, politicians would try to enact bills, another politician would then try to add on something irrelevant (like a specific spending clause on another topic or some other civil rights things) and this would get the bill killed. Then the one side ends up looking bad because they didn't vote for the Save The Children From Being Eaten by Tigers Bill, which at the start was a Zoo safety regulations bill but had a list of add-ons that also prevented them from funding social assistance programs.

edit: As far as I could find this is law in 41 states and is not federal law. I remember recently seeing a new state enacting this but I couldn't find which one it is. I think its Oklahoma.

I fucking wish Kentucky would do this. They recently passed a bill dealing with the sewer systems and added a rider to eliminate pensions for new teachers.

What the actual fuck?

We have a very conservative legislature and a tea party, trump-lite fuck as a governor. Luckily the entire legislature is up for re-election this year and the governor next year. And it looks as though attacking teachers may be career suicide for them.

Yea the teachers are getting ready to protest, and not over raw pay (while still poo) but over their retirements.

Thing about teachers is as much as people demonize them when they get active they can out reach far more than any rich fucker.

They have already had multiple protests that shut down every school system in the state. Last Friday and the Friday before.

1 more reply

When you attack teachers, you attack the future.

In this case, the future is being forced to act to protect itself from the past.

These old fucks will die off, but not nearly soon enough. And then we have to deal with their children and grandchildren.

2 more replies

1 more reply

2 more replies

5 more replies

What you’re talking about is the single subject rule. A number of states have it. Everything included in a bill must relate to the bill’s “subject.” The rule is meant to prevent “logrolling,” which is pretty much what you just described. Lawmakers add amendments to bills that have nothing to do with what that particular bill seeks to accomplish. The shitty thing is that there is no federal single subject rule, which is why this bullshit Grassley is doing happens all the time. I can’t remember exactly what it was, but recently, the omnibus bill that Congress passed to fund the government had some random shit in it.

4 more replies

6 more replies

This should be the top comment, thank you for providing a source.

How do these people justify these things to themselves? I honestly don't understand. How do they not have a "are we the baddies" moment?

You assume they give a shit.

Oregon17 points·1 month ago

They definitely don’t get the benefit of the doubt.

Because they've already realised it and it gets their rocks off. Evil people don't care that they're evil.

I like think that in the past few years, quite a few Republicans had their personal Wilson Fisk moment.

1 more reply

Or they are hiding something.

1 more reply

11 more replies

Washington43 points·1 month ago

How do these people justify these things to themselves?

An overwhelming drive for tribal power.

Nothing more; nothing less.

2 more replies

For those unfamiliar with the reference

19 more replies

Foreign78 points·1 month ago

Son of a bitch. No wonder he pretended to have a spine.

Texas75 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

Grassley could barely contain himself when Feinstein’s concerns were relayed to him during an interview. He insisted he has told her that his aim is to require the Justice Department to report to Congress any significant decisions about the special counsel, including a termination.

Grassley said he was “at a loss” over Feinstein’s delay.

Told Feinstein is complaining she hasn’t seen the amendment, Grassley shot back that he was under no obligation to disclose it to her. “I don’t even have to mention I had an amendment!” he said.

That bolded text is complete bullshit to me. You mean to tell me when someone puts an amendment in a bill, they can just keep their mouth shut, hope no one reads an inserted line or two, and a bill could be passed that allows something completely contrary to the original intent? And that's just okay as an argument? I misinterpreted what Grassley was saying as "There's literally no obligation to inform others of an amendment added, at any point." Riders are usually annoying but it turns out, he's just saying that at this point, he didn't have to tell anyone about an amendment because it hasn't even been written completely yet. It's just an idea he plans to have in there. I still stand by my 2nd point though.

On top of that, yeah, I don't like that the Justice Department would have to inform Congress of their decisions relating to a special counsel because it's not in their fucking job description to manage outside investigations. It is, however, their duty to ensure the President doesn't abuse his power over the Justice Department.

Edit: formatting and grammar.

5 more replies

Washington66 points·1 month ago

And if Democrats vote against it because of the amendment, then Republicans will point at it and say "See? Even the Democrats don't think Mueller needs protection!"

And then, when he gets fired, Republicans will point at it and say "Democrats refused to protect Robert Mueller and look what happened."

1 more reply

I just wrote my democratic reps, copy pasta this if you like:

Dear Senator X,

I writing out of my concern for the proposed bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller III. It has come to my attention that there is an amendment being planned by Chairman Chuck Grassley that may be used to limit the power of the Special Counsel, which you may already be aware of (my source: As eager as I am to have protections for the Special Counsel, I would be remiss to not do my part as a citizen to ensure that this bill is not voted on in haste; potentially resulting in a detriment to the investigation at large. I would ask that you [and any other Democratic reps from your state] continue your vocal opposition to the abuses of power by your Republican counterparts across the country, and use what platforms and resources you have available to put a spotlight on this act by Grassley.

The Special Counsel's work must continue unhindered using whatever measures we have available to prevent civil unrest and further crumbling of the citizens' trust in our institutions. I'm sure the severity of this development is not lost on you, and wish you well as you continue to combat these tactics used by those who would undermine our Democracy.


A link here for contacting your Senators

My Senator is Ted Cruz. I'll print you message out and take it to the toilet with me so that when Ted gets his shipment of Texas waste to sustain the insects inhabiting his skin suit he might choke on it and actually read the words.

1 more reply

3 more replies

Wow they are still trying everything they can to undermine the investigation. They are so fucking desperate. They must really be scared of what Mueller might find if they’re repeatedly going to such great lengths to obstruct the investigation.

45 points·1 month ago

The funny thing (not really) about that is, what the hell did they expect? You hired an uber competent lawman to investigate a lifelong conman who's inner circle is a rogues gallery of sketchy sycophants. What could possibly go wrong?

4 more replies

What're the odds that they're complicit with crimes committed and/or the Russians have dirt on them.

High. Although, in the case of McTurtle, he's been in cahoots with the Chinese.

1 more reply

1 more reply

127 points·1 month ago

So Grassley is going to "support" the bill by poisoning it, just in case it actually makes law. When trump inevitably goes down, Grassley can do the "Told you voters... I was right, and I supported protecting the investigation. Please re-elect me!" Complicit fuck.

Minnesota35 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

I'm not so sure Grassley's motives are centered around being reelected... he's the oldest second oldest member of the Senate (behind Feinstein by a few months), and he'll be 88 when his term expires in 2022. I'll be pretty surprised if he decides to run again.

Good lord I feel like you should have to retire at 65 if you’re running the country.

Meanwhile most of the major candidates in the 2016 election (Trump, Clinton, Sanders) were over 70

1 more reply

6 more replies

5 more replies

So when Dems don't vote for it, he can turn around and blame them. What a weasel piece of shit manouvre

Mutha fuck.... of course he his!

1 more reply

How the fuck is this stuff even legal. Shouldn't proposed bills be public or something?

5 more replies

So real talk, can anyone add any amendment to any bill?

Why doesn't a Democrat just say "Well since you added that undesirable clause to the bill, I'm introducing the exact same bill without that clause. First we'll vote on yours, then we'll vote on mine. Which, again, is literally word for word the exact same bill but without that clause I don't like"?

The only way I can see that this doesn't work is if some republican stands up and says "I add the exact same clause to that bill"

A duplicate bill wouldn’t even reach the floor for a vote without support from the majority party, which it wouldn’t get.

1 more reply

4 more replies

California12 points·1 month ago

I think its becoming more clear why McConnell oppose it, and why grassley wants to limit it.

They dont want the fbi digging around the gop. they all KNOW theres fucking children's skeletons in most of the gops closets.

67 more replies

2.2k points·1 month ago

McConnell is a cancerous tumor in this country.

The bastard stole the supreme court seat.

For the good of the nation, Gorsuch should step down.

Jurist with integrity will not even consider the nomination. It doesn't pass the smell test. Now Gorsuch has an asterisk next to his name.

Arizona156 points·1 month ago

I was thinking about this the other night. If the Dems regain the senate and a SCOTUS seat becomes available, I hope they lead by example instead of taking the high road just once to balance things out.

Then there should be an amendment with explicit rules on nominations, timelines, etc. It's not right what they got away with.

50 more replies

6 more replies

98 more replies

He even had the audacity to claim that as his greatest achievement.

1 more reply

6 more replies

I really think McConnell is the most powerful person in Washington right now. Just look at all of the damage he has been able to cause in the past 10 years, has seen zero personal repercussions, and will continue to do so.

You think that if McConnell blocks this bill and Mueller is fired that he will face any consequences? After stealing a supreme court seat, McConnell knows he can get away with murder, constantly.

And even if Dems get a senate majority in November, you will be sure that they will be able to do not much of anything, due to McConnell obstructing everything, even in a minority role. (Also partly cause Dems are wimps and wont face up to him, or powerful Republicans in general, for that matter.)

So, with a safe senate seat in Kentucky, McConnell will continue to be the most powerful man in Washington until he dies, or retires, so get used to it.

Just look at all of the damage he has been able to cause in the past 10 years, has seen zero personal repercussions, and will continue to do so.

He's about nine months from repercussions knocking on his door.

He won't, he isn't up for re-election until 2020. And Dems have had ample opportunity to do something about him, but they keep getting spanked by him and hope that next time they will get a lollipop. And he will still rain major damage even if he becomes senate minority leader after November.

If there was ever a time when he deserved to face repercussions is when he stole the Supreme Court seat, and blocked the announcement of Russian fuckery, and he saw nothing. Instead he is thriving, saying stealing that seat was the best thing he ever did. Life aint a movie, in real life evil people can just stay around, and never face reckoning. You can hope but I just don't see it happening, at least to him.

He won't, he isn't up for re-election until 2020.

His status as majority leader is definitely endangered, though. And a sufficiently large shitstorm could disrupt his party badly.

Sure, the republican party could go down, he could lose majority leader, but he will still be there, in the minority position, filibusting and obstructing everything, and being quite effective, since dems, even in a majority role, their default position is to fold, rather than fight any republican resistance. And hence, why he is the most powerful man in Washington right now, and will continue to be.

I'm not convinced that there wasn't some complicity between the Republican Party and the Trump campaign in their Russian collusion. If the party did anything, they were going to do so with Ryan and McConnell's backing. If we continue to see this develop, we very well could see McConnell swept into this whole thing.

3 more replies

4 more replies

2 more replies

1 more reply

Cancers can be removed. McConnell.... I'm not so sure about.

12 more replies

12 more replies

They should never not do something just because Republicans will block it. It's important that the Republicans go on record as having stood in the way. Force the veto.

They wanted to be "on the record" for 45 times repealing the ACA, they can get on the record for this too.

I thought the count was up to 67 attempts.

Pennsylvania12 points·1 month ago

It was definitely in the 60's.

1 more reply

2 more replies

Make sure it's on record so the democrats have another talking point when they start airing mid-term ads listing the ways the GOP has betrayed their own country.

203 points·1 month ago(12 children)

Well tbf "Sonandso voted agaisnt" is also pretty easy to twist when you give ridiculous names to bills and have totally unrelated stuff in bills.

Thats when our critical thinking comes in.

"Soandso voted against the PATRIOT Act" is vague.

"Soandso voted against expanding surveillance rights of the FBI and NSA, detailed in the PATRIOT Act" is more specific.

If something sounds vague, like the first statement, it is up to us to make the specifics known and talk to other people about that nuance.

Edit: Soandso= So-and-So

Campaign ads are designed to short-circuit critical thinking. If critical thinking worked, we wouldn't be here right now.

3 more replies

4 more replies

2 more replies

Comment deleted1 month ago(21 children)

And never let them forget it.

5 more replies

15 more replies

Can't really force a veto when McConnell said he won't even put it on the floor for a vote, and as Senate Majority Leader, he controls what gets to the floor for a vote.

Alaska107 points·1 month ago

Isn't this kind of a huge flaw to our system. One person is basically in charge. Is there any way around this?

Minnesota75 points·1 month ago

Yes, if two republican's decide to caucus with the Democrats they become the majority party, then Schumer becomes the majority leader.

Alaska42 points·1 month ago

You would think you could have a majority vote to bring a bill to the floor no?

Why do you need a majority vote? You're not passing the bill, you're deciding whether or not to vote on it. That shouldn't take more than 1/3 of the senate imo. If the bill sucks, then don't pass it.

4 more replies

2 more replies

4 more replies

10 more replies

22 more replies

12 more replies

Don't get too excited, there's something fucky going on.

Fucky, indeed

1 more reply

1 more reply

As another comment pointed out, Grassley is hiding an amendment that Feinstein says may be used to actually undermine the investigation. DO NOT FALL FOR GRASSLEY'S BULLSHIT. He refuses to show the amendment to anyone and clearly is trying to trick people into wanting it passed, republicans always play dirty just remember that.

We should oppose this bill until Grassley shows the amendment; the investigation must be kept intact not destroyed from within. I don't trust this guy and I don't trust his amendment.

Mueller needs to be protected absolutely, but he also needs to be able to continue with his investigation and if anything limits his power we're screwed.

4 more replies

2.5k points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

But it faces an uphill climb to getting 60 votes in the Senate, much less passing the more conservative House.

Contact your Senator, force every senator to take a position on this bill.

Edit: I was wrong and thinking of rules for other bills, once the committee reports this out successfully, it will be placed on the legislative calendar that McConnell controls, a simple majority would be required to offer a motion to proceed and get the issue up for debate (I think, Senate wonks correct me). So if you have a Republican Senator, be sure to contact them!

This is a non-partisan issue regarding the rule of law! No one is above the law, not even the President, now or future.

115 points·1 month agoGilded1·edited 1 month ago

Only takes 30 co-sponsors to bypass McConnell.

Are you sure about this? I thought this was only in regards to reversing decisions like the Net Neutrality issue. Otherwise, how was McConnell able to stop Obama's Scotus nominee from being brought to the floor when there are more than 30 Democrats?

Edit: Actually regardless of whether the above applies or not, call your representative to express your displeasure over McConnell's decision and that regardless of legislation you expect them to vocally and publicly defend the independence and integrity of the investigations and of the DOJ/FBI in general.

Second Edit: This is from the original poster who was able to find additional information. Extra credit to him for taking the time and being able to find it.

I was wrong and thinking of rules for other bills, once the committee reports this out successfully, it will be placed on the legislative calendar that McConnell controls, a simple majority would be required to offer a motion to proceed and get the issue up for debate (I think, Senate wonks correct me). So if you have a Republican Senator, be sure to contact them!

This is a non-partisan issue regarding the rule of law! No one is above the law, not even the President, now or future.

That’s a confirmation hearing, this is legislation. Of course, I don’t know if this is strictly true. I’ll have to call the offices of my Senators to get a straight answer.

Let me know what you find out. It's really hard to get anything but voice mail on my Senators, and email tends to just get a "Thanks for your input."

6 more replies

154 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

Contacted. They are waiting for a bill to leave committee so that they can co sponsor it.

I contacted Lamar Alexander of TN about this about a month ago... still waiting on his response.

Lamar Alexander can bite me, but at least he's not Marsha Blackburn.

3 more replies

6 more replies

2 more replies

Arizona109 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

Flake and McCain? Sigh...

edit: Oh, I'm not complacent; I did indeed reach out to both earlier in the week. It's just that sometimes these two particular dudes are all talk and no walk.

I know, but do it anyway. Complacency only makes it worse. Make your voice heard even if you feel like it falls on deaf ears. Change only comes with persistence.

Arizona28 points·1 month ago

AZ here too.

I use ResistBot to text them a fax, I know they get it because I’ve gotten some email responses from their offices.

Text RESIST to 50409 and it will prompt you from there.

I’ve heard some Senators turn off their fax machines, so might not work for everyone, but it’s worked great for me

3 more replies

56 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

Fwiw I fucking hate Flake too, but I’m in the middle of listening to the “This American Life” multipart podcast that followed Flake on his quest to get support for a DACA bill and how he gets punked by McConnell and Pence and it really puts into perspective just how much of our country’s policy is a battle of personalities and horse trading favors. But it gives you insight into the person Flake is and what his motivations are. I don’t believe he’s evil like I believe McConnell is, but he has his own values. Whether you or I agree is another matter. He’s the traditional Republican with whom traditional Democrats would fight over taxes, abortion, social programs. But he’s not a Trumpian Republican who has no regard for the constitution and this country.

There are things he believes in. Contact him if you live in the state and at least make your voice known. It may not do shit, but it might. And at this point we need everyone to voice their opinions to their reps.

He is trying to govern. Unlike most of the GOP for 8 years. I listened to the This American Life podcast too and it shows how shitty the government is at doing anything in this political climate. I don’t love Flake but listening to that podcast I at least have some respect for him.

5 more replies

Flake has been vocal against Trump lately. Surely he would be for this?

New York91 points·1 month ago

Vocal against Trump, yes. Voting against Trump, no.

The Flakey special

21 more replies

1 more reply

12 more replies

My senator is Liz Warren (D-MA). Do I even need to bother?

Yes. Tell her you think she's doing a great job while you're at it

I've got Gillibrand and Schumer. I think I'm good.

Florida16 points·1 month ago

Still call them & let them know that they have your continued support.

This. Let them know you support it, and also that you support them being very vocal about it. Consider how Republicans are trying to not deal with the Pruitt issue by not talking about it. If nobody says anything, the issue effectively goes away, and this is too important for that.

Plus, Schumer is the head of the minority and generally does a damn good job at it from what I hear, so expressing concerns to him is the next best thing to expressing your concerns to every single Democrat.

3 more replies

she’s got this boo

Doesn't it feel amazing to be represented by her? I only recently moved to MA in the last couple of years, but I've always been a fan. I follow her on Instagram. She seems like a lovely person on top of being a fantastic senator.

1 more reply

17 more replies

Cornyn's rep stated, "senator Cornyn has expressed that Robert Mueller should be able to finish his job" when pressed if he would vote to protect Mueller the aide stated that he has not taken an official stance.

3 more replies

16 more replies

You can guess who my senator is :(

Im sorry :(

Luckily I have Tillis, Ill still give the guy a call just in case!

Texan here... Cornyn and Cruz.

...sigh, I'll-I'll call

Hey man, your long nightmare might just be over this fall.

Beto is better for Texas. And he's being crowdfunded by people all over the country who want to see Shitty Robot Ted Cruz go back to whatever horrible underground Canadian android facility he crawled out of.

6 more replies

Florida12 points·1 month ago

I've maxed out my donations to Beto and I live in Florida. Nothing else I can do there. He probably doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning but I've given what I can. Good luck out there.

Months out from the U.S. Senate election in Texas, a new poll from Quinnipiac University found that the race between incumbent Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Democratic Rep. Beto O'Rourke is "too close to call." Cruz has 47 percent support among Texas voters while O'Rourke has 44 percent, according to the poll.

1 more reply

Texas12 points·1 month ago

Hey, as much as I dislike Cornyn his staffers are respectful and he sometimes does the right thing. I mean, he did push for increased background checks and has a bill that has not been allowed on the floor.

Curz is an entirely different breed of terrible. It is even evident in his staffers that take an indignant tone, have hung up on me, and one asked if I was even a Republican. So awesome.

1 more reply

Trying is what matters here. It may be futile, but at least you're trying!

I called - I know they won't do it, but you have to participate in our democracy anyway.

2 more replies

Remind him that Trump said his father killed JFK and named him Lyin' Ted. Trump ruined his chances of becoming President and belittled him.

And if that doesn't work, you can always offer to be his one and only friend.

Remind him that Trump said his father killed JFK and named him Lyin' Ted. Trump ruined his chances of becoming President and belittled him.

Remind him that a human person would be angered by these things and respond with aggression when given the chance.

4 more replies

6 more replies

North Carolina18 points·1 month ago

"Luckily, I have Tillis."

Never imagined that being a thing but you're right, Thom's been one of the few Rs taking a consistent stand on Trump/Mueller.

2 more replies

1 more reply

Everybody has 2

Comment deleted1 month ago(3 children)

But now he has a phobia of lawn care. Use it to advantage.

2 more replies

Texas13 points·1 month ago

Both of mine have (R) next to their name

Those are the ones that need to hear it most clearly.

1 more reply

3 more replies

Texas9 points·1 month ago

Texan here, my Senators are fully on board canned responses with no real bite.

Get your BETO lawn sign today.

1 more reply

6 more replies

Foreign29 points·1 month ago

Hypothetically, couldn't 2 republicans temporarily caucus with the democrats to let Schumer bring it to the floor?

To my knowledge either there has to be unanimous consent to bring a bill to the floor or the majority leader has to offer a motion to proceed (which can be filibustered). The needing 30 co-sponsors gets it to the floor but then it has to be voted on to proceed, at which point it will need a simple majority to enter debate and a vote.

He’s saying flip the majority to dem through caucusing in order to push this through. This would make Schumer the majority leader, not McConnel

14 more replies

2 more replies

Would require they elect Schumer to lead the Senate and push out McConnell

3 more replies

There is a "secret amendment" in the bill thought to greatly stifle the investigation with money revoking, etc ... This needs to be fact checked.

Text RESIST to 50409

Or use Facebook

It's ran by Https://

Fastest easiest way to contact your senators.

Read the TOS if you are concerned about privacy.

I love this thing. Too bad I live in Brooklyn so my entire chain of representatives is (D) all the way up to Governor. Is it still worth contacting them?

Always. Don't let them forget who they work for

3 more replies

6 more replies

42 more replies

What the fuck does "i dont think it's necessary" mean? That is so ridiculous. It's necessary and even if donald dumb ass trump hadn't already tried to fire him twice and talked about it for months and admitted to firing Comey to obstruct justice and called the whole investigation a witch would STILL serve the country some peace of mind to have his positron protected from being fired by the shithead being investigated.

3 more replies

Grassley knows something.

230 points·1 month ago

Linking the comment below.

TL:DR - Grassley is trying to sneak in a way to limit the investigation


Grassley is pushing this because he is adding a secret amendment to the bill that can limit the investigation according to Feinstein. Won't show it to anyone.

Massachusetts119 points·1 month ago

I am inclined to agree.

Maryland111 points·1 month ago

So does McConnell.

They know what side of the fence they're on and how this is going to play out. Those quitting or pushing protection legislation know they're only mildly in jeopardy, while those adamantly preventing justice know they're so deep in shit that they can't climb out.

Any senator going against this is likely to get Manafucked. Which I believe means, "having so much criminal liability that your only option is to continue to fight justice even though there's obviously no hope in your case" or something similar.

1 more reply

12 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

Grassley might know something from his position heading the Senate Judiciary Committe investigation, but I think in McConnell's case he's betting Trump can be talked down from doing anything really stupid while protecting Senate Republicans from having to formally take a stance on this issue, much less getting into a Veto fight.

I think both McConnell and Ryan are also inclined to think that Trump works better under private conversations and convincing rather than being confronted directly (and this is probably true). Still I think this is an evacuation of the Congress' duty to act as a check on the President, and I also think they are playing with fire in believing Trump isn't going to just go off and tweet that he is firing Rosenstein (despite everything Mueller is slightly better protected if only in so much as there's steps Trump has to take to fire him which will buy time for people to talk him down).

Edit: Had Grassley listed on the wrong Committee. So many investigations to keep track of :P

7 more replies

1 more reply

1 more reply

Is Mitch going to run again? Just have some fucking courage. Can't he ever just do the right thing, just once, ever?

Questionable. He is next up in 2020, at which point he will be 78 year old. It is probably going to be very dependent on the political landscape at the time.

That said I'm not sure Mitch even understands right and wrong anymore, everything is just a political game. I think he is betting that since Trump has been talked down before, that he can continue to be talked down, while at the same time this shields Senate Republicans from having to take an official position on a sensitive topic. In a lot of ways it is similar to what he did in blocking Obama's Scotus vote. I really think he is playing with fire here though.

48 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

Every time I see someone point out the age of these guys it's just like why the fuck don't we have mandatory retirement for these positions.

edit: If we had age limits for government, I would say 75 for Congress and 60 for president.

Because they can be voted out every 2 or 6 years. The people of this nation have the option to force them into retirement frequently.

Pennsylvania20 points·1 month ago

People blame a lot of things on rules, parties, etc that truly fall on voters’ shoulders at the end of the day.

6 more replies

7 more replies

2 more replies

2 more replies

1 more reply

Feels fake. Feels like Grassley and McConnell had a conversation, where they agreed "ok, let it go through committee - it'll make us look good, but we won't vote on it on the floor".

New York75 points·1 month ago

Or as other commenters pointed out -- Grassley will amend it with something that will completely corrupt it as legislation.

1 more reply

Maryland510 points·1 month ago

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said his committee will take up legislation to protect special counsel Robert Mueller despite opposition from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

"They got together so I feel an obligation to keep my word and move forward," Grassley said when asked if he would still give the special counsel legislation a vote.

Grassley had previously urged supporters of two competing special counsel bills to strike an agreement and merge their proposals

Well, at least he is trying.

Kentucky146 points·1 month ago

how is it even legal to try and pass a bill without disclosing what's in it?

South Carolina43 points·1 month ago

When the people who make the rules are cheaters, cheating becomes the rule.

3 more replies

They’re Republicans. They don’t give a shit about what’s legal.

1 more reply

Article says the text typically isn't disclosed until the day before a committee vote - but usually they would (or should) be communicating their intentions with the rest of the committee and working on the language together. But as we all know, these guys DGAF about how proper governments function.

4 more replies

37 more replies

You people praising Grassley clearly don't live in Iowa. I fully expect him to try to sneak something bad in with his amendment.

Good. Fuck Mitch McConnell.

If McConnell doesn't think there's a threat to Mueller, then what's the harm in having a bill of protection for not only Mueller, but any special counsel from here on out?

1 more reply

468 more replies

Community Details





/r/Politics is for news and discussion about U.S. politics.

Create Post


Welcome to r/politics! Please read the wiki before participating.

Our Full Rules


r/politics Rules

Off-topic: Not explicitly about US politics
Out of date: Not published within the last month
Title: Not exact headline. No ALLCAPS
Rehosted: takes majority of content from elsewhere
Content: Not an article/video/sound clip/poll
No paywalls or survey requirements
No incivility, personal attacks, hate speech, etc.
No trolling, novelty accounts, or bots
No solicitation: petitions/volunteer hours/signups
No Hateful Speech

r/politics event calendar

AMA with Alicia Garza

June 14, 201811:00

Other Resources

Here are some external resources that might be useful.

Related Communities


296k subscribers


29.0k subscribers


90.7k subscribers


133k subscribers

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.