top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (3 children)

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.

[–]PiBaker 10.2k points10.2k points  (747 children)

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.


[–]UncleJesseSays 1898 points1899 points  (192 children)

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

[–]LightBadger 835 points836 points  (164 children)

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

[–]Chamale 659 points660 points  (116 children)

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).

[–]kurokabauForeign 553 points554 points  (99 children)

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

[–]swissarmychris 750 points751 points  (67 children)

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.

[–]Phifty56 378 points379 points  (39 children)

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.

[–]eltoro 296 points297 points  (19 children)

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

[–]Diabolic67th 182 points183 points  (5 children)

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

[–]TheFunkytownExpress 49 points50 points  (2 children)

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.

[–]Ewoksintheoutfield 26 points27 points  (5 children)

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.

[–]RoachKabobTexas 39 points40 points  (2 children)

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

[–]2mnykitehs 77 points78 points  (8 children)

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

I'm stealing this.

[–]darthboolean 60 points61 points  (7 children)

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

[–]ChrRome 79 points80 points  (2 children)

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.

[–]GoTzMaDsKiTTLez 202 points203 points  (23 children)

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

[–]Tinctured 81 points82 points  (19 children)

They also get to determine their own salaries.


[–]Brackhar 49 points50 points  (4 children)

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.

[–]bridge_pidgeOhio 75 points76 points  (0 children)

"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.

[–]HauntedCemeteryMinnesota 47 points48 points  (4 children)

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

[–]trigger_the_nazis 59 points60 points  (1 child)

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.

[–]preposteOregon 69 points70 points  (3 children)

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

[–]iowafarmboy2011 2276 points2277 points  (316 children)

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

[–]midwestraxx 802 points803 points  (275 children)

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

[–]nyxo1 821 points822 points  (193 children)

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

[–]Pint_and_Grub 366 points367 points  (183 children)

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.

[–]TeeRump_golfing 195 points196 points  (182 children)

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)

[–]tjtillman 228 points229 points  (177 children)

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.

[–]Zebidee 73 points74 points  (11 children)

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.

[–]undead_tortoise 71 points72 points  (6 children)

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.

[–]ReadinStuff2 257 points258 points  (38 children)

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.

[–]aleatoricFlorida 108 points109 points  (9 children)

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.

[–]funcused 29 points30 points  (1 child)

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.

[–]disagreeabledinosaur 38 points39 points  (3 children)

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. https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/The-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/

[–]sweetjaaaneVirginia 26 points27 points  (1 child)

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.

[–]Cautemoc 47 points48 points  (5 children)

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.”

[–]nosneht 58 points59 points  (16 children)

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

[–]TheBiggestBreakfast 32 points33 points  (5 children)

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.

[–]kevnmartin 12 points13 points  (3 children)

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

[–]ganoveces 51 points52 points  (34 children)

populated cites vs rural small town farmers.

[–]idiosyncrassy 42 points43 points  (27 children)

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

[–]Bogey_Redbud 52 points53 points  (3 children)

No need to apologize. Just vote.

[–]ELL_YAYY 714 points715 points  (29 children)

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.

[–]kevinnoir 136 points137 points  (21 children)

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.

[–]wisdom_and_frivolityPennsylvania 36 points37 points  (11 children)

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.

[–]imurphs 34 points35 points  (3 children)

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”.

[–]GingerGuerrilla 198 points199 points  (5 children)

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.

[–]KnightKrawler 86 points87 points  (1 child)

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

[–]adkliam2 13 points14 points  (0 children)

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"

[–]DriedFetus 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Please don't give them any more ideas

[–]alsott 166 points167 points  (9 children)

"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.

[–]SweeneyOdd 37 points38 points  (5 children)

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

[–]freakers 249 points250 points  (28 children)

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.

[–]Zappiticas 261 points262 points  (16 children)

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.

[–]freakers 125 points126 points  (10 children)

What the actual fuck?

[–]Zappiticas 125 points126 points  (7 children)

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.

[–]firemage22 11 points12 points  (2 children)

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.

[–]Zappiticas 13 points14 points  (1 child)

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

[–]flee_market 24 points25 points  (2 children)

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.

[–]thacarter1523 31 points32 points  (4 children)

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.

[–]ThePolishPunch 773 points774 points  (42 children)

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

[–]ballercrantz 438 points439 points  (41 children)

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?

[–]handlethevibe 111 points112 points  (1 child)

You assume they give a shit.

[–]CounterkultureOregon 14 points15 points  (0 children)

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

[–]LP_Sh33p 237 points238 points  (15 children)

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

[–]Route_du_Rhum 52 points53 points  (1 child)

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

[–]EVOL_IAM 72 points73 points  (1 child)

Or they are hiding something.

[–]RFC-1925Washington 43 points44 points  (2 children)

How do these people justify these things to themselves?

An overwhelming drive for tribal power.

Nothing more; nothing less.

[–]PisterMickles 10 points11 points  (0 children)

For those unfamiliar with the reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

[–]mafi11235Foreign 77 points78 points  (0 children)

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

[–]hole_da_doorTexas 77 points78 points  (5 children)

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.

[–]HiMyNameIsTylerWashington 64 points65 points  (1 child)

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."

[–]eye_dun_belieb_yewNew York 55 points56 points  (5 children)

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: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/12/mueller-protected-congress-grassley-feinstein-518090). 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

[–]xenwallTexas 19 points20 points  (1 child)

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.

[–]BreesusTakeTheWheelFlorida 75 points76 points  (9 children)

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.

[–]MAG7C 44 points45 points  (4 children)

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?

[–]Glaciata 12 points13 points  (3 children)

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

[–]hypnoganja 5 points6 points  (1 child)

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

[–]Miaoxin 126 points127 points  (15 children)

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.

[–]b1ak3Minnesota 31 points32 points  (14 children)

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.

[–]KablooieKablam 46 points47 points  (8 children)

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

[–]ayc667 30 points31 points  (1 child)

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

[–]CodenameVillainTexas 27 points28 points  (0 children)

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

[–]fecalmatterafact 68 points69 points  (1 child)

Mutha fuck.... of course he his!

[–]newpua_bie 23 points24 points  (5 children)

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

[–]sonofaresiii 44 points45 points  (6 children)

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"

[–]Nokiaprime 49 points50 points  (1 child)

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

[–]kdeffCalifornia 9 points10 points  (0 children)

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.

[–]620five 2234 points2235 points  (207 children)

McConnell is a cancerous tumor in this country.

[–]u2krazie 925 points926 points  (165 children)

The bastard stole the supreme court seat.

[–]PutinPaysTrump 470 points471 points  (156 children)

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

[–]u2krazie 323 points324 points  (57 children)

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.

[–]tenaciousdeevArizona 158 points159 points  (50 children)

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.

[–]jts5039 42 points43 points  (1 child)

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

[–]snafudud 201 points202 points  (15 children)

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.

[–]Chel_of_the_sea 42 points43 points  (13 children)

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.

[–]snafudud 59 points60 points  (12 children)

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.

[–]Chel_of_the_sea 35 points36 points  (9 children)

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.

[–]snafudud 29 points30 points  (8 children)

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.

[–]Mythic514 7 points8 points  (3 children)

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.

[–]misunderestimater 28 points29 points  (12 children)

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

[–]HopeThatHalps 3503 points3504 points  (101 children)

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.

[–]ghostalker47423 175 points176 points  (5 children)

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

[–]Bogey_Redbud 36 points37 points  (2 children)

I thought the count was up to 67 attempts.

[–]nonegotiationPennsylvania 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It was definitely in the 60's.

[–]NickDanger3di 591 points592 points  (13 children)

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.

[–]safetydance 77 points78 points  (46 children)

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.

[–]DiegobyteAlaska 106 points107 points  (23 children)

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

[–]notanotherpyr0Minnesota 67 points68 points  (12 children)

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

[–]DiegobyteAlaska 36 points37 points  (7 children)

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

[–]DJ_Marxman 19 points20 points  (4 children)

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.

[–]Binch101 106 points107 points  (4 children)

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.

[–]notreallyhereforthis 2504 points2505 points  (254 children)

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.

[–]DesperateDem 107 points108 points  (8 children)

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.

[–]StanDaMan1 29 points30 points  (1 child)

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.

[–]DesperateDem 10 points11 points  (0 children)

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."

[–]2totwo 705 points706 points  (111 children)

[–]WestCoastMeditation 147 points148 points  (13 children)

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

[–]Spaceman-Spiff 45 points46 points  (10 children)

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

[–]NoNeedForAName 22 points23 points  (3 children)

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

[–]AndroidLivesMatterColorado 111 points112 points  (48 children)

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.

[–]lurkervonlurkenstein 39 points40 points  (0 children)

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.

[–]nflitgirlArizona 28 points29 points  (3 children)

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

[–]dannyapplesauce 56 points57 points  (6 children)

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.

[–]SensRule 14 points15 points  (0 children)

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.

[–]stehekin 29 points30 points  (23 children)

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

[–]RaspyJonesNew York 89 points90 points  (21 children)

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

The Flakey special

[–]alien_from_Europa 36 points37 points  (27 children)

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

[–]jconley4297 88 points89 points  (0 children)

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

[–]Scientific_Methods 15 points16 points  (5 children)

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

[–]Jaysyn4RedditFlorida 17 points18 points  (1 child)

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

[–]DesperateDem 8 points9 points  (0 children)

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.

[–]soupsnakle 10 points11 points  (0 children)

she’s got this boo

[–]beatlerevolver66 10 points11 points  (1 child)

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.

[–]pandaboy50 18 points19 points  (3 children)

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.

[–]VicePhotograph 120 points121 points  (54 children)

You can guess who my senator is :(

[–]sammykleege 58 points59 points  (33 children)

Im sorry :(

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

[–]NotQuiteOnTopicTexas 82 points83 points  (28 children)

Texan here... Cornyn and Cruz.

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

[–]EnlightenedMind_420Virginia 52 points53 points  (6 children)

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.

[–]xynix_ieFlorida 12 points13 points  (2 children)

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.

[–]BimmerJustin 8 points9 points  (0 children)

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.

[–]understandoTexas 14 points15 points  (1 child)

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.

[–]sammykleege 11 points12 points  (0 children)

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

[–]HouseHead78 22 points23 points  (2 children)

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

[–]alien_from_Europa 10 points11 points  (5 children)

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.

[–]bgross 13 points14 points  (4 children)

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.

[–]cowboycocoNorth Carolina 17 points18 points  (2 children)

"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.

[–]GlennThrushsFedora 15 points16 points  (10 children)

Everybody has 2

[–]el-toro-locoTexas 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Both of mine have (R) next to their name

[–]wonko221 8 points9 points  (0 children)

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

[–]AgITGuyTexas 9 points10 points  (2 children)

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

[–]allgreen2me 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Get your BETO lawn sign today.

[–]Dash2in1Foreign 27 points28 points  (22 children)

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

[–]notreallyhereforthis 27 points28 points  (17 children)

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.

[–]Steelcurtain26 33 points34 points  (14 children)

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

[–]MuellerKOIncoming 8 points9 points  (0 children)

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

[–]willywalloo 17 points18 points  (0 children)

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

[–]ajdrausal 35 points36 points  (11 children)

Text RESIST to 50409

Or use Facebook https://m.me/resistbot

It's ran by Https://resist.bot

Fastest easiest way to contact your senators.

Read the TOS if you are concerned about privacy.

[–]GordonSemen 9 points10 points  (4 children)

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?

[–]DylanBob1991 18 points19 points  (0 children)

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

[–]IkastI 52 points53 points  (3 children)

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 hunt...it would STILL serve the country some peace of mind to have his positron protected from being fired by the shithead being investigated.

[–]accountabilitycounts 435 points436 points  (16 children)

Grassley knows something.

[–]mmcmtl 228 points229 points  (0 children)

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.


[–]HavoKTheoryMassachusetts 115 points116 points  (13 children)

I am inclined to agree.

[–]_Commandant-Kenny_Maryland 108 points109 points  (12 children)

So does McConnell.

[–]effyochicken 81 points82 points  (10 children)

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.

[–]krazytekn0 30 points31 points  (1 child)

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.

[–]DesperateDem 8 points9 points  (7 children)

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

[–]VStarffin 88 points89 points  (2 children)

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".

[–]NilacTheGrimNew York 70 points71 points  (1 child)

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

[–]_Commandant-Kenny_Maryland 514 points515 points  (50 children)

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.

[–]UltraMegaChickenn 477 points478 points  (12 children)

No, he's not:

Grassley admitted in the interview that the text of his amendment was still being drafted, though committee amendments are typically not filed until the day before a panel vote — which in this case would have been next week at earliest. And Grassley's sudden willingness to move the bill, coupled with the lack of that amendment text, has raised alarms among some Democrats about a potential long-game plan to stymie the bill and prevent it from ever passing.

Democratic skepticism of Grassley has run high for two years, since he agreed to help block former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick.

“If Sen. Grassley is so sure his amendment won’t undermine the special counsel, he ought to show it to Democrats and the public. Media reports indicate that it would open the door to serious political interference from Congress,” said a senior Democratic aide.


[–]ZazierxKentucky 147 points148 points  (11 children)

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

[–]closer_to_the_flameSouth Carolina 40 points41 points  (3 children)

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

[–]BlackEricWeddle 118 points119 points  (1 child)

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

[–]UltraMegaChickenn 8 points9 points  (0 children)

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.

[–]tabby51260 39 points40 points  (0 children)

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

[–]totallythrownaway00 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Good. Fuck Mitch McConnell.

[–]cats_on_t_rexes 15 points16 points  (1 child)

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?