119th congress: must be at least 75 to chair a committee!

[ScoobyDoo]

They can do whatever they want to do. They're the Supreme Court. They've already thrown precedence out the window which was the major thing keeping the Republic intact. It's pretty crazy. They all campaigned and came from "originalist" theory and now that they have power the fucking piece of paper is made of taffy.

 

[Kepler]

You won't get one.

This is the strangest timeline

View attachment 1299

Marjorie Taylor Greene, unexpected voice of reason.

Maybe she had a Reverse Fetterman?

Yes, I know she didn't. She's punishing the GOP for denying her the Senate nom. She is a voracious attention whore and delusional ambition junkie with no principles or loyalty.

But: she can be used. Get her on record about Dump and his enablers. Get her to be as specific as possible. Get her to provoke Republicans to overreach in burning her in turn. Use her to fragment MAGA, the way the CIA used ultra-violent radicals to fragment the Left in the 60s.

 

[Kepler]

They can do whatever they want to do. They're the Supreme Court. They've already thrown precedence out the window which was the major thing keeping the Republic intact. It's pretty crazy. They all campaigned and came from "originalist" theory and now that they have power the fucking piece of paper is made of taffy.

"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." -- Associate Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson

 

[Handyman]

You won't get one.


Marjorie Taylor Greene, unexpected voice of reason.

Maybe she had a Reverse Fetterman?

Yes, I know she didn't. She's punishing the GOP for denying her the Senate nom. She is a voracious attention whore and delusional ambition junkie with no principles or loyalty.

But: she can be used. Get her on record about Dump and his enablers. Get her to be as specific as possible. Get her to provoke Republicans to overreach in burning her in turn. Use her to fragment MAGA, the way the CIA used ultra-violent radicals to fragment the Left in the 60s.

I would recommend not using her...going against AIPAC because you hate Jews and associate with Nazis (just an example) is not something we need to be around.

The break is already there and she gave an off ramp for others (like Massie did) but we cannot make the Cheney Mistake again.

 

[Handyman]

Yeah, no. They can't just say the 22nd Amendment is unconstitutional. By definition, it is. It's a literal part of the constitution.

What they could do, if they really want to go down this path, is interpret it in a way that either keeps Trump eligible to run again or, more likely, provide an enforcement mechanism that can never be satisfied or used in reality.

As to your other points, the 14th Amendment explicitly changed the 3/5ths compromise. The 21st Amendment explicitly repealed the 18th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act is just that, an act of Congress and not a Constitutional Amendment.

Here is the thing, I know all of that...the issue you and dx have is you wont admit the rules dont matter anymore. (Along with 95% of Congressional Democrats) Outside of Tariffs the Court rubber stamps everything he does and they will find a way to do that here too. If he wants to run, he will run and they will let him. You can pretend they "cant" do something but pre tell who is going to stop them? Congress? The President? There is no check, their rule is law because we gave shameless Fascists all three branches.

In a functioning US you are 100% correct and my suggestion is ludicrous. We stopped being that quite a while ago and if we dont start thinking (not acting) like they do '26 and '28 are meaningless. They are playing for the Thousand Year Reich and they are protected by a Supreme Court that thinks they should have it.

 

[Kepler]

Handy is absolutely right. That ruins my day more than the substance of his statement.

 

[unofan]

Handy is absolutely right. That ruins my day more than the substance of his statement.

Yes and no. They can't say the 22nd Amendment is unconstitutional because there's no plausible deniability and that gives the game away. They'd literally be saying a part of the Constitution isn't constitutional.

As I said, if they really want to go down that route, they'll just neuter it so it doesn't matter, just like they did with the states trying to ban Trump from prior ballots for various reasons. I.e. "Yeah, it says only two terms, but only the Electoral College can determine if the 22nd Amendment is violated, not states or Congress or anyone else."

 

[Handyman]

Jennifer C (@thejenniwren.teamlh.social)

Love it when Jasmine is on🔥 “Mike Johnson is full of shit. We know that he didn't even bring the House back in because he was trying to avoid us dealing with Epstein. He would not even swear in a duly elected member of Congress to avoid this. So miss me on pretending that this is about the victims.”

bsky.app

 

[state of hockey]

You won't get one.


Marjorie Taylor Greene, unexpected voice of reason.

Maybe she had a Reverse Fetterman?

Yes, I know she didn't. She's punishing the GOP for denying her the Senate nom. She is a voracious attention whore and delusional ambition junkie with no principles or loyalty.

But: she can be used. Get her on record about Dump and his enablers. Get her to be as specific as possible. Get her to provoke Republicans to overreach in burning her in turn. Use her to fragment MAGA, the way the CIA used ultra-violent radicals to fragment the Left in the 60s.

The only people she’s actually shown loyalty to are people like Nick Fuentes. So, yikes. Agree that she may be a useful idiot, though. But you can’t be caught doing it. She’s probably already been as useful as she can be.

 

[Handyman]

The only people she’s actually shown loyalty to are people like Nick Fuentes. So, yikes. Agree that she may be a useful idiot, though. But you can’t be caught doing it. She’s probably already been as useful as she can be.

Yeah she holds no value to us except to tick off her rivals. For that we just get out of the way. Beyond that she holds no value outside of pointing at her and saying "she is a nutbar that hates Jews and probably thinks the world is flat!". Her public usefulness is as the example of what we are fighting against.

 

[Kepler]

Divide et impera.

 

[aparch]

House passes Epstein file release, Senate passes it as well. On to Trump's desk.

Can't wait for this to be, yet again, a nothing burger because they scrubbed Trump from it.

 

[Proud2baLaker]

House passes Epstein file release, Senate passes it as well. On to Trump's desk.

Can't wait for this to be, yet again, a nothing burger because they scrubbed Trump from it.

There are like 4 or 5 loopholes that could be used to redact information and names. Which of course they will do.

 

[Handyman]

If they redacted it there would have been zero hissy fit. They arent organized enough to pull that off.

They are going to use the "active investigation" bs to vary the release.

 

[Handyman]

Lauren Harper (@laurenleharper.bsky.social)

The bill only forces the release of unclassified information. Pass it on.

bsky.app

 

[ticapnews]

Lauren Harper (@laurenleharper.bsky.social)

The bill only forces the release of unclassified information. Pass it on.

bsky.app

From the latest Ken Klippenstein report...

Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act today by a margin so wide that President Trump will not be able to veto it. But opponents of the law have another plan to stop it, described in a little-noticed document circulated by House Speaker Mike Johnson.

“It jeopardizes future federal investigations, and we have national security concerns regarding classified information,” Johnson said of the bill.

He wasn’t speaking off the cuff. He was quoting from a document produced by his office detailing five “flaws” with the bill. The fifth and final flaw, titled “national security concerns,” says that it’s “incredibly unwise to demand that DOJ declassify materials originated by other agencies”; that “declassification should … protect sources and methods” and “work with the Attorney General [Pam Bondi] to declassify in a reasonable time frame.”

In other words, the Trump administration should have final say because, well, national security.

 

[Proud2baLaker]

If they redacted it there would have been zero hissy fit. They arent organized enough to pull that off.

They are going to use the "active investigation" bs to vary the release.

Yeah redacted wasn't really the right word there. Just what I used to point out that they will still hide information in some way (while making sure anything that can harm a dem is released. "National Security Concerns" is the other one they are going to pull.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Surely this time, something will stick. We got him!

Right? Guys?

 

[ticapnews]

Surely this time, something will stick. We got him!

Right? Guys?

"I am rubber, you are glue..."

 

[Handyman]

From the latest Ken Klippenstein report...

A lot of the victims and their advocates are happy and rightfully so...but we won't know half the story.

This is why I hoped Epstein wouldn't be the major talking point. Dems go all in on these scandals and when they turn out yo be less than advertised it hurts them. They need to pivot back to the issues in full force.