jimnyc
10-28-2016, 05:50 AM
This is great should Trump lose. I think they should continue with every legal avenue remotely possible. Kinda do like they have done to some criminals back in the day. If you can't get them with outright murder, get them with another crime they have committed. Keep Hillary busy with every last screwup and illegal act she committed. Keep every person that helped her the same. She deserves to be in jail and I'm happy to see that some haven't given up on that.
It's a sticky situation. No way in hell she deserves to be a sitting president, just no way. She deserves jail. But she will be the president nonetheless. So screw her up at every legal avenue possible.
But the SCOTUS issues? They will have to go forward legally. I see absolutely no legal reason I can think of that anything should prevent democrats from nominating and placing SC justices in office.
-----
Republicans: No honeymoon if Clinton wins
Washington (CNN)So much for the honeymoon period.
The election is 12 days away but Republicans are already promising years of investigations and blocked nominees if Hillary Clinton wins.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says he has lined up enough material from Clinton's four years as secretary of state for two years of probes.
"It's a target-rich environment," Chaffetz told The Washington Post. "Even before we get to Day One, we've got two years' worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain't good."
Then there's the Supreme Court vacancy.
Republicans have said for months they won't act on President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the opening left by Justice Antonin Scalia's death because they want the winner of the presidential race to fill that vacancy. Now, one senator says the GOP should consider blocking any Clinton nominee, leaving the nation's high court with just eight members.
"There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices," Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in Colorado on Wednesday, in remarks first reported by The Washington Post. "I would note, just recently, that Justice (Stephen) Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That's a debate that we are going to have."
The comments offer a potential preview of what Clinton's relationship with Congress could look like if she wins the presidency. Democrats are poised to make gains on Capitol Hill and could retake the Senate. That would likely result in a more conservative Republican conference on Capitol Hill that might not be interested in working closely with Clinton.
For her part, Clinton said Wednesday she wants to be "president for everybody."
"I certainly intend to reach out to Republicans and independents, the elected leadership of the Congress," she said aboard her campaign plane.
Trouble with Democrats
Clinton could also have plenty of trouble with her own party. Even if Democrats retake the Senate, they won't have the 60 votes needed to shut down filibusters. And their roster will include several members who represent traditionally Republican states and may need to show independence from a Clinton White House.
Democrats are already using the comments from Chaffetz and Cruz against the GOP.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, told CNN in a statement that "Republicans are pretending like they haven't been investigating Secretary Clinton for years ever since she announced that she was running for president, including everything from Benghazi to emails to the Clinton Foundation."
.....
Some Republicans reject Cruz's idea
Some influential Republicans are rejecting calls to block Clinton's Supreme Court nominee.
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, told CNN he strongly disagrees with the prospect floated by Cruz of blocking Clinton's nominees -- and said he doesn't think there will be wide support for the concept among Senate Republicans.
"You will not be surprised -- I do not agree," said Flake, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee. "There is a difference between what might be constitutional and what you can do politically. ...I think leaving a vacancy for up to four years is not why we are here."
Asked about how much support there might be in the GOP conference for Cruz's position, he said, "I can't imagine there are too many that feel that way."
"I think there are enough people who do not see it as the Senate's proper role to hold somebody indefinitely," Flake said.
The first-term senator said he spoke recently to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to get "on-the-record" that he would oppose such an approach and that he didn't "detect" any interest from McConnell in such a blockade.
Rest here - http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/hillary-clinton-republicans-congress/index.html
It's a sticky situation. No way in hell she deserves to be a sitting president, just no way. She deserves jail. But she will be the president nonetheless. So screw her up at every legal avenue possible.
But the SCOTUS issues? They will have to go forward legally. I see absolutely no legal reason I can think of that anything should prevent democrats from nominating and placing SC justices in office.
-----
Republicans: No honeymoon if Clinton wins
Washington (CNN)So much for the honeymoon period.
The election is 12 days away but Republicans are already promising years of investigations and blocked nominees if Hillary Clinton wins.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says he has lined up enough material from Clinton's four years as secretary of state for two years of probes.
"It's a target-rich environment," Chaffetz told The Washington Post. "Even before we get to Day One, we've got two years' worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain't good."
Then there's the Supreme Court vacancy.
Republicans have said for months they won't act on President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the opening left by Justice Antonin Scalia's death because they want the winner of the presidential race to fill that vacancy. Now, one senator says the GOP should consider blocking any Clinton nominee, leaving the nation's high court with just eight members.
"There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices," Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in Colorado on Wednesday, in remarks first reported by The Washington Post. "I would note, just recently, that Justice (Stephen) Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That's a debate that we are going to have."
The comments offer a potential preview of what Clinton's relationship with Congress could look like if she wins the presidency. Democrats are poised to make gains on Capitol Hill and could retake the Senate. That would likely result in a more conservative Republican conference on Capitol Hill that might not be interested in working closely with Clinton.
For her part, Clinton said Wednesday she wants to be "president for everybody."
"I certainly intend to reach out to Republicans and independents, the elected leadership of the Congress," she said aboard her campaign plane.
Trouble with Democrats
Clinton could also have plenty of trouble with her own party. Even if Democrats retake the Senate, they won't have the 60 votes needed to shut down filibusters. And their roster will include several members who represent traditionally Republican states and may need to show independence from a Clinton White House.
Democrats are already using the comments from Chaffetz and Cruz against the GOP.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, told CNN in a statement that "Republicans are pretending like they haven't been investigating Secretary Clinton for years ever since she announced that she was running for president, including everything from Benghazi to emails to the Clinton Foundation."
.....
Some Republicans reject Cruz's idea
Some influential Republicans are rejecting calls to block Clinton's Supreme Court nominee.
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, told CNN he strongly disagrees with the prospect floated by Cruz of blocking Clinton's nominees -- and said he doesn't think there will be wide support for the concept among Senate Republicans.
"You will not be surprised -- I do not agree," said Flake, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee. "There is a difference between what might be constitutional and what you can do politically. ...I think leaving a vacancy for up to four years is not why we are here."
Asked about how much support there might be in the GOP conference for Cruz's position, he said, "I can't imagine there are too many that feel that way."
"I think there are enough people who do not see it as the Senate's proper role to hold somebody indefinitely," Flake said.
The first-term senator said he spoke recently to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to get "on-the-record" that he would oppose such an approach and that he didn't "detect" any interest from McConnell in such a blockade.
Rest here - http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/hillary-clinton-republicans-congress/index.html