Me likey! 
/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump
The Dems should exploit this to get them to tear each other up. Dems should unite around calling this Gaetz’s impeachment and implying that he’s responsible for making it happen. This will amp up MTG to make more and more viscous attacks against Gaetz. Once it has reached a fevered pitch, switch to calling it MTG’s impeachment and that Gaetz was trying to take credit for MTG’s idea. Keep switching the credit back and forth until they’ve torn each other to shreds.
Quoting from MulderMuffin’s link…
I appreciate the link, but it is a long legal document. My question is: Can the DOJ just declare something? Like a DOJ executive order or something?
Is this this just a suggestion, a tradition, a something Republicans don’t give a fuck about when it’s pointed at them?
It was an opinion/policy written by the OLC that the Executive branch doesn’t have to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry until it is officially launched by congress via a full vote in the House. Until and unless that happens, the White House et. al. can just blow off any information requests, requests for witness testimony, subpoenas issued by the House regarding impeachment matters.
If the WH wants to go ahead and cooperate anyway, they can do so, but they don’t have to.
Thanks. I can’t read documents like that one. I mean, I can read the words, but as I get halfway through the first sentence I realize “Holy Shit, I’m not fucking reading this.”
In context, it refers to how the executive branch will treat inquiries related to a potential impeachment. They will have different rules regarding generic Congressional inquiries and those relating to impeachment of their prime boss. They’re basically saying the Executive Branch will not cooperate with an inquiry directed at their prime boss unless it’s been authorized by a House vote. Now, the House could sue the Executive Branch to get them to cooperate before such a vote, and then have it go to court (and it might go directly to the Supreme Court given the litigants) and have a court decide on the matter.
That’s my understanding at least from how IRS rulings work - the IRS can’t make law without specific delegation in the actual statute, but if you want to say the IRS’s rules are wrong, you’ll need to go to court. Sometimes you might even win.
Thank you.
Kevin McCarthy dares hard-right Republicans to oust him as speaker
“You guys think I’m scared of a motion to vacate. Go f—ing ahead and do it. I’m not scared,” McCarthy told the House GOP conference in a closed-door meeting Thursday morning, according to a lawmaker in attendance who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private remarks. Several lawmakers and aides recalled that McCarthy told lawmakers to move or file “a f—ing motion” to oust him.
[snip]
Facing a Sept. 30 deadline, lawmakers appear to be in worse shape to avert a shutdown than they were three days ago. On Tuesday, amid negotiations on a government funding bill, McCarthy unilaterally directed House committees to open an impeachment inquiry into President Biden - after vowing that an inquiry would be launched only with a full House vote - in an apparent attempt to satisfy hard-right lawmakers.
That move did not appear sufficient, however, as members of the House Freedom Caucus and other far-right lawmakers spent Tuesday publicly reiterating that they view McCarthy’s decision to launch an impeachment inquiry as a separate matter from earning their support on funding the government and averting a shutdown.
I am imagining McCarthy going up to some of these Freedom Caucus idiots and knocking their heads together and getting the empty coconut sound, like in The Three Stooges.
A few quotes from the article that may shed some light.
But typically, Justice Department internal opinions — though they have no binding legal weight in court — are controlling on subsequent administrations unless they’re revoked or superseded by new opinions.
Speaking of this new impeachment inquiry:
It is expected to feature significant scrutiny of actions taken by the Justice Department, FBI and IRS in relation to its investigation of Biden’s son Hunter and his foreign business dealings. All three agencies would be bound by the OLC opinion.
Biden, as the president, would have more flexibility about whether to heed the OLC opinion. But he could simply choose to follow Trump’s precedent.
So it seems to be the case that an OLC opinion is binding until challenged or changed by a new opinion issued by the OLC. It’s not law, but more a Department rule that must be followed, like an employee handbook. I’m pretty sure it’s on OLC opinion that says a sitting president can’t be charged with a crime or sued and that the DOJ can not announce new charges or investigations of any candidate within a certain number of days before an election. Not a law or part of the constitution, just some “pencil pusher who happens to occupy the right office”'s opinion.
They continue to eat their own.
While I’m pessimistic about Biden defeating Trump a second time, great big AQUITTAL headlines, after an impeachment trial, would help.
My link does say:
Maybe, but irrelevant. In the present era, investigations are a given.
Well, that answers my question about whether or not these fractures would cause them to be out of synch enough to possibly let a budget get through. I guess the American people aren’t that lucky.
Although who knows, they could be lying or certain members might just be vindictive enough to avoid joining with the other Republicans to stop legislation, despite what they are claiming publicly.
You gotta wonder how much of a ripple effect things like this impeachment spat will have through the all of the other legislative issues going on.
ISTM the Freakout Caucus will simply shout “No! Not Wacky Enough!” at everything the rest of the merely wacky R party tries to do. And if they refuse to vote for it, and the Ds refuse to vote for it, the Rs are brought to a standstill.
Of course the Ds are brought to a standstill too, so that’s not exactly a healthy situation for the country.
Don’t worry, if they don’t have any of their own to eat, they’ll commit auto-cannibalism:
This is correct, and the reason why the Mueller investigation was ultimately toothless.
Clinton was sued while in office, via a Supreme Court decision that he could be.
IMHO, if I were Hakeem Jeffries, I would be talking with McCarthy behind the scenes, and assuring him that the Democrats will vote against his ouster should that come about, as long as he can deliver on the budget agreement and not shutting down the government. That compromise would do two things: 1) assure the nation that petty squabbling and impeachment nonsense from the far-right bed-wetters won’t disrupt the business of the government (and give McCarthy some statesmanship cred), and 2) crush the far-right rebellion (Gaetz, et al) on McCarthy’s team. It would also give the Democrats some levers with McCarthy going forward - they should be using these fractures in the Republican majority strategically.
I don’t think we should be helping McCarthy at all; let the Republicans tear themselves apart. Further, I don’t think this would work – the minute some Democrats started supporting McCarthy, he’d lose virtually all Republican support.
If I were Jeffries, I’d be reaching out to those Long Island Republicans, and what few remaining sane other Republicans, and see if they can be coaxed into becoming Independents. Would be a long shot, but could be so beneficial it would be worth the effort.
This is true. It’s galling that our government is so dysfunctional. In the Senate, bipartisanship is praised and sought after. In the House, bipartisanship is to be avoided at all costs if you’re a Republican and don’t want to be called a commie RINO. McCarthy 100% could work with Democrats to achieve his goals without being held hostage by the Chaos Caucus, but he won’t.
They don’t know yet. That’s why they need the inquiry.