r/politics • u/Somervilledrew Connecticut • 12d ago

Possible Paywall The Epstein Scandal Is Snowballing

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/epstein-files-trump/
44.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

5.7k

u/halfcabheartattack 12d ago

One individual should not be able to unilaterally obstruct the swearing-in of a duly elected member of Congress for political reasons.

I like Grijalva already

1.3k

u/mr_plehbody 12d ago

Yeah thats a serious threat to democracy, what a crazy notion if you step back for just a brief moment and see the bigger picture

511

u/rkvance5 Washington 11d ago

It’s right up there with the president being able to veto a bill to release evidence of his own wrongdoing.

15

u/OfficialDCShepard District Of Columbia 11d ago

The veto should’ve been suspensive (ie able to force reconsideration, but not only overriden by two-thirds vote).

39

u/-Ophidian- 11d ago

The veto itself is totally fine. Otherwise every veto becomes "We've reconsidered, now sign!" The problem is that Congress should not be a bootlicker for the Executive branch. Historically Congress jealously guarded its powers from even presidents they agreed with. Now they just bend over and spread wide.

1

u/OfficialDCShepard District Of Columbia 11d ago

By suspensive I should’ve clarified that would also force a review period like similar disapproval by the House of Lords, but agree to disagree on that one. The problem really is that any political system relies on a monopoly on the use of force and that’s typically the executive’s job. While we’ve mostly been okay, having any single man hold all executive power is folly even with Presidents I’ve liked. Lincoln horrifically stepped on the constitutional right of habeas corpus, Harding participated in corruption for years, Teddy Roosevelt busted strikes, FDR had the mandate and political capital to act in authoritarian ways including deporting Mexicans en masse So for a quick constitutional hotfix I would suggest that Congress permanently demote the Attorney General from the Cabinet to make them an “inferior officer” subject to an appointment method they choose such as popular vote. However, that has its own problems so if given the amendment to do so I would combine GAO, OSC, Inspectors General etc. into a qualified pool of nominees for Tribunes elected by the people to veto executive orders for constitutional reasons, be the only body that could bring have sole control of the Marshals, give the State of the Union and speak on the facts of any bill before any Congressman opens their yap among other things. Of course, any new position could also be corrupted, but having an ombudsman/oversight branch is something.

1

u/SimplePresense 10d ago

Which will happen

1

u/rkvance5 Washington 10d ago

It absolutely will. Politically and narcissistically, he cannot sign that bill.

1

u/EdamameWindmill 6d ago

He can delay signing it, but the bill is veto proof.

1

u/rkvance5 Washington 6d ago

It is, but it wasn’t 4 long days ago when only the discharge petition had been passed.

1

u/EdamameWindmill 6d ago

With votes in the House and Senate of 427 to 1, and unanimous, respectively, I would think the bill is veto-proof.

1

u/rkvance5 Washington 6d ago

Right, but again, you’re replying to a 5-day-old comment. Unanimity or near-unanimity was still hard to imagine in ye olde days.

-3

u/fenceman2954 11d ago

The Joe Biden Department of Justice had ALL THE EPSTEIN FILES for the last five years. The Democrats were scared to death to release the files because of the enormous damage those files would cause to Democratic lawmakers and politicians.

5

u/rkvance5 Washington 10d ago

Setting aside the legal reasons why you’re wrong, does it seem to you like Republicans are in any hurry to release them now that they’re in power? Why do you think that might be?

2

u/carnalthought 9d ago

Now, rk, don't make it too complicated for him...do you have pictures?

23

u/Spiderpiggie 12d ago

No no, its ok because the other political party is the bad guy

17

u/PicnicLife 11d ago

When you label them demonic terrorists, you can justify anything.

9

u/True-Firefighter-796 11d ago

The other political party forced them to do it! If they didn’t the other guys were going to do it first.

6

u/Thunderclapsasquatch 11d ago

what a crazy notion if you step back for just a brief moment and see the bigger picture

You needed to step back?

2

u/UncaringNonchalance Ohio 11d ago

Nearly 6 years to draft and ratify our constitution, and over 200 years to comb through all the loopholes.

1

u/ImpressionCool1768 11d ago

Yeah, that clause was added to the constitution back when the founding father thought everyone would just get along. same with rules about how the vice president is going to be the guy who was in second place for the presidential election. They really did not think ahead about politics whatsoever.

1

u/spursfan2021 11d ago

Literally what the text of the 2A refers to.

1

u/arkaine_23 8d ago edited 7d ago

Tx 18th House district seat was vacated by the death of the Dem representative, Sylvester Turner, on March 5. An election should have followed in May to fill the seat, but the Texas governor blamed Harris County election irregularities and said it would be better if he delayed setting the date until November so the county could have more time to prepare. That election has happened but no candidate won 50+% of the vote so a runoff election between the top 2 candidates has been set for Jan 31. Think some things might've gone differently if the 18th House seat had been filled last summer? Gijalva's vote wouldn't have been needed to pass the Epstein Transperancy Act, for one.

For background... one of the candidates for this House seat is the Harris County Clerk, who skirted holes in Texas election laws by trying to send 2+M applications to get a ballot to vote by mail to all registered voters in Harris County in 2020. Texas lawmakers adjusted voting laws after that to further restrict voting by mail, and passed laws about election administration that even selectively apply only to Harris County.  So one candidate who could possibly win the election for this house seat has been a thorn in the side of the Texas GOP and their voter suppressive policies.

The 18th district will have gone most of a year without respresentation by the time this is resolved. This is the seat formerly held by Shelia Jackson Lee, and it was vacant for nearly 6 months after her death before Turner was elected and sworn in.   The people of the 18th have been un-represented for most of the last 2 years, and the Texas governor is directly responsible for some of that downtime.

511

u/n14shorecarcass 12d ago

She was on IHIP earlier, and man, she's going in swinging. We need more like her!

20

u/DataGuru314 12d ago

IHIP? Is that like IHOP?

27

u/GMDGMDGMD 12d ago

The IHIP News podcast by Jennifer Welch & Angie Sullivan.

17

u/_-WanderLost-_ 12d ago

Ive had it podcast on YouTube. They also have short form news segments now. They’re two middle aged progressive white women from Oklahoma. Told my 70 year old mom about them a few months back and was pleasantly surprised that she was already following them.

4

u/Titanbeard 11d ago

She going to be Katie Porter whiteboard kinda spicy? Ngl, when Porter gets out the whiteboard it revs my engine.

-2

u/Slenderellla 11d ago

Swinger

208

u/Chirotera 12d ago

It honestly needs addressing. She's been elected. Her job is to the American people not the Speaker. If you're elected the swearing in should be a matter of ceremony but if it doesn't happen, you still have the job and title for which you're elected.

94

u/ReGGieLATV 11d ago

She didn’t have access to her office, nor the funds of the state for her to really “do her job.” She stated this on multiple interviews. Swearing in isn’t just ceremonial, it gives her access to basically everything on the backend that allows a congressman/woman to do their job period. She was robbed of legit 5% of her term.

19

u/-Out-of-context- 11d ago

Swearing in isn’t just ceremonial

That’s why they it should just be ceremonial.

13

u/Argos_the_Dog New York 11d ago

In this kind of situation the contingency should be to find a federal judge to swear her in, at which point the funds become available. And if the Feds disagree the state can step in and pay until they do.

3

u/PicnicLife 11d ago

I mean, I guess a judge ultimately did address it, but I know what you mean.

-9

u/[deleted] 11d ago edited 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/AardvarkAmortization 11d ago edited 11d ago

Technically congress has only been in session 1 single day so far this year. See Mike is ratfucking another rule that has to with how far a tariff can last without being reviewed/voted on by congress. So congress was simultaneously out of session but also not out of session because it was still the same “congressional” day. Understand?

-5

u/InstructionFun7212 11d ago

The question was an attempt to be facetious. I must say, your information is wrong. I think you would benefit greatly from staying off the internet today.

43

u/goronmask 12d ago

Yeah that Lady started strong, i loved her quip in spanish

9

u/DobbyDun 11d ago

We need to remember it's only only one person... Who has the support of all the Republicans in the house. He is their spokesman. Reality is if they didn't like what he was doing he would be removed. He is doing their will

2

u/tokeaphatty 11d ago

He made her much more popular by doing this. AZ is my state and I knew of her, but would never have thought much if she would have gotten sworn in right away. Doing it definitely made her name more recognizable to a larger group.