Bigger than Watergate by at least one order of magnitude.
At this moment, a White House staffer is trying to stop Orange Julius Caesar from Tweeting “My White House scandal is biggest in history of our Great Country! Even Angry Dems admit.”
What’s “bigger than Watergate” is the Russia attack on America. I mean, the watergate break in doesn’t even show up on the scale of “importance” when compared to the Russia attack.
What’s “bigger than Watergate” is Trump’s efforts to cover up the Russia attack. While Nixon’s efforts to cover up the Watergate break in and related crimes was important, it pales in comparision to Trump’s cover up.
What’s not “bigger than watergate” is Trump’s efforts to cover up the cover up. Nixon did the exact same thing, including making numerous claims of exective privilege to stymie investigations for as long as possible.
The stonewalling isn’t appreciably “bigger than watergate”. It only appears that way to the congresscritters whose oversight prerogatives are being ignored by Trump.
Previous advice given and not taken by the occupant
“DO NOT CONGRATULATE”
Good to see the rhetoric is starting to match the reality. Not only is the crime and cover-up worse than Watergate, but the naked power grab from the executive branch represented by their refusal to allow Congressional oversight is a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen in modern US political history.
“It may not be as big as a lot of the crises that we’ve had as a nation, but this is bigger than Watergate was.”
What’s bigger than Watergate?
You win the Intertubes for today.
Jim is essentially educating sleepyheads. When the info spigot opens up on Trump malfeasance, they’ll be as interested as I was (ex-sleepyhead in 1973-74 who–with my musician/street-cat buddies–devoured everything we could on Watergate).
It’s even much bigglyer than that!
What is bigger than Watergate is Trump’s blatant attempt to neutralize Congress and establish himself as an absolute ruler. He wasn’t studying Mein Kampf and collections of Hitler’s speeches for entertainment.
So question: say SCOTUS rules that Barr has to respond to Nadler’s subpoena. Does that serve as a precedent for every other Congressional subpoena against the admin, or does each one have to be litigated singly? And does this case go directly to SCOTUS or via federal court, appeals court, and then to SCOTUS? And would it be expedited, or does it go on the regular track?
then STFU and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT…this neener neener pants on fire shits getting old…
Another aspect is the basic silence emanating from the IC. Between all of those agencies, they know everything that is happening with the foreign attacks and damage done to our democracy. You would think the patriots among them might do whatever it takes to help inform we the people so that the public can take action. I don’t much care for the excuse that “ongoing counterintelligence investigations demand secrecy to prevent the enemy from knowing what we know.” Really?
It’s past time for more public knowledge of WTF is happening. Unless of course the fix is in to destroy democracy from within. We know the Traitor Party feels that way. We’re also facing a climate crisis that will very likely create mass human death and probable extinction. Let’s think about that too.
Say it Jim. Tell it. We don’t hear from Clyburn often enough.
I believe it would naturally go to the DC District Court first, then to DC Circuit Court of Appeals (Merrick Garland, Chief Judge!), but the Committees or the WH can ask for expedited appeal to SCOTUS under certain circumstances. WH and DOJ can probably insist on litigating every demand, but the courts may choose to consolidate similar ones. I’d like anyone who knows better to correct me here if I’m wrong.
In today’s world Nixon would be home free…
Does that serve as a precedent for every other Congressional subpoena against the admin, or does each one have to be litigated singly?
Short answer. on precedent, No. While a decision may set a precedent in how subsequent cases are settled, the facts of each case subsequent case determines whether that precedent applies to each case.
On combining cases, judges have the power to combine cases, but that can complicate and delay things as well as speed them up, because if you combine cases, and there is a legitimate reason to delay one of them, all of them can be delayed.
re fast tracking to the supreme court, while expedited review is possible, the Supreme Court would almost certainly prefer that lower courts institute relevant precedents it had established in prior cases, rather than have to deal with all the facts of a different case to determine if the precedent is relevant…