2689

We’re trying. The GOP isn’t.

Has it come to the point of hoping that the supreme court decides that the words in the constitution mean what they say and that the police will arrest someone when the president says not to? This is both our republic and the rule of law hanging on by a thread. The president is commander in chief of the military, so what happens when the president is unfit to command? When he directly goes against the constitution that he and everyone in the military swore to uphold?

I think it’s entirely reasonable and neccessary to start thinking about what we the people do just in case the representatives we have placed in power, including the president, stop following the constitution, cause that’s sure what it looks like.

2690

I wont disagree.

But when Congresscritters just shrug cause they think they’ll lose the vote without really trying… well, I’d rather we know for sure we’re in that scenario than in some grey area where we probably are, but we can’t be sure because a bunch of politicians decided it was too risky to do their jobs.

2691

Interesting that Putin hasn’t bothered disarming his own people, then.

Authoritarians don’t mind an armed populace; violent encounters with “terrorists” tend to increase their popular support and discredit the opposition.

2692

When the Soviets took over, they essentially disarmed their entire population. After the fall of the soviet union, gun ownership rose again (it was quite high prior to the Soviets), but gun laws are becoming more restrictive again.

You generally can’t own handguns in Russia. While you can purchase rifles, you need a separate permit to carry them, specifically limited to hunting, and only issued for certain weapons. You cannot own more than 10 firearms.

I looked into this a bit back when there was that NRA/Russia stuff, and part of what made it laughable is that Russia does in fact have very strict firearms control (less so than the Soviets). The Russians most definitely aren’t going to allow the kinds of gun rights that the NRA advocates for.

2693

Russia has laws around that type of thing. but its less of a law and more a guideline, or even more likely a pretty please

2694

More more more, how do you like it, how do you like it?

2695

Instructing someone to not comply with a subpoena seems illegal?

I mean, in some cases you can claim executive privilege, but I don’t think you can just say to ignore a subpoena, can you?

2696

It’s not a surprise, but I’m really tired of the media calling illegal actions and disregard for the Constitution “showdowns”

2697

That’s…a target.

2698

I can’t imagine what sort of meltdown conservative media would have had if Obama instructed one of his staff to disregard a Republican congressional subpoena. I know we keep making these comparisons, but Trump keeps ratcheting things up. It seems almost certain to me that Republicans would have started impeachment proceedings on Obama by now if he were accused of the same things as Trump.

2699

No need to imagine. Atty General Eric Holder ignored a Congressional subpoena and was found in contempt of Congress. The Obama DoJ declined to prosecute and IIRC nothing much else happened to him.

2700

Is there a statue of limitations for something like this? Could Congress find them in contempt, and have the next DoJ prosecute them?

2701

Well snap.

2702

Right, Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress, which is what the House is now contemplating doing to Barr et al.

Separately, he was sued and Republicans asked the judge to find him in contempt of court. This is arguably more serious because there is a much higher risk of jail or other penalties. But the judge declined. And unless Barr et al start ignoring court orders, they won’t be found in contempt of court either.

2703

Not exactly. Holder’s DOJ delivered documents responsive to the subpoena and also testified before Congress on the matter. The issue was over an additional set of subpoenaed documents, for which the WH declared executive privilege. Has Treasury claimed privilege on McGahn? I don’t say they won’t claim that, but I don’t think they have.

2704
2705

Yep, this kind of crap tends to come back around… And here we are.

2706
2707
2708

Asserting executive privlege over document investigating the executive. Cute.