I might actually agree with him. Sounds like he voted no because he’s got a history in law enforcement and he was worried that there was no provision to protect innocent people from the release. He didn’t want collateral damage to witnesses, etc. Assuming a reasonable definition of “innocent”, and not trying to label Republicans as innocent, then I can see the case.
I think it’s reasonable to release the files safely, I just don’t trust the current keepers of said files to do that.
That would imply some amount of principles on the part of Mr Higgins, which I assure you he does not have. This is a guy who had to resign in disgrace from being a cop, twice, and once voted for David Duke. He's a reliable lickspittle for Trump, and a genuine asshole in pretty much every Congressional hearing I've ever seen him in.
If I told you to imagine "a caricature of a racist bowl of gumbo," Clay Higgins is what your mind would conjure.
Senate voted "Yes" unanimously. Now Trump can either: 1) Sign it, and likely seal his fate. 2) Veto it, face a veto-override, and have a worse fate. 3) Veto it, veto-override fails, Trump looks guilty regardless, becomes politically toxic and essentially lame ducks himself. Pam Bondi will probably pull some bullshit that they can't release the files because they are actively investigating the Democrats or something.
That's definitely the plan. The entire Republican caucus wheeling 180 degrees in unison means they've settled on some other plan. It's gonna be some combination of "active investigation" and "national security" to keep the most prominent Republican names out of it.
Yeah and it makes sense considering they announced the "investigation" like 2 days ago. Then again, any member of Congress could reasonably leak the documents and face minimal penalty now that they are legally public.
What date is that? He has been impeached twice. Convicted of 30 something felonies and admitted to sexual assault. He’s never been punished at all. and because the democrats are too busy advocating for cutting off your ding dong being a great reason to play women’s sports, people would vote for him a 3rd time. No matter how many times he sucked of Clinton.
Isn't sucking Clinton's cock punishment enough? I'm saying political punishment. Probably paid Indonesia to modify DNA to make goat-human hybrids.
I thought that it was not veto-able due to the extreme majority of the vote? At least that's what the news is reporting.
I dunno, is that a thing? It's been a bit since there's been a near unanimous vote on anything meaningful.
I don't know man... it's not like I live there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But everything is now pointing to Trump gladly signing it. Makes me think that the release will have all Republicans redacted, or it'll be cock-blocked by an active DOJ investigation.
The way the American system works is that once a bill is passed by both chambers of Congress, it goes to the President for his signature. He has ten days to either sign it, or veto it (if he does nothing, it becomes law after ten days, excluding weird circumstances known as a pocket veto which shouldn't come into play here). If he vetoes it, it goes back to the Congress, where they can alter the bill to address the President's objections and send it back for his signature, or they can hold a veto-override vote. If 2/3 of each chamber votes in favor of the veto-override, it becomes law, without the President's signature. What the news is reporting is the the number of Congresscritters who voted in favor of the bill is more than the threshold that would be required to override a veto, should one be forthcoming. But they would have to formally vote to do it in order for it to go into effect.
A lot of times you'll hear the phrase "veto-proof majority" which basically means so many Congressmen voted for it that the President shouldn't bother wasting his political capital trying to veto it, because they'll just tell him to fuck himself, override the veto, and embarrass him politically. But that was in saner times, so who knows.