Anathema-

It would be quite the swing from the heady days of the early tea party where he almost literally controlled Congress. First a black guy then a Jewish statist and all he gets in return is trump and cancer.

Fuck that asshole yesterday, fuck him today, and fuck him until the end of time. Cancer ain't got nothing to do with that. Of all people I'm glad he's one that has to face down his own mortality before the end. For all the bitter pills he shoved down people's throats that shortened their otherwise joyful time on earth to a nub of angry xenophobic vitriol that rubbed out real connections to real family I can think of few more fitting fates.

Jeb married a Latina though right? Penalty reversed after review.

Cynicism is never the right answer. And you'll have to forgive me for recognizing that Lee Fang is a joke and politico "reports" "news" that's in its own interests constantly. It fails to impress how difficult (basically impossible) the rules change would be and how obvious it would be. It's reporting with an agenda and you're letting yourself fall for it.

I think it's a mistake to assume that the superdelegates would vote against the delegate lead and overturn that.

I do most of my work remotely now, just from a desk in the office.

it was a light breeze

That is INcorrect.

Yes, when someone has you by the collar and threatening to knock your lights out you are morally deficient for refusing to kiss their boots to avoid it. If you don't kiss the boots, gosh what else is supposed to happen other than you get what's coming to you?

After seeing how they think Sikhs are Muslims I'd say they're also Xenophones.

Have you ever noticed that everyone who drives slower than you is a moron, and everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac?

Goebbels: Accuse your opponents of what you're actually doing! Republicans: Hillary Clinton ran a secret global pedophile ring! Goebbels: uh

The parameters of this year are similar to 2008 with a strong front runner and second but still a mixed field with an endorsement going to one of the lower end of the top, then Edwards now Warren. An endorsement like that could chew into the large undecided vote pool and switch or solidify second choices. Edwards vaulted past two others to finish third and that was enough to make him a serious contender and talked about as much as the surprise winner.

Je suis Paperclyp

Might be enough to get her a surprise second place finish.

Swine flu 2: electric boogaloo

Does Congress need to go to the courts to validate their ability to pass legislation?

The Air Force jacked the logo decades ago. Plenty of stuff to clown on this admin for but this ain't one.

Irrelevant. Trump is denying that Congress has powers of oversight, not that they can't specifically subpoena one thing for a particular reason. We don't need the courts to settle whether or not Congress has oversight and it would be offensive to the constitution to suggest.

On the one hand, I agree with all of this. However I'm nagged by the fact that the president, who has full authority to fire ambassadors whenever he wants for almost any reason, is asking this of someone with no power over her employment. How do we square that? Furthermore how do we square that with her literally fleeing the country out of fear for her safety? What prompted that? I'm still really skeptical of making this leap but there are loose ends that bug me.

"Why would anybody drive when they can ride the red car for a nickel?"

We don't need article III to validate that article I has oversight of article II, it's right there in the text. It's not hard to argue that one thing or another isn't subject to review but you can't argue that nothing is subject to review. By blocking all documents and testimony article II denies that article I has oversight. It plainly does, though, and we don't need anyone else to validate that. This isn't a matter that requires adjudication. Does Congress have oversight of the president? If the president thinks and acts as if they do not then that is a fairly impeachable offense. Article III has literally no say in the matter.

Cake donuts are no more donuts than ice cream cake is cake.

Considering the particulars (holding funds for personal electoral gain) I don't see how impeachment is inappropriate. This wasn't an oopsie, it was a corrupt violation of the highest order. Removal is appropriate if no lesser remedy is effective. That is really not the end of story considering it's not even a citation. The House has oversight of the executive, there's nothing that says they require the court's agreement.