By DAVID HARSANYI
The only rules Mitch McConnell needs are in the Constitution.
Republicans have every right to fill the vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Please save your irate emails accusing me of hypocrisy, because I have never believed or advocated for the “Biden Rule” or the “McConnell Rule” or any other fantastical “rule” regulating the confirmation process, other than the prescribed constitutional method.
In March 2016, in the heat of the Merrick Garland debate, I argued that “the Republicans’ claim that the ‘people’ should decide the nominee is kind of a silly formulation,” and the best argument for denying Barack Obama another seat on the court was to stop him from transforming it into a post-constitutional institution that displaces law with “empathy” and ever-changing progressive conceptions of justice.
For a decade, the conventional wisdom said that the GOP’s “obstructionism” — by which liberals meant completely legitimate governance that didn’t acquiesce to Obama’s wishes — was going to sink the party. Conventional wisdom was wrong in the elections held during the Obama presidency. It was wrong in 2016.
The Garland debate did not sink Republicans, who held the Senate and won the presidency. In fact, one of the central promises the GOP relied on to procure those victories — especially among Evangelical voters — was that they would nominate and confirm originalist justices to the Supreme Court. If Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell end up installing replacements for Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg . . . well, “but Gorsuch,” indeed.
McConnell had no constitutional obligation to take up Obama’s Garland nomination in 2016, and he has no obligation to wait for 2021 to vote on the next appointment. There is no constitutional crisis. There is only now a faction of left-wing partisans who are threatening to weaken and pack courts because they didn’t get their way.
Guess what? It was the Democrats who demanded that the GOP ignore the “Biden rule” when it wasn’t convenient for them. It was Democrats who blew up the judicial filibuster. It was Democrats who argued that Trump shouldn’t be allowed to have any nominees. It was Chuck Schumer who argued that Democrats should “reverse the presumption of confirmation” for now-beloved George W. Bush in his second term. It was Democrats who engaged in an authoritarian-style witch-hunt against Brett Kavanaugh in an effort to delegitimize the court. Democrats care about as much about precedents as do “liberal” Supreme Court justices.
Now, I don’t think a single person in American politics actually cares about the “Biden rule,” either. Even if they did, however, the precedent doesn’t apply in this case. Biden argued that nominations shouldn’t be taken up during presidential-election years when Senate and presidency are held by different parties. Trump isn’t a lame-duck president; he’s running for reelection. But let’s concede for the sake of argument that McConnell is a massive hypocrite. Then, it’s fair to say, so are all the pols who accused McConnell “stealing” the Garland seat.
Democrats are poised to corrupt an election that they know they’ve already lost. Replace RGB now, and help the Republicans win. Cut the head off the Marxist/Democrat/Blue Church now.
Under the Constitution, President Trump can call for the appointment of a new justice Monday morning. There is no doubt that following the funeral he will make the call. the biden rule or paedophile rule is a hoax. the democrap want to stall until after the election betting on that creep joe will win and kamaslut will replace him via the 25th Amendment. several internet sites and media are pandering creepy joe’s request for delay.
When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia Ruth B. Ginsburg had something to say about it: Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination.
“That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”
“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said.
“What we do is we automatically affirm the decision of the court below. No opinion is written, no reasons are given, and the affirmance has no precedential value,” Ginsburg explained. “It’s just as though we denied review.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the wise latina, agreed. “I think we hope there will be nine as quickly as possible.”
Quotes from PJMedia
Why would one vote for biden when no one knows who he would nominate?
McConnell in 2016, with 237 days remaining before the election:
McConnell today, with only 45 days remaining until the 2020 election.
Go ahead and try it, you wattle-necked, hypocritical old bastard, and see what happens to the Republican Senate majority in November. It will cost you whether you succeed or not.
McConnell did not say that moron, that was a statement from President Trump. How stupid are you?
BTW, President Trump has signaled he will nominate a woman. Look for Amy Coney Barrett to be nominated to fill the court’s vacancy.
@Greg: There is no equivalency. If Dems had the Senate in 2016, they would have installed a new Justice.
The goal is to get as many Conservative judges as possible, and the Reps blocked the Dem in 2016, now have another opportunity.
Payback is a bitch.
McConnell in 2016, with 237 days remaining before the election:
Which, if you had not failed Civics 101, you would know that was getting close to the end of Obama’s Presidency. 235 days, and then a completely fresh and new, never elected before President (could have been Hillary, turned out to be Trump) would have taken over.
Not only that, but McConnell had every right to hold Garland’s nomination. It matters not one whit what you or I think. It doesn’t matter what Schumer or AOC or some random chick screaming on Facebook does. It’s a matter of what the Constitution thinks.
Suck it, Greg.
Remember Robert Bork!
Historical precedent is on the sides of both President Trump and the Republican held Senate…
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-side-of-republicans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/amp/?
__twitter_impression=true
The merrick garland debacle is of no relevance here.
I can’t understand why anyone would listen the standard disinformation from the Dems and their outlets.
The Reps blocked the Dems in 2016, because they could. Good move.
The Senate belongs to the Republicans…boo hoo for the Democrats.
They should install a new justice immediately and continue to destroy the far-left idiots that have taken over the Dems. Trump’s win will most likely crush this Marxist infection for good.
We need to write laws to sue or even arrest news organizations for putting out “regime-changing” lies and misinformation.
@Nathan Blue:
Of course they would have. And that’s what the obstructive GOP senate should have allowed. Instead, they denied a duly elected president to do so.
2016: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
2018: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
2016: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016: Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016: Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
2016: Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
2016: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
2016: Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
2016: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
I’m not even saying our murderous popular vote loosing piece of shit occupying the Oval Office isn’t entitled to seat another justice. But there’s no way to tap dance around the blatant hypocrisy, outright lying, and abject thirst of power and abuse of our legislative process today’s so-called conservatives have come to be.
Ronny
You could not be more wrong.
Even those if average intelligence can read where historical precedent favors President Trump and with the republicans controlled senate.
Your argument is weak on its surface.
And what you and other lackeys will not admit is were you and the democrats in a similar situation, you would do exactly what President Trump and the Republicans are doing. You are just too much of a putz to admit that.
@July 4th American: #13
Obviously, much like the realities of dumpster fire freak show of the Trump presidency, you can’t even read what’s right before your eyes.
@Ronald J. Ward: #12
Nathan- @Greg: There is no equivalency. If Dems had the Senate in 2016, they would have installed a new Justice.
RJW- Of course they would have. And that’s what the obstructive GOP senate should have allowed. Instead, they denied a duly elected president to do so.
If distracting the abuse of power and legislative sabotage of the lying and hypocritical party of the treasonous and murderous Trump on an insignificant racist and hate infested blog with such nonsense makes you feel better, well, bully for you.
No abuse of power. Article II section II of the US Constitution give President Trump the authority to nominate a Supreme Court vacancy.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Want to argue against the Constitution?
@July 4th American:
Let’s go through this once again:
2016: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
2018: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”
2016: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term – I would say that if it was a Republican president.”
2016: Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
2016: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
2016: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
2016: Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
2016: Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
2016: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
2016: Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
2016: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
That’s what our republican leaders told us when they unitedly denied a duly elected president from nominating any Supreme Court Justice.
Yeah, I have a pretty good understanding of our Constitution and I’m not arguing it. What I’m saying is the GOP is a party of profound liars, hypocrites, and with twist, lie, steal, rob, murder, disenfranchise voters, invite foreign adversaries to manipulate our electoral process, and anything else to advance their power. And as we saw in their abetting Trump of bribing Ukraine by withholding congressional approved funding, they really have no concerns of our Constitution.
Speaking of the Constitution, in the event of the power grab of the GOP, there’s already talk from Dems of adding more SCOTUS justices, changing the powers of present lower courts, and even adding stars to our flag to gain more Dem seats should they regain power-which is a real possibility and is well within their powers under our Constitution.
“I want you to use my words against me, “If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, ‘Let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.'”
—Lindsay Graham 2016
“I will support President Trump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg.”
—Lindsay Graham 2020
Words, meh
@July 4th American, #18:
The problem with most Trump supporters is that they can’t separate words that are true from words that are false. I say “most” because there are some like Trump himself who simply don’t give a damn about the difference.
Today, from the teleprompter, Biden reads, “They shouldn’t, you know, the thing.”
After the Democrats took control of the House they showed they subscribe to the tenet that might makes right. If they have the power (majority) to do something, legal or not, they should do it. They proved that with overwhelming clarity during the impeachment embarrassment. No facts, no evidence, no first-hand testimony, just the political will and power to impeach a President based on NOTHING but political need. So, the Republicans should worry about if they are being “fair” or not to THESE people? FILL THE SEAT.
@Greg: Guess what? Trump has the obligation and the power and Republicans have the capability in the Senate. All it takes is the power to have the right. That’s the Democrat way.
@Nathan Blue:
The goal is to have Justices that make decisions based on the Constitution. Now, almost any judge that respects the Constitution happens to be conservative, but Constitutionalists is what we want.
@Ronald J. Ward: You know what? TOO BAD. Like the Democrats have been doing, Republicans have the power and opportunity. So, just have a seat and watch. Might start working on your lies about sexual abuse, racism or whatever else you can concoct. You’re going to NEED it.
@Greg: Ok. You need to tell your wife to calm down.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Uh .. you’re a f*cling idiot.@Greg:
I’d focus on your own candidate’s problems, like telling people they’re not black if they don’t vote for him, and with a straight and serious face, lying to them about who invented the incandescent light bulb.
It’s quite obvious that you can’t separate truth from fiction, and that isn’t surprising, given your Party’s propensity for writing new narratives over of historical and verifable truths.
“Trump supporters” are just the vast majority of normal citizens who see the Democrat scam for what it is, and have rightly rejected it. No one supports a party that is advocating for open sedition and an abolishment of the Constitution.
The party is over for those far left nutags that took over the Democrat Party, thank God.
But back to point, Trump has every right and obligation n to assign a supreme Court Justice now. The Democrats know they are f*cked, and they’re kicking around like a feral animal caught in a trap.
It’s about goddamn time.
@Deplorable Me, #20:
That most definitely IS NOT the Democratic way, the American way, nor the way or intention of the United States Constitution. It’s the way of every authoritarian government the world has ever known, and of every playground bully until he’s finally knocked off his perch.
@Deplorable Me: I agree, but as you say, I know Trump wants an originalist and that’s the correct and fair way to go.
Also, after 4 years of watching the Democrats break the law and lie about everything, I fully support Trump doing whatever he needs to do to destroy the radical elements of their party, legally.
It’s not funny anymore. Marxist Democrats have to be held accountable for their crimes.
The Constitution could not be more clear. Article II section II. My pocket Constitution says nothing about a democratic way. Pulling more shit out of your ass.
@Greg:
Well, you managed to get two thirds of that right. You scored a 66. That’s a D. You fail.
While it is not the best way, it most definitely IS the Democrat way. It is the Schumer/Pelosi/Schiff way. Lie, corrupt, abuse power, obstruct, blackmail, extort; anything to exercise absolute power. So, having gotten totally sick of Republicans setting the honorable example and getting kicked in the nuts for the effort every time; time to play by THEIR rules until the Democrats cry “UNCLE”.
Stop pretending the circumstances or anything else; YOU’VE supported those that created this mess.
And that is EXACTLY how Democrats have been acting. Which is why Democrats should be forced to stop behaving like fascist despots.
@Nathan Blue: Absolutely.
@Nathan Blue, #24:
Donald Trump doesn’t know constitutional originalism or textualism from a tin plate of beans. His every calculation at this point revolves around keeping Trump in office. Failure to do so would not only deprive him of the ultimate tool for increasing personal wealth, prestige, and power, but remove his shield from investigation and civil prosecution. He only cares about other things so far as they relate to those things.
@Deplorable Me:
Things have gone to hell in a handbag since Trump took office. Not on somebody else’s watch, but on Donald Trump’s watch.
What else should we have expected? The man draws his political power from widening and exploiting the nation’s most dangerous fault lines and divisions. He isn’t now and never has been a national unifier. What he wants is division, and to always be the leader of the winning side.
Promoting that which would be best for all never serves the ends of those who want it all.
@Greg:
Yeah… THANKS, Democrats. YOU couldn’t accept that Hillary lost… WOULDN’T accept it. Didn’t feel like you HAD to accept it. So, you all pouted, threw tantrums, whined and cried… and obstructed. Impeached for a political goal. Trampled due process. Weaponized the DOJ, FBI, IC. Maybe as soon as Democrats want to act like AMERICANS, they will give some sort of signal.
There is nothing wrong, illegal, unconstitutional or improper with Trump naming a replacement to Ginsburg. Once again, you leftists are simply not accepting the truth. Go scream at the sky.
Wow. You are on an almost-roll. True, but you don’t get it that socialism, globalism, fascism, and factionalism is not what is good for “all”. It is only good for leftists.
FOX News, September 20, 2020 – Pelosi won’t rule out using impeachment as option to stop Trump Supreme Court pick
That would be an entirely constitutional arrow, with nothing wrong, illegal, or improper about it. Maybe she should write Merrick Garland’s name on it before letting it fly, just to make certain McConnell gets the point.
With only 44 days remaining until the election, republicans should consider following their own reasoning as expressed in 2016.
pelosi does not have enough time to use impeachment to thwart President Trumps filling the seat.
She might get articles of impeachment through the House and delivered to the Senate rather quickly. Trump would then be under charges at the same time that he’s trying to get reelected.
Republicans should let this go until after the election, but they might not. They want it all. They think they can make a generational power grab in the Supreme Court. It tempts them, like cheese on a mousetrap.
What on earth would he be charged with, following the Constitution?
Even if she did the senate does not have to take up the sham articles.
There’s nothing to prevent them from bringing the same charges they did previously, though there was much that they could have added the first time around.
McConnell could decline to try the case. That could result in serious political repercussions, so near to a general election. A lot of voters are already disgusted with how they handled the previous trial. McConnell proclaimed the outcome even before the trial was held. He publicly announced that the republican-majority Senate was in lockstep with White House legal counsel. Voters remember such things.
@Greg:
What a f**king idiot you are. I guess you never heard of double jeopardy?
Correct. A lot of voters were absolutely disgusted with the actions of the Democrats and have not forgotten those actions.
After the actions of the Democrats, especially Handsy Joe Biden and the killer Teddy Kennedy, during the Senate hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas, the Republican side owns the Democrats not one damn thing. Add to that their abominable treatment of Robert Bork and Justice Kavanaugh, and the Democrats shouldn’t even be allowed in judicial Senate hearings.
For far too long the Democrats have used the judicial system as a way to get what they want when they can’t pass legislation for their socialist dreams. Time for that to end.
The first impeachment was a sham. pelosi has zero credibility.
There is no risk at all for McConnell to ignore the follow up sham part duex
Any voters who are disgusted with the previous senate impeachment trial number less than two dozen
@Greg:
You mean a small portion of far-left voters. Sorry, the whole “We’re normal and we’re everyone” isn’t going to work anymore.
You can’t impeach a President without an actual charge.
What you are suggesting and have supported is treason, and will be put down by both legal and physical force.
You are either a foreign enemy or domestic enemy, and now an enemy of the citizens of the United States.
The Dems have conceded the election, but will mire it in uncertainty…their real play being to take the Senate and try to push the hoax impeachment again.
This is a coup.
Good luck. The Majority of voters do not support you, your Party, or your ideology, and most of those people are armed.
@Greg:
Unsubstantiated partisan opinion, and not the grounds for rational thought.
Dismissed.
Given Trump has a duty to replace the Justice, and to stop a Marxist coup by your and yours, he’s proven he supports the original and textual interpretation of the Constitution.
Marxism doesn’t work, and it will not be tolerated in America.
@retire05, #35:
Sorry, but you are 100 percent wrong.
Double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases under civil law, not to the congressional impeachment process.
The reason is that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment only covers crimes for which punishments placing one “in jeopardy of life or limb” are involved. The only penalty that can follow from a guilty finding in a congressional impeachment trial is removal from office, and prohibition from ever holding that same office again.
A president CAN be impeached and tried a second time for the same offense.
@Greg:
And traitors can hang. Bring it, b*tch.
@Greg:
Tell us all, Comrade Greggie, where did you get your degree is Constitutional law? And don’t try to pass that b/s again that you can read.
Or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn?
@retire05, #41:
I not only can read, but do. That’s why I’m correct on this point. Trump can be impeached again. The House wouldn’t even need to come up with a new set of charges. As Pelosi correctly observed, that’s an arrow in their quiver.
@Greg:
He wasn’t impeached the first time. An impeachment without removal is only an “impeachment” for the Party who didn’t get their enemy removed.
See: Bill Clinton.
Was he “impeached”? Yes. Was he IMPEACHED? No.
@Greg:
That’s pretty shitty language for someone who is supposed to work with the rest of our duly elected government, and it reveals the source of the problem: the assertion of a one-party police state at the hands of the Marxist Democrats.
Not on my watch.
@Greg:
Yeah, because Pelosi uses impeachment as a political tool, just like Democrats use violence. She’s a drunken, lying, socialist scumbag. Nice goddess you’ve chosen.
Yeah, like last time, it can move rather quickly when such things as evidence, due process or the Constitution are ignored. Just having enough votes to get something through doesn’t make it right, scooter.
Just the blood-thirsty vengeance-addicts that never care about truth or the rule of law.
They didn’t have any reason or evidence for impeachment the first time, what makes you think they can make it look better the second time? You really do cling to those straws.
@July 4th American: All another “impeachment” would accomplish is prove the first one was the political sham we all believed it was.
@Nathan Blue:
They’ll charge him with following the Constitution. That’s a crime among Democrats.
@Nathan Blue:
Impeachment:
Donald Trump was, in fact, impeached. So were Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton.
@Nathan Blue, #44:
It’s not an empty threat. It’s a clear and entirely serious warning. Hypocrisy so blatant as that which they’re entertaining could be turned into a political weapon. If they they hand it to Pelosi, she won’t hesitate a moment to use it.
greg “I not only can read, but do.”
Well you do not read too well. Richard Nixon was never impeached. Nixon resigned shit for brains, greg.
“The House wouldn’t even need to come up with a new set of charges”
So, here are the charges pelosi could resubmit:
Really greg, you have the IQ if a Crayola crayon.
pelosi threatening to re charge President Trump with the same failed charges is more than foolish and is a guarantee that action will cost them the House.
There are 17 House members up for re-election in districts President Trump won in 2016. Following 2018 midterms, Republicans were down 19 seats to majority. Since 2018, the Republicans have turned two seats, thus needing only 17 to reclaim the House presuming current Republicans win re-election.
Given the failure(s) of this Congress, it would seem a tall task for the democrats to keep the House.
@July 4th American: But what else can Democrats do but try failed attempts at a coup over and over again?
@Greg:
Nothing has been handed to Pelosi, rather she and most Dems hand easy campaign ads to Trump, daily.
Hypocracy? You mean like charging Trump murder because he made some obtuse comment about masks, while she breaks her own districts lockdown order to get her hair done?
You mean like accusing Trump of quid pro quo, without cause, when you have Biden actually and irrefutably admitting his guilt on live TV?
As far as her quiver of nothing-burgers and outright lies, I’ve watch so many of them dink off of Teflon Don.
The President should and will appoint a Justice. The Dems, when they passed the ACA without any bi-partixan support, started this new scorched Earth era in politics. They deserve no honor and will get none, at least not while they neglect their cities, violate the lockdowns, promote segregation, promote marxist ideals, and operate on a Chinese agenda by taking Chinese money.
The bill is coming due, and the Democrats are broke. Uh-oh…
How much fun would it be if McConnell bypassed any hearings and went straight to a vote?