Confirmed: Trump Admin Instructed Agencies to Ignore Democrat Oversight Requests - Polidicks

[quote]The White House says that under the law, it only has to respond to records requests that come from committee chairmen—who all happen to be Republicans. Democrats say it amounts to a ‘gag order.’ Under a policy adopted by the Trump administration, the letter that catapulted Fast and Furious from mere headache to political nightmare likely would never have been sent. T[B]he White House has told federal departments and agencies that it will adhere to a stricter definition of congressional oversight than did the Obama administration. Government officials are now under no obligation to respond to requests for information and documents that do not come from committee chairmen[/B], who, because of the GOP’s majorities in both chambers of Congress, are all Republicans. That means departments and agencies can essentially ignore requests from Democrats, which they have already done in more than 200 instances over President Trump’s first four months in office, according to a tally kept by party leaders. Although denying that it was deliberately ignoring Democrats, the White House did acknowledge that it was taking a different approach to congressional oversight that did the Obama administration. “Unlike the prior administration that acted above the law, this administration will follow the Constitution and implement congressional statutes consistent with their plain meaning,”the official said. [url]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/trumps-solution-to-pesky-congressional-democrats-ignore-them/529050/[/url] [/quote] Something similar was posted a while back but it wasn't concrete if they had actually done this at that time. [editline]10th June 2017[/editline] So now if you elect a democrat representative, or have a democrat representative, your elected offical cannot provide oversight or even request information from federal agencies that comply with this new interpretation.

Sounds like it's not illegal if you make it legal. Something I know has been a goal of lobbyists for years, but I hadn't considered partisan conflicts over this.

Congratulations, Trump voters, you wanted authoritarianism, and increasingly it looks like you could get it in an institutionalized way and not just a deranged cheeto. I hope you're happy. Signed, the rest of the planet.

it's literally a regime, holy shit

Power hungry. Every single last one of them. And the people who willingly voted for them were more then happy to let it happen and to let it keep happening.

I think we need a public awareness campaign that "one-party rule, as long as it's my party" is not only the gateway to an authoritarian shithole, it's also incredibly short-sighted, both on just how badly this could be abused, and also just how badly it'll be abused the moment the wind changes directions and Democrats take control of Congress. And by Trump's administration using it, it'll likely guarantee its use in future administrations. Just like you can't take back the invention of chemical warfare, you can't take back the use of partisanly muzzling Congressional committee members, now it's a thing. Filibsters are falling, and now this. All aboard the train to one-party rule.

If this doesn't say "We know we're fucked if we don't act fast", I don't know what will. Not to mention it's blatantly clear the Republicans are attempting to make it difficult for Democrats to do [I]anything[/I] in the future.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52336130]If this doesn't say "We know we're fucked if we don't act fast", I don't know what will. Not to mention it's blatantly clear the Republicans are attempting to make it difficult for Democrats to do [I]anything[/I] in the future.[/QUOTE] 2018 cannot come sooner. on the plus side I doubt this policy will stay in place both through potential legal challenges as well as once democrats take one chamber and suddenly flip the dynamic they will quickly reverse it so that their republicans don't get shut out of government

Waiting for the US to be a dictatorship lol...

Hopefully the courts side with us once again and shoot this shit down.

One more step towards a single-party state. I now see why conservatives like Russia so much

I think Trump still needs to be given a chance.

viva la revolución

[QUOTE=Bordellimies;52336864]I think Trump still needs to be given a chance.[/QUOTE] its been 6 months, the country is splitting apart at the seams, meanwhile he's starting actual shooting wars over twitter.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52337146]its been 6 months, the country is splitting apart at the seams, meanwhile he's starting actual shooting wars over twitter.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm fam.

[QUOTE=Sableye;52337146]its been 6 months, the country is splitting apart at the seams, meanwhile he's starting actual shooting wars over twitter.[/QUOTE] It's actually barely been five months. But I think that might have been sarcastic. If not, holy shit.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52337290]It's actually barely been five months. But I think that might have been sarcastic. If not, holy shit.[/QUOTE] ya probably, I've just heard this far too much in non sarcastic ways

[QUOTE]Unlike the prior administration that acted above the law, this administration will follow the Constitution and implement congressional statutes consistent with their plain meaning,”the official said.[/QUOTE] The arrogance

[quote] “Unlike the prior administration that acted above the law, this administration will follow the Constitution and implement congressional statutes consistent with their plain meaning,”the official said.[/quote] 'Infuriating' feels like an understatement.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52338254]'Infuriating' feels like an understatement.[/QUOTE] asking people to answer when congress (the maker of law) asks them something is indeed "being above the law", how can you argue with that? /s

it's even more disappointing to know democrats will literally not make a peep about this at all because they're all too busy screaming about Russia.

[QUOTE=1239the;52339463]it's even more disappointing to know democrats will literally not make a peep about this at all because they're all too busy screaming about Russia.[/QUOTE] Well Trump's solution to draining the swamp was to hook it up to a sewage pump. Kinda difficult to prioritize things when you're getting flooded with a tidal wave of raw sewage.

The real problem about all this? It was either this or Hillary. We just weren't ready for Bernie; too many Baby Boomers thought he was too much for this country.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52341096]I still think Bernie would've been interesting to say the least. I wanted to see how he would stop the US economy from imploding if he got all his policies enacted.[/QUOTE] Implying the economy would implode to begin with....

[QUOTE=Code3Response;52341125]Implying the economy would implode to begin with....[/QUOTE] Automation is going to take millions of jobs in the next few years and will only increase with time as we do virtually nothing to futureproof low income people with alternative occupations (especially with a significant amount of our politicians being against the concept of universalized anything, not just universal basic income). That's going to be a massive problem we'll face fairly soon within our lifetimes that has large economic ramifications, as it will be almost always more efficient and cheap to rely on automatic processes for some of the largest jobs in America, including trucking and manufacturing (which already has significant automation to begin with, of course). Mind you, this won't just be an American issue, but America is going to easily be one of the hardest hit, especially as our parties continue to tote hyperpartisan lines like this and don't act at all for the greater good of the people over their own pockets.

[QUOTE=1239the;52339463]it's even more disappointing to know democrats will literally not make a peep about this at all because they're all too busy screaming about Russia.[/QUOTE] Well now they have to focus on the Senate health care vote, which is still being done secretly and they vote in 2 weeks

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52341096]I still think Bernie would've been interesting to say the least. I wanted to see how he would stop the US economy from imploding if he got all his policies enacted.[/QUOTE] probably by properly allocating the budget like both Democrats and Republicans seem completely inept at doing. Not like the stuff he (Bernie) was suggesting doesn't already exist in 99% of the first world.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52341096]I still think Bernie would've been interesting to say the least. I wanted to see how he would stop the US economy from imploding if he got all his policies enacted.[/QUOTE] His fiscal plan made a whole lot more sense than Trump just assuming we would reach 3% growth by instituting protectionism.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52341096]I still think Bernie would've been interesting to say the least. I wanted to see how he would stop the US economy from imploding if he got all his policies enacted.[/QUOTE] I see you're of the mistaken belief that if the government spends more money than it takes in, the economy is somehow damaged. In fact, government spending is one part of GDP, and when the government spends more, the economy does better. The real concern that one might want to bring up is the national debt, which we have been massively growing for years. The funny thing is most people who believe Berniecrats are starry eyed idealists who know nothing about economics are the people who know the least about economics themselves.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52343555]His fiscal plan made a whole lot more sense than Trump just assuming we would reach 3% growth by instituting protectionism.[/QUOTE] 3% year after year for a decade to prevent total bankruptcy, yep that sounded like sound budget math, i think i did something similar on an engineering project in school when none of my numbers made any sense