ChrisWeigant.com

Bernie And A.O.C. Propose Capping Credit Card Interest Rates

[ Posted Thursday, May 9th, 2019 – 17:24 UTC ]

In what is in all likelihood a political shot across Joe Biden's bow, Senator Bernie Sanders is about to introduce a bill in the Senate which would cap all credit card interest rates at 15 percent. A companion bill will be introduced in the House by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (where it actually has the prospect of being voted on). This will be a welcome addition to the ongoing debate over what the Democratic Party's agenda and 2020 platform should include. It's an idea with the potential for widespread support from the public, and one of those rare issues where normal people would actually see a concrete and beneficial difference in their own lives emerge from the politics in Washington. A further provision of the bill would allow the post office to start offering basic banking services, putting it in direct competition with the banking industry.

Bernie's new proposal is all part and parcel of the one-upmanship now taking place among the Democratic presidential candidates. With so many candidates running, it has become harder and harder for any one of them to differentiate themselves from others who are similar in ideology. So there's a race going on to get good ideas on the table first, so the other candidates will be forced to have to say: "I support this plan proposed by my opponent," rather than showing leadership by coming up with the idea first.

There has also been a big shift in Democratic presidential politics with the official addition of Joe Biden to the race. Biden has absolutely dominated the polling since he announced, and other candidates have to be thinking about how they can tarnish Joe without attacking him too personally (since he is so well-loved by so many Democratic voters). Bernie's plan threads this needle admirably, because it will not only force Biden to react (he will doubtlessly be asked whether he supports this idea sometime soon), but it also serves to highlight one of Biden's weaknesses in today's more-progressive Democratic Party.

Biden hails from Delaware, of course, and the First State is known for being a big banking center (many large corporations incorporate in Delaware due to their favorable laws). While he was in the Senate, Biden carried a lot of water for the banking industry, most notably on redefining bankruptcy laws in the banks' favor. Today, however, such pro-bank positions are not exactly in line with where the party's base now is. Biden can try to explain away his past behavior, but Bernie's proposal moves the discussion into the present in a big way. In other words: no matter what Biden may have done 20 or 30 years ago, where does he stand today? Reining in credit card companies' greed is entirely in line with where Bernie Sanders has been for a long time, which further differentiates his candidacy from Biden's.

In announcing the bill, Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez pointed out that there is a word for what credit card companies do to the most vulnerable consumers: usury. In more-modern terms, it might be called loan-sharking. Charging exorbitant interest rates is actually seen as immoral by many of the world's biggest religions, proving that the issue has been around for centuries if not millennia. But the United States has been allowing this activity for a long time now, without any real political pushback at all.

Sanders also points out something basic about the entire lending industry that is rarely openly discussed in politics: the least-able to afford it are charged the worst rates. If you are seen as a good credit risk, you get great rates and have to pay the smallest amount of interest of anybody. If, however, you are not seen as a good credit risk, then the sky's the limit for what banks will charge you to borrow money or use a credit card. The most vulnerable pay the most, while those at the top pay the least. In Bernie's parlance, this is the epitome of a "rigged system."

Mandating a cap on interest rates at 15 percent wouldn't change this basic rigging of the system, but it would rein in the worst abuses under it. And these abuses have been getting worse at an increasingly-fast rate. The banking industry made $113 billion from credit card interest and fees last year -- which is up a whopping 35 percent from 2012. One website tracking credit card rates shows that the median credit card interest rate now stands at 21.36 percent, when it was 20.24 percent a year ago -- and only 12.62 percent 10 years ago. That's a pretty steep rise in a very short period of time. For borrowers with good credit, the average rate is now 17.73 percent, while those with poor credit are paying 24.99 percent, up from 23.77 percent just a year ago. In other words, the banks are getting a lot greedier, and those on the bottom are getting hit the hardest.

For millions of American families, credit card interest is a big portion of their bills each month. Unlike most political proposals, people see this happening to them on an ongoing basis, and there's not a whole lot most people can do about such high rates. There is bound to be a whole lot of pushback from the banks to this proposal, but as Sanders pointed out, credit unions have successfully lived under an interest rate cap for decades now (their rates were capped at 15 percent in 1980, which was later raised to 18 percent). So why should the banks remain unregulated?

Sanders never mentions Joe Biden's name, but this new proposal has to be seen as being aimed directly at Biden's Senate record. If Biden is forced to address the idea, it's certainly going to put him in an uncomfortable position. Bernie sums up his basic argument by making it a part of his larger argument for his campaign: "I am sure it will be criticized. I have a radical idea: Maybe Congress should stand up for ordinary people."

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

53 Comments on “Bernie And A.O.C. Propose Capping Credit Card Interest Rates”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sanders never mentions Joe Biden's name, but this new proposal has to be seen as being aimed directly at Biden's Senate record.

    I'm so looking forward to the debates, particularly on this issue.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    If Biden is forced to address the idea, it's certainly going to put him in an uncomfortable position.

    How so?

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Well it seems that promise the moon season is in full swing.

    But we should listen to Bernie's basic radical idea. Congress should stand up for ordinary people.

    And every person in Congress running for re-election and every challenger should start by standing up for ordinary people by funding their campaign only with small donors.

    Then we might get a Congress that would actually pass some of the radical ideas like the one mentioned in your article.

    It won't be passed by Pelosi big money Democrats.

    You could stand up for ordinary citizens by informing them aboot One Demand.

    Maybe one or more of the democratic presidential candidates will see it as an opportunity to get out in front of the other candidates and then, as you say, they will all have to.

    How would that not be a good thing?

    Think of all the people that might find the Democratic presidential nominee and congressional candidates more appealing than the couch in 2020.

  4. [4] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re: ". . . there's not a whole lot most people can do about such high rates."

    Radical idea - how about LIVE ON WHAT YOU EARN, amd quit borrowing money! Actually, in the short run, live on a little LESS than you earn, so you can have something set aside for unforseen expenses.

    A simple and obvious truth - borrowing money does not make you richer, it make you POORER, so why the hell do so many people do it?

    You Democratics want to help the people being oppressed by loan sharking, set the legal interest rate to ZERO, then usury and loan-sharking will disappear overnight!

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You Democratics …

    That phrase doesn't make any sense. I wish you would stop using it. It bothers me.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A simple and obvious truth - borrowing money does not make you richer, it make you POORER, so why the hell do so many people do it?.

    There isn't really a lot of truth to that very generalized assertion.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    There isn't really a lot of truth to that very generalized assertion.

    How so??

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Dem candidates and their ideas..

    Booker is proposing a sweeping gun registration law... Every gun must be matched and registered with every owner..

    I think Hitler had the same idea..

    But hay.. Let's do it..

    Right after we register EVERYONE by way of a valid picture ID and perform an in-depth background check on EVERYONE who wants to vote.. And EVERYONE who wants to exercise their freedom of speech must be investigated and registered...

    When are Dumbocrats going to learn??

    Owning a gun is as much of a Constitutional Right as freedom of speech.. Or the right to vote..

    Hell, Dumbocrats don't even like an ID-check when a person registers to vote..

    Such hypocrisy....

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: For borrowers with good credit, the average rate is now 17.73 percent, while those with poor credit are paying 24.99 percent, up from 23.77 percent just a year ago. In other words, the banks are getting a lot greedier, and those on the bottom are getting hit the hardest.

    Far be it from me to defend the banks from being "greedier"... because they are indubitably reliably greedy... but with credit-card interest rates being variable and tied to the prime rate, each time the Fed raises rates to stave off inflation, up goes the prime and credit card interest rates. The current median credit-card interest rate and rate for those with poor credit being up ~1% from the prior year therefore appears actually to correlate rather perfectly with the Fed rate hikes leading to the adjustment of the prime rates totaling 1%:

    Prime Rate Increases

    12/14/2017 - 4.50%
    03/22/2018 - 4.75%
    06/14/2018 - 5.00%
    09/27/2018 - 5.25%
    12/20/2018 - 5.50%

    Easy math... but if my assessment is goobed up, I'm blaming medications... pain killers (but no alcohol, EM)

    :)

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of hypocrisy..

    Jason Chaffetz: Nadler cries 'constitutional crisis' but let’s look at what Dems said about Fast and Furious
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jason-chaffetz-remember-when-democrats-decried-partisan-abuse-of-contempt-power

    The blatant and undisputed hypocrisy of Democrats knows no depths of depravity...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Booker's gun control hysteria..

    Colorado Students Walk Out Of School Shooting Vigil After It Turns Political

    Sen. Michael Bennet and Rep. Jason Crow each took a turn calling for gun control at the Douglas County event before students streamed out in protest.

    Colorado students walked out of an event billed as a vigil for Kendrick Castillo, an 18-year-old killed in a shooting at his school on Tuesday, when prominent speakers attempted to turn it into a rally for gun control. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) and Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colorado) each took a turn calling for gun control at the Douglas County event before students streamed out in protest.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/09/colorado-students-walk-out-of-school-shooting-vigil-after-it-turns-political/

    Even students who attended schools where shootings have occurred are getting sick and tired of Dumbocrats using their tragedies to pontificate about a hysterical anti-gun agenda...

    And, here in FL, Democrats are lining up to force schools to disarm and leave them ripe and vulnerable for the next school shooting..

    Democrats.. The worst thing to happen to this country since the Civil War...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dumbocrat presidential candidate Michael Bennet gets a well deserved black eye from students who are sick and tired of Democrats politicizing tragedies...

    Students then returned to the gymnasium, taking over the event, complaining about adults politicizing what they hoped would be a remembrance of their friend Castillo, a young man with an interest in robotics who had heroically rushed a shooter. Students also gave Bennet a piece of their mind, telling him to focus on “mental health” issues.

    Of course, the biggest Democrat of them all, Odumbo, has stated that these tragedies MUST be politicized..

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Sanders never mentions Joe Biden's name, but this new proposal has to be seen as being aimed directly at Biden's Senate record.

    So... Bernie has a record too.

    If Biden is forced to address the idea, it's certainly going to put him in an uncomfortable position.

    You mean physically, like playing Twister or something? ;) *laughs* I don't think so.

    Bernie sums up his basic argument by making it a part of his larger argument for his campaign: "I am sure it will be criticized. I have a radical idea: Maybe Congress should stand up for ordinary people."

    Bernie's been in Congress for multiple decades now, though; it's rather telling that he's suddenly decided that 2019 is a good year to "stand up for ordinary people." What about all those numerous other outstanding years Bernie could have stood up; why weren't those Standers? Where has Bernie's Standers been?

    Say... you don't think this obvious political stunt could possibly backfire on Saint Bernard as being less of him "taking a stand" for Joe Citizen and more of him "taking a poke" at Joe Biden, do you? ;)

    I don't think Joe will be at all uncomfortable with this Bernie Standers of 2019 looking to relitigate the year 2005. Joe will probably quite wisely remember 2005 as that outstanding year that Bernie was a representative in the House of Representatives gleefully voting for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that granted sweeping immunity to the gun industry. Joe will probably be thinking that if we all knew then what we know now, we'd probably all be wishing we'd taken a different stand a couple decades ago. After all, would Bernie be singing the praises of Fidel Castro and honeymooning in Russia if he knew then what he knows now?

    "Uncomfortable"? Nah! Joe will likely remind all the "folks" how Donald Trump would love to run against an admitted socialist like Colonel Sanders and how he would eat him for lunch like a bucket of KFC and then polish him off like a bowl of borscht... nothing but beets.

    Meds. :)

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    "We are able to have differing opinions on how we best solve problems without having to resort to name calling and insults."

    Heh

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    6

    A simple and obvious truth - borrowing money does not make you richer, it make you POORER, so why the hell do so many people do it? ~ C. R. Stucki

    There isn't really a lot of truth to that very generalized assertion.

    EM is 100% correct, of course. It takes money to make money, and if one can borrow OPM at low interest rates, one can turn a quite a nice little nest egg in relatively short order. Having access to quite a tidy sum that can be borrowed at 0% interest but a negligible fee of 1%, I can easily assure you it's not making me the least bit poorer to do it.

    It all depends on the rate you're borrowing, Stucki, and might I add that once again you do not appear to be quite the economical genius that you fancy yourself to be.

    Meds. :)

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden backs health care for illegal immigrants, says 'we have an obligation' to provide it
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-says-we-have-obligation-to-provide-health-care-to-illegal-immigrants

    Oh sure, Joe...

    According to Dumbocrats, the US has the worst health care system in the country..

    So, let's put another 10+ million illegal immigrant criminals into the mix..

    What could go wrong!!??

    I swear, it's like Joe WANTS to lose the General even before the primary...

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    Booker is proposing a sweeping gun registration law... Every gun must be matched and registered with every owner..

    I think Hitler had the same idea..

    Oh, FFS... I think people who have admitted they're not a "history buff" should not speculate about that which they admittedly and obviously know nothing about. This is a particularly good idea for conspiracy theory types who worship icons that are nothing more than cons.

    Gun control laws in the Weimar Republic were already strict upon the Third Reich's coming to power, and those very tight gun regulations were actually loosened to allow ownership for the military, Party members, and German citizens but were only tightened against their perceived enemies. Surely I don't need to spell out the perceived enemies.

    So to recap: Nazi-era Germany actually imposed greater gun restrictions on it's perceived enemies... okay, darn it... the Jews as well as other perceived enemies... while at the same time gun restrictions were loosened for other German citizens, basically creating a police state, and the rest is history.

    Meds. :)

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay... I have a great idea on a gun control measure that will actually SAVE LIVES..

    Make it illegal for Democrats to own guns...

    https://www.scottadamsfans.com/content/blog.aspx?id=250#disqus_thread

    Since Democrats are so anti-gun to begin with and it's a statistical fact that gun violence is most prevalent in Democrat controlled areas, the logic is clear..

    Taking guns away from Democrats will save hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of lives...

    Helluva good idea!!! :D

    Everybody wins!! :D

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    10

    Speaking of hypocrisy..

    Jason Chaffetz: Nadler cries 'constitutional crisis' but let’s look at what Dems said about Fast and Furious.

    Why would anyone with two brain cells to rub together compare "Fast and Furious" and executive privilege regarding that single issue to Donald Trump telling his administration to refuse to company with any subpoena regarding anything as if he was running a monarchy?

    The blatant and undisputed hypocrisy of Democrats knows no depths of depravity...

    Speaking of the "depths of depravity," I would wager a large chunk of change without hesitation that when Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress over the singular issue of "Fast and Furious" that you were "all in" for his imprisonment. However, Bill Barr in the same situation, I would wager is not receiving the same treatment from you... meaning you have zero moral authority to whine incessantly about hypocrisy when you are a gargantuan hypocrite.

    Be right back.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/28/dewey-defeats-truman/#comment-22803

    Whoomp… there it is, and I rest my case. :)

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    Since Democrats are so anti-gun to begin with and it's a statistical fact that gun violence is most prevalent in Democrat controlled areas, the logic is clear..

    Taking guns away from Democrats will save hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of lives...

    Helluva good idea!!! :D

    Everybody wins!! :D

    I too think it's a great idea. Please go test your theory individually and report back as to what happens... if you still have hands. *laughs* :)

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    I should say, though, even though it sounds correct, it's wrong to say that it's "a statistical fact that gun violence is most prevalent in Democrat controlled areas."

    Gun violence doesn't just include crime, though, it also includes suicide and accidents, etc., and the fact is that where there are more guns, there are more incidents like this.

    So the fact is more gun violence occurs in Republican areas than Democratic areas.

    On average, there were slightly more gun deaths in Republican areas than Democratic-leaning ones in the decade from 2007 to 2016. The disparity in death rates was even greater — 5.7 per 100,000 in Republican-leaning counties, versus 4.7 in Democratic-leaning counties — due to the higher total population in counties won by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

    https://tinyurl.com/y35rxt5c

    The more you know... :)

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

    WOW.. What an upshoot in popularity that President Trump has enjoyed the last 2 weeks..

    His approval rating is better than Odumbo's!!! :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Andrew McCarthy: Congress’ contempt stunt against Attorney General Barr

    When Congress uses its contempt power, there are basically three avenues it can pursue for purposes of enforcement. In the case of the House Judiciary Committee’s party-line vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt – for purportedly failing to produce a report he has actually produced – Democrats, who control the House, will use the route that is most political and, thus, least credible: the unilateral congressional procedure.

    The committee will refer its finding for a vote by the full chamber. The stunt here is so nakedly partisan that the House won’t even try to get support from the Senate. In theory, the House could try to take enforcement action on contempt. Congress even has a jail cell in the bowels of the Capitol … though it hasn’t been used in many, many years, and it certainly is not going to be used against a cabinet officer of the executive branch. (I’m thinking the U.S. marshals would not take kindly to the House sergeant-at-arms showing up at Main Justice with a congressional arrest warrant for the attorney general).
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-congress-contempt-barr-democrats-watergate

    Dumbocrats are holding AG Barr in contempt because Barr won't violate the law.

    A Law that DUMBOCRATS THEMSELVES created to protect a POTUS....

    How hilariously moronic Dumbocrats are... :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Conservatives are already packing the courts. Democrats must respond to this power grab.

    Senate Republicans have been changing the rules and ignoring long-standing practices in order to pack courts with narrow-minded conservative elitists.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/07/conservatives-packing-courts-democrats-must-respond-column/3564022002/

    The Dumbocrat response is easy to predict..

    "STOP!!!! OR I'LL SAY 'STOP' AGAIN!!!"
    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:
  26. [26] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M

    You refer to members of the Republican party as 'Republicans', right? On that same system, in the name of consistency, I refer to members of the Democratic party as 'Democratics'.

    When you start calling members of the Republican party 'Republics', I'll start referring to members of the 'Democratic' party as Democrats.

    I realize I'm swimming against the tide of public ignorance of the normal rules of the language, but I've never hesitated from ignoring the stupidity of the mass of humanity regarding their misunderstanding of the laws of economics, either.

  27. [27] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [6]

    Re: "There isn't really a lot of truth . . ."

    Do you actually intend to say that adding expense(s) (interest charges) to your budget does NOT make you "poorer"??

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you actually intend to say that adding expense(s) (interest charges) to your budget does NOT make you "poorer"??

    Liz does have a good point insofar as one does have to spend money to make money...

    Both what you say and what Liz say is factually accurate as far as it goes...

    "Charlie never hears what I say!!"
    "That's not true!!!"
    "You're right. It's not true. You only hear what you want to hear..."
    "So.. I'm right..."

    -TWO AND A HALF MEN

    :D

    When you start calling members of the Republican party 'Republics', I'll start referring to members of the 'Democratic' party as Democrats.

    And when commenters stop referring to the GOP and President Trump with childish and immature 3rd grade name-calling, I'll stop referring to Dumbocrats and Odumbo.. :D

  29. [29] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [15]

    Re: "It takes money to make money . . ."

    That phrase has no relation to borrowing money to finance current consumption.

    For entrepreneurial 'capitalist' people who are smart enough to borrow 'capital' (other people's savings) and put it to work in such a manner that it can produce more than the amount of interest the borrower has to pay to the lender, (i.e., a 'profit for the entrepreneur), I say more power to them, but the reality is that damn few people are that smart.

    However, that principle has zero relation to borrowing to finance current consumption. If you are borrowing to pay your rent, buy your groceries, or pay for a new car, the interest is making you poorer, whether you are perceptive enough to realize it or not.

    As usual, I realize this sort of stuff is over your head, but I'm sure you're doing the best you can.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    That phrase has no relation to borrowing money to finance current consumption.

    For entrepreneurial 'capitalist' people who are smart enough to borrow 'capital' (other people's savings) and put it to work in such a manner that it can produce more than the amount of interest the borrower has to pay to the lender, (i.e., a 'profit for the entrepreneur), I say more power to them, but the reality is that damn few people are that smart.

    However, that principle has zero relation to borrowing to finance current consumption. If you are borrowing to pay your rent, buy your groceries, or pay for a new car, the interest is making you poorer, whether you are perceptive enough to realize it or not.

    Well said... And dead on ballz accurate to boot.

    Well, it's obvious who wears the economic pants in THIS 'family'.. :D

  31. [31] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale [28]

    Re: "One does have to spend money to make money."

    That is normally true (regarding entrepenureal undertakings), but it has no connection to borrowing to finance current consumption.

    See (29) above.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is normally true (regarding entrepenureal undertakings), but it has no connection to borrowing to finance current consumption.

    Yep... I stand corrected..

    If you borrow money, by definition, you are poorer than right before you borrowed the money..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    HILLARY HITS NEW HAMPSHIRE: Fresh off speaking tour, Clinton heads to first primary state

    Is Hillary Clinton running a non-campaign campaign for president?

    The twice-failed Democrat presidential candidate isn’t interested in discussing an endorsement for 2020, and sources close to Clinton have repeatedly said she hasn’t closed the door on a rematch with President Trump.

    Then on Wednesday, just days after wrapping up a national speaking tour with husband and former president Bill Clinton, Obama’s secretary of state headed to the first 2020 primary state of New Hampshire to lecture about her decades of experience in world affairs as a career politician.
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-hits-new-hampshire-fresh-off-speaking-tour-clinton-heads-to-first-primary-state/

    Looks like ya might have to add Hillary to the ever-growing list of candidates..

    Serious request, CW.. I would be VERY interested in hearing your speculation as to what will happen when... er.... IF Hillary joins the race.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    Still waiting for you to provide FACTS that support your claim that Grand Jury testimony can be legally released to the general public...

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... but I've never hesitated from ignoring the stupidity of the mass of humanity …

    Indeed.

  36. [36] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    The grand jury material in the Michael Brown killing was released after the trial of Darren Wilson was completed.

    Here is the most recent update I could find on the subject:

    UPDATE 4/9/2019: On April 5, 2019, the three-judge panel in McKeever ruled that federal courts lack “inherent authority” to authorize the disclosure of grand jury matters in circumstances not covered by an explicit exception set out in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It thus appears that, for the time being, the panel’s decision has closed off one potential avenue for Congress to obtain grand jury material in federal court in the District of Columbia (though the decision could always be reheard en banc or overturned by the Supreme Court). That said, as the McKeever decision notes, Congress previously was successful in obtaining grand jury materials pursuant to the Rule 6(e) exception for disclosure “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding” on the theory that an authorized impeachment inquiry is preliminary to such a proceeding. That avenue appears to remain available to Congress after McKeever. Furthermore, Congress has in the past taken the position that it possesses independent constitutional authority to obtain grand jury materials regardless of the applicability of any Rule 6(e) exceptions—i.e., that the rule of grand jury secrecy simply does not apply to Congress when it is acting within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity.” But while two courts have appeared to agree with that position, the Department of Justice (and some other courts) have contested it.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/LSB10201.pdf

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    The grand jury material in the Michael Brown killing was released after the trial of Darren Wilson was completed.

    Facts to support??

    None??

    Hokay...

    Regardless, that wasn't a federal proceeding..

    So, even if you were right, yer still wrong..

    Congress can amend Rule 6E thru legislation if they really wanted to read the 2% of the Mueller report that was redacted..

    But they don't. Democrats are scared to death about AG Barr investigating Democrats on the origins of the Russia Collusion delusion and THAT is why they are trying to discredit Barr...

  38. [38] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump has always made sure to rig any publication or information source that could be used by the public to determine his success.

    From threatening the schools that he attended with a PR shitstorm and legal nightmares that would ever end if they released his transcripts, to getting on the Forbes’ richest people lists through lies, to cheating the banks that loaned him money with falsified tax returns, to his trying to get Park officials to lie about the number of people at his inauguration— Trump’s narcissism demands that he be proactive in guaranteeing that he will be judged positively.

    Knowing his history, we should be asking ourselves how are presidents judged with regards to their being “successful”? Polls? To some degree....and we already know from congressional testimony of Trump trying to rig a few online polls. The unemployment rates? Definitely. “If Americans are working, the economy is healthy” is an overly simplistic way of thinking about the economy, but that doesn’t mean that there is not some truth to it.

    And there is no denying that the unemployment rate is at record low levels. Which forces the question, “Did Trump get officials to doctor the data to make him look successful?”

    I know Michale will stroke out at the suggestion that Trump would ask someone to lie to make him look good —despite Trump’s lifelong and well documented history of doing this. But remember, Trump got the White House physician to tell the world that Trump is 6’3” tall, weighs only 235#, is in amazing health, and — for some unknown reason, seeing how this is not determined by his tests/exam — that Trump comes from genetically superior stock!

    Given Trump’s history with tampering with any info used to judge him publicly, the most logical response is to recheck the government’s numbers and data.

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Congress can amend Rule 6E thru legislation if they really wanted to read the 2% of the Mueller report that was redacted..

    Uh-huh. So tell me, if it passes the house, who's gonna take it up in the Senate?

    How about we just work with the laws we have, eh?

    They're good enough.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ re:38

    Funny how you didn't complain about Odumbo's lies and spin??

    How come??

    Because you don't CARE about lying and spinning.. You just don't like it when a GOP'er does it..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    How about we just work with the laws we have, eh

    As long as you OBEY them, I am fine with that..

    But you want to VIOLATE the law to push your anti-America agenda..

    That won't fly..

    You want to see the 2% of the Mueller report that's redacted???

    The .01% of the Obstruction section that's redacted??

    Open impeachment hearings.

    But your Dumbocrats won't do that because they are too scared...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Giuliani heads to Ukraine in search of ‘very helpful’ info on Biden and Hillary probes

    Giuliani will travel to Ukraine, saying country's probes may be 'very, very helpful' for Trump
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-will-travel-to-ukraine-saying-countrys-probes-may-be-very-very-helpful-for-trump

    ARRRGGHHH!!!!! COLLUSION!!!!! COLLUSION!!!!!! COLLUSION!!!!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You people are yer own worst enemies when it comes to politics..

    Dumbocrats ALWAYS seem to double down on STOOPID...

    Instead of losing gracefully with the Russia Collusion delusion, Dumbocrats double down...

    So, they end up looking DOUBLY stoopid!! :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seems to be quite a few less people around here than there was BEFORE Democrats were decimated and demoralized by Mueller's definitive proclamation that Russia Collusion WAS nothing but a Democrat/NeverTrumper/Trump-America Hater delusion...

    I guess the old adage that FACTS HURT has some basis in reality.. :D

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I guess the old adage that FACTS HURT has some basis in reality..

    It does the way you play it.

    Open impeachment hearings.But your Dumbocrats won't do that because they are too scared..

    Not scared. Careful. Don't want to get out ahead of our skis. Just because he's marching up and down screaming "impeach me!" doesn't move us much.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    It does the way you play it.

    If you have any thing to dispute my FACTS (IE facts of your own) by all means..

    But ya'all don't..

    Not scared. Careful.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself..

    Basically, Dumbocrats know they can't make an IMPEACHMENT case...

    But the ONLY way they can have their fishing expedition/witch hunt is to start impeachment. :D

    Why is it that Dumbocrats *ALWAYS* put themselves in a LOSE-LOSE situation..

    But let's take stock..

    You said, "Wait til Mueller finishes his report!! Trump is toast!!!"

    Mueller finished the report.. President Trump is completely exonerated over the Russia Collusion Delusion..

    THEN you said, "Wait til the Mueller report is released!! THEN President Trump is toast!! Going to jail!!!"

    Mueller report was released.. TOTAL and COMPLETE EXONERATION over the Russia Collusion delusion...

    NOW.... Now yer claim is, "Wait til we see the 2% of the report that was redacted!! THEN President Trump is toast!!!"

    Do you see yer problem, Blathy???

    With you and yer ilk, it's ALWAYS "Wait!! Wait!! Wait!!!"...

    And ya'all have ***ALWAYS*** been wrong....

    What IS it with ya'all that ya'all simply CAN'T accept defeat???

    Ya'all have been defeated over and over and over and over and over again..

    And ya'all keep coming back for more.... :D

    It's hilarious..

  46. [46] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale

    Russ re:38

    Funny how you didn't complain about Odumbo's lies and spin??

    How come??

    Because you don't CARE about lying and spinning.. You just don't like it when a GOP'er does it..

    I didn’t complain about Obama lying because I cannot recall a single time I felt Obama was intentionally lying to the American people.

    And before you rush to respond “You can keep your doctor...” I’ll remind you that the reason Obama made that claim was because the ACA was written in a way to prevent it from occurring — at the insistence of the insurance companies. And technically, no one lost their doctor because of the ACA...they lost it because the greedy insurance companies chose to maximize the money they could make off their customers.

    Most importantly, Obama admitted he was incorrect in saying that and he apologized to the American people.

    You, however, obviously can list times that you claimed Obama lied, but you haven’t said anything about the constant bullshit that spews from the orange traitor-tot infesting the White House! You claim his lies are hyperbole,: which either means that you don’t know the definition of “hyperbole”, or you are just lying as well.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn’t complain about Obama lying because I cannot recall a single time I felt Obama was intentionally lying to the American people.

    Thank you for proving my point..

    You don't even SEE the lies that Odumbo told.. You justify them away as not really lies..

    You spin them away...

    Yer a slave to your Party ideology..

    Obama was given the LIE OF THE YEAR award right here in Weigantia.. Did you stand up and defend Odumbo??

    No, you did not. Because you KNEW he was lying thru his ass...

    Trump is as evil as Satan and your Messiah Odumbo was as pure as the driven snow..

    Thank you for proving my point for me..

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, that's exactly your problem.. You can't see past your own hysterical Party bigotry..

    I, on the other hand, can see clearly..

    Trump is a narcissistic braggart.. He employs lies and bigotry and hyperbole to push forward his agenda..

    As bad as Trump is, you and your Dumbocrats are WORSE... Ya'all are everything Trump is and more but your biggest threat to civilization is that you TRY and cover yourselves with the shroud of decency and goodness..

    Give me an asshole who says, "Yea, I am an asshole!!" and still does what needs to be done..

    Give me that over some scumbag hysterical racist who says, "Oh I am goodness and light and if you don't toe my line I will beat you into submission!!!"

    THOSE types of people, your Dumbocrats, are the REAL threat to this country...

    You Dumbocrats are the Cersei Lannister in spades...

    And Trump is Targaryan...

    And that is why you and your Dumbocrats have LOST and LOST and LOST..

    And THAT is why you and your Dumbocrats will continue to lose..

    Because legally, ethically and morally, ya'all are in the wrong..

    It's THAT simple..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how House Democrats were boasting and bragging that Mueller will testifying next week??

    Mueller won't testify next week, says House Judiciary chair
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-mueller/mueller-wont-testify-next-week-says-house-judiciary-chair-idUSKCN1SG1ZE

    ACCESS Denied!!!!!

    So, too bad Dumbocrats... Yer gonna have to start demonizing yer golden boy hero, Mueller now!! :D

    Gods it sucks to be a Democrat!!! :D

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Trump is a narcissistic braggart.. He employs lies and bigotry and hyperbole to push forward his agenda..

    As bad as Trump is, you and your Dumbocrats are WORSE... Ya'all are everything Trump is and more but your biggest threat to civilization is that you TRY and cover yourselves with the shroud of decency and goodness..

    Give me an asshole who says, "Yea, I am an asshole!!" and still does what needs to be done..

    And what needs to be done? Locking kids in cages? Fighting with our allies? Starting wars? Denying healthcare to women? Disgracing the environment?

    Give me someone who isn't an asshole.

  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Give me that over some scumbag hysterical racist who says, "Oh I am goodness and light and if you don't toe my line I will beat you into submission!!!"

    Let's ask the women in Alabama who that describes.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what needs to be done? Locking kids in cages? Fighting with our allies? Starting wars? Denying healthcare to women? Disgracing the environment?

    Odumbo did all those things and more..

    And yet we didn't hear a PEEP out of you when he did..

    How come??

    Because you don't really care about those things. You just don't like them when a GOP'er does them..

    You see, the FACTS always expose the Party slavery..

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    Stucki
    29

    That phrase has no relation to borrowing money to finance current consumption.

    Once again, Stucki, you've made a sweeping generalized statement full of BS and when called on it's obvious ignorance, you simply move the goalposts. We're used to it.

    As usual, I realize this sort of stuff is over your head, but I'm sure you're doing the best you can.

    Not remotely, old man. Thanks for cleaning up yet another one of your "stupid old man statements" after you're called on your ignorance. You've now established multiple times that you don't know history, United States laws, simple economics, and when to think before you post more stupid stuff. :)

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]