Not the same set of facts, but same concept.

Not the same set of facts, but same concept.
One of those "Yes it's illegal, but there's no judicial remedy" situations not involving the Executive Branch.
FUN FACT: It is not against the rules in the House "to engage in personalities" with respect to members of the Cabinet.
Hello, Secretary Nutlick. Whiskey Pete Hegseth. Discount Goebbels Stephen Miller.
Whether using "Trumpola" for Trump Admin grifting would be OK, I don't know.
HOT TAKE: Should the House ever decide to impeach Jared Kushner Trump, at least one article of impeachment should include at least one charge of "Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" from his conduct during Trump I – ie, when he was a federal employee.
Yes, though I wouldn't blame any member of the public for thinking otherwise.
As that contest was over an election that took place in 1804, and the decision was not only to count late-arriving votes despite their flipping the "apparent outcome", but also to count them despite state law saying they should not be counted, I wonder how Alito would like those 🍏🍏🍏. 😳
Yes, I think I did. And as is very/too often the case (😄/🤦🏻♂️), I'd forgotten - here, forgotten having done it in that context.
Yes, Judge Luttig gets the House procedural details right. And where he notes that, even with a court order, the Clerk might ignore it, he's right there, too –
FUN FACT: Kristi Noem is still subject to impeachment.*
(* – there is also a good argument she would be subject to impeachment even if not currently holding a federal office – ie, as the "Late Secretary of Homeland Security")
When a Democratic House passes a bill 272 - 91 (after adopting the rule 294 - 59), a Republican Senate passes it by voice vote, and a Republican president signs it, that's what's called a "bipartisan bill" – iow, it's "100% on" everybody.
"AI, can you help me with 'whip round'?"