>

What is snowflake, isn’t there mantra if you don’t have anything to hide why are you worried?
Scott Perry vows to run investigation into himself. “I was busy rescuing puppies that day” says. Scott Perry “and the record will show that just as soon as I write it down and destroy all the existing records” >

The puppies will vouch for me and I will translate their barks to English. >

Those puppies are suckling at the teat of free dog food from white nationalists. >

Bunch of dog pussies. >

Continuing the tradition of Clarence Thomas. >

Except congress has ethics committees. Would this be an ethics violation? >

Aren't the Republicans planning to dissolve the ethics committee? I thought I read that headline. >

Yep >

The convicts have taken over the prison. >

Convicts would have more humility and restraint >

Convicts can be reformed. GOP politicians, however.. >



trump installed a friendly AG to ruin the trump-Russia collusion investigation


trump fired the head of the FBI when he wouldn't agree to make the Russia investigation go away


Thomas refused to recuse himself from rulings about the coup despite his wife's involvement in the coup


So, this is more "business as usual" for the group of mobsters that is the GOP. >

Recusals should not be at discretion but automatic and mandatory every branch of government including SCOTUS. >

The optimist in humanity in me agrees with this. The pessimist in me knows it would instantly be abused by the GOP to create a phony investigation into all the democrats and “force” them to recuse so there’s no defense allowed. >

This is a good point.  It would absolutely be abused, given that the GOP plans to openly abuse their power to slow down ongoing DOJ investigations and to start frivolous ones on top of it.
My understanding though is that the most they can really do is  muddy public opinion and to be an annoyance and slow the DOJ down with subpoenas and such - but can’t actually stop their investigations.
My hope would be that anything people like Scott Perry do to hinder them will be used as evidence of obstruction, though I’m not optimistic. >

They are pledging to waste money to investigate the investigation they said was a waste of money >

Repeat after me.....
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO RECUSE OR NOT!
If there is a real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest, you should have no role in any investigation, hearing, or trial and recusal should be mandatory. >

unfortunately that's not how it works. >

So maybe you guys should change it? >

The people in charge of changing it are the people who benefit from the way it is. >

"Everybody in America is innocent until proven otherwise," Perry told ABC "This Week" anchor George Stephanopoulos.
"We're gonna investigate, and we need to we need to make sure that that these agencies aren't running amok and aren't out of control, which clearly they are"
He's innocent until proven guilty but has already decided the outcome of the investigation? >

He's asked for a pardon, which is basically an admission of guilt, according to the Supreme Court. >

Not enough problems with SCOTUS, now we've got a Kangaroo Court >

Welp, how else is he going to try and save his own ass? My money is on Special Counsel Jack Smith to take down Perry right along with Trump. >

I admire your continuing optimism >

Not surprising, and doesn't matter. The world already knows what kind of insurrection pissant he is... >

I read elsewhere that the republicans plan to pull the teeth of the ethics panel. >

Did anyone expect an honourable response? >

What better way to perfect your crime, stop the investigation, look at all the evidence, see your mistakes, correct them and succeed in next time. >

The republican way. >

Scott Perry looks like he smells bad. >

Pretty sure he owns a wastewater treatment company so it fits. >

How is this even legal? 🤦‍♂️ >

“I will make it legal.” Palpatine, err I mean Scott Perry. >

Toss one more rule on the rules committee pile. >

This is exactly why he and gym were excluded from the probes. Also why this was sent up to the DOJ. Separation of powers is going to let Garland tell them to fuck right off as it's an active investigation. But they know that and it's part of their plan to scream that checks and balances are suddenly corrupt because they can't get away with everything they want. >

“How did they get evidence against me!?! Do they have enough yet to convict? Those are the tough questions that need answers.” 
-Republican Scott Perry >

“In surprising news…” >

Republicans = Scum >

It shouldn't be an option. >

Only in congress can the criminals investigate the investigators of their very own crimes. >

The DOJ royally fucked this up dragging its feet for 2 years >

Scott Perry is a fucking fascist. >

Good thing they released all the evidence to the public. I’m sure they knew record destruction was coming when republicans took control. >

They can look all they want. They dont have the power to stop any DOJ investigation >

Until they give themselves the power. >

Again they have no power over the DOJ. they can subpoena and have “hearings” but that wont change anything. >

Until they use the newly-reinstated Holman Rule to fire anyone involved in an investigation. >

United States v. Lovett held that Congress may not forbid the payment of a salary to a specific individual as it constitutes a bill of attainder, which is forbidden by Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution. >

And Roe vs Wade held that states cannot ban abortion.
Your mistake is thinking that they will operate in good faith; they will not.  They do not care if it's unconstitutional, they will do it anyway just to make a statement and tie it up in courts for years.  They are going to do something blatantly unconstitutional, people are going to scream "You Can't Do That!" and they're just going to go :trollface:.  If they can get a court to uphold it and then have SCOTUS just not hear it, what then?  In Lovett they almost did not appropriate the funds even after a court ordered it, so even if the court finds it unconstitutional, what are they going to do when there's simply no budget for it?  While all this is being hashed out, the right-wing media's smear campaign will be in overdrive going on about how the House is fighting a corrupt FBI/DoJ who want to persecute Republicans.  They will then just defund part or most of the DoJ using this nonsensical "corrupt persecution" as an excuse.  And all this is assuming Federalist Society member Garland doesn't just drop it because "they can't be political." >

Straight up corruption. Yay, 3rd world status.. >

The 3 ring circus 🤡 this is Y we have a 14th amendment but the insurrectionists only like the 2nd one >

Fascists gonna fascist >

I see obstruction of justice charges in his future. >

I can tell who is an extremist, just by their faces >

Someone please change my mind: Perry is a Sith Lord. >

He’s that evil, but far less competent. >

Too bad we don’t have a DoJ that isn’t made up of cowards too afraid arrest and prosecute blatant criminals because of “politics”. Republicans thrive because there are quite literally no consequences for what they do. >

That's helpful. >

r/pitchforks >

Shocking >

He can give it shot. It won't keep him from being prosecuted. >

I mean I wouldn’t either if I were him. >

The criminal investigates the investigators.  Only in a GOP congress. >

Plainly obstruction of justice. Prosecute all of them. >

He’s a scumbag.