![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thewayneIn the House of Representatives, the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed almost unanimously, 427 to 1 with Clay Higgins (R-LA) the lone no vote, claiming that it will expose victims. I personally expect their names will be redacted, but I could be wrong. In the Senate, Chuck Schumer called for the bill to be passed by voice acclamation and it passed unanimously. There were five or six non-votes in the House at the conclusion of the vote, I don't know if they were absent or didn't vote.
So the bill has overwhelmingly passed Congress. And now comes the interesting part - it goes to the White House for Trump to sign! If he doesn't sign it, he grossly breaks campaign promises going back years which he could have fulfilled at any time by his command. And he's facing a truly huge veto-proof margin. I would really like to see the blow-back of him not signing it and it going back for an override vote.
But here's another thing. He has blatantly ignored and broken the law so many times during this presidency, ruling by fiat. If he refuses to sign the bill and tells Bondi to not release the files, what's Johnson going to do? Does Mikey have the cajones to hold impeachment proceedings?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-republicans-epstein-files-bill-rebuke-trump_n_69174f28e4b0191be9d4d60c
Jon/Thespian/DisneyDreamer voiced questions as to whether the files could be altered. As it happens, England has their own set of the files. It's possible that other countries also have sets. I expect that as soon as more information is released that they will be meticulously double-checked against other copies.
Second event: TEXAS!
The United States District Court Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, issued a 160 page document to preliminarily enjoin the State of Texas using their redrawn maps, reducing the number of Democratic districts in the U.S. House of Representatives for the upcoming 2026 elections next year. The best part: the judge signing the statement was a Trump appointee! He was joined by an Obama appointee.
Needless to say that this was a preliminary injunction and it will be appealed to the circuit court, and then to the supreme court if it's upheld at the circuit level.
Still, it's a beginning.
I absolutely loved the quote at the beginning of the decision:
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
The person who said that? United States Supreme Court Justice John C. Roberts.
In another blow to the administration, the Indiana legislature stopped their plans to redistrict, I believe their main point being questioning the legality of the action. I'm not sure what this action will hold in regards to California's redistricting as theirs was passed by ballot proposition, of course it is guaranteed that just as the Texas decision will be appealed, the California proposition will be challenged and then endlessly appealed in court.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-redistricting-court_n_691cb930e4b0414d84d7b979
So the bill has overwhelmingly passed Congress. And now comes the interesting part - it goes to the White House for Trump to sign! If he doesn't sign it, he grossly breaks campaign promises going back years which he could have fulfilled at any time by his command. And he's facing a truly huge veto-proof margin. I would really like to see the blow-back of him not signing it and it going back for an override vote.
But here's another thing. He has blatantly ignored and broken the law so many times during this presidency, ruling by fiat. If he refuses to sign the bill and tells Bondi to not release the files, what's Johnson going to do? Does Mikey have the cajones to hold impeachment proceedings?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-republicans-epstein-files-bill-rebuke-trump_n_69174f28e4b0191be9d4d60c
Jon/Thespian/DisneyDreamer voiced questions as to whether the files could be altered. As it happens, England has their own set of the files. It's possible that other countries also have sets. I expect that as soon as more information is released that they will be meticulously double-checked against other copies.
Second event: TEXAS!
The United States District Court Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, issued a 160 page document to preliminarily enjoin the State of Texas using their redrawn maps, reducing the number of Democratic districts in the U.S. House of Representatives for the upcoming 2026 elections next year. The best part: the judge signing the statement was a Trump appointee! He was joined by an Obama appointee.
Needless to say that this was a preliminary injunction and it will be appealed to the circuit court, and then to the supreme court if it's upheld at the circuit level.
Still, it's a beginning.
I absolutely loved the quote at the beginning of the decision:
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
The person who said that? United States Supreme Court Justice John C. Roberts.
In another blow to the administration, the Indiana legislature stopped their plans to redistrict, I believe their main point being questioning the legality of the action. I'm not sure what this action will hold in regards to California's redistricting as theirs was passed by ballot proposition, of course it is guaranteed that just as the Texas decision will be appealed, the California proposition will be challenged and then endlessly appealed in court.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/texas-redistricting-court_n_691cb930e4b0414d84d7b979
Thoughts
Date: 2025-11-19 02:38 am (UTC)I certainly wouldn't expect him to obey the law.
>>Jon/Thespian/DisneyDreamer voiced questions as to whether the files could be altered. As it happens, England has their own set of the files. It's possible that other countries also have sets. I expect that as soon as more information is released that they will be meticulously double-checked against other copies.<<
If someone wanted to alter the files, the logical approach would be to make different changes across two or more copies. This seems possible not only from ordinary espionage, but because different countries likely have different names they would like added to or removed from said files. Then nobody would ever agree on what the "real" version was.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2025-11-19 03:57 am (UTC)Definitely cogent points. The question would be when changes were made. I have no idea when the files were distributed: if all foreign copies agree and the U.S. copy doesn't, it will look very bad for him for most of his followers, but not all, of course.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2025-11-19 04:09 am (UTC)Re: Thoughts
Date: 2025-11-19 04:54 am (UTC)Several countries are already curtailing their dealing with us, he just doesn't recognize it yet.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2025-11-19 05:01 am (UTC)Re: Thoughts
Date: 2025-11-19 05:05 am (UTC)The UK is among those barring felons from entry, unfortunately his role(playing) as POTUS supersedes that.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2025-11-19 05:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-11-19 04:27 pm (UTC)Not knowing how all this works, if England has a copy, why don't they just release it? :o
And we all know how the "Supreme" Court would probably rule. :o :o :o
Hugs, Jon
no subject
Date: 2025-11-24 06:10 am (UTC)One of the commentators on a show I listen to, the one who regularly represents the reprehensible point of view, suggested Higgins was correct in the dissent because the files would include information about unindicted persons and that we should not be applauding a demand to slander persons who haven't had formal charges filed against them. If that were the case, I would expect the redaction squad to be out in full force. What I wonder, though, is whether the material that's present in those files would run to the opposite conclusion - that there's definitely enough evidence to run out indictments against several other people, and this has not been done for one reason or another. That would make a lot of people hopping mad to know that people who engaged in criminal activities themselves were allowed to do so without prosecution.
As for Texas, they pretty well blundered in a big way by admitting their redistricting was for racist purposes. They could have said it was just for partisan purposes, and that would have been allowed, because this high court doesn't believe in the power of the Voting Rights Act, but no, they had to openly say that it was for a forbidden purpose, and therefore they were going to get hammered for it.