Andy Craig
@andycraig.bsky.social
@theunpopulist.net
Election law and policy, liberalism and democracy, and occasional pugs.
Election law and policy, liberalism and democracy, and occasional pugs.
We'll see, but I bet if and when there's an actual proclamation, it won't even purport to try to pardon the state conviction for which she's now in prison. It will just be a federal preemptive pardon, which is worth exactly nothing because she isn't and won't be facing any federal charges.
NEW: President Donald Trump says he is granting a pardon to Tina Peters, who was convicted on state charges related to tampering with Colorado's election systems. Legal experts say presidential pardons do not apply to state charges.
December 12, 2025 at 12:19 AM
We'll see, but I bet if and when there's an actual proclamation, it won't even purport to try to pardon the state conviction for which she's now in prison. It will just be a federal preemptive pardon, which is worth exactly nothing because she isn't and won't be facing any federal charges.
Reposted by Andy Craig
“Your options are limited. You either resign, Trump fires you, or you will be impeached.” ramirez.house.gov/media/press-...
December 11, 2025 at 11:01 PM
“Your options are limited. You either resign, Trump fires you, or you will be impeached.” ramirez.house.gov/media/press-...
Reposted by Andy Craig
December 11, 2025 at 10:59 PM
It's heartening the leadership firewall against any talk of impeachment is breaking down, because it's so delusionally out of touch with reality. Either you mean what you say about the current anti-constitutional crime spree or you don't, and if you do, impeachment is the unavoidable implication.
Yes, I'm taking the first step towards Noem's impeachment.
I demand a full investigation into Secretary Noem's unlawful actions and unethical behavior. The people will have accountability.
I demand a full investigation into Secretary Noem's unlawful actions and unethical behavior. The people will have accountability.
December 11, 2025 at 10:56 PM
It's heartening the leadership firewall against any talk of impeachment is breaking down, because it's so delusionally out of touch with reality. Either you mean what you say about the current anti-constitutional crime spree or you don't, and if you do, impeachment is the unavoidable implication.
Genuinely had to click through to confirm this was a joke.
“According to a source Ms. Halligan became enraged when a grand juror told her that the word ‘indict’ is pronounced ‘in-DITE,” not “in-DICKT.”
Justice Department again fails to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James
The Justice Department also tried and failed last week to secure a new indictment against James in Norfolk, Virginia.
www.nbcnews.com
December 11, 2025 at 10:42 PM
Genuinely had to click through to confirm this was a joke.
The last presidential impeachment was passed a week after the fact with zero such investigation.
The *first* presidential impeachment was passed by the House three days after the offense.
Most judicial impeachments have likewise simply incorporated an existing factual record from a criminal case.
The *first* presidential impeachment was passed by the House three days after the offense.
Most judicial impeachments have likewise simply incorporated an existing factual record from a criminal case.
Okay here's the thing
Impeachment does not, in principle, require extensive factual hearings
Hearings are for when relevant facts are in dispute!!
Impeachment does not, in principle, require extensive factual hearings
Hearings are for when relevant facts are in dispute!!
Significant statement from Jeffries and House Democratic leaders saying they will vote “present” on the motion to table Al Green’s resolution to impeach President Trump. They say they’re “laser-focused on fighting to lower the high cost of living” plus on health care and corruption.
December 11, 2025 at 10:22 PM
The last presidential impeachment was passed a week after the fact with zero such investigation.
The *first* presidential impeachment was passed by the House three days after the offense.
Most judicial impeachments have likewise simply incorporated an existing factual record from a criminal case.
The *first* presidential impeachment was passed by the House three days after the offense.
Most judicial impeachments have likewise simply incorporated an existing factual record from a criminal case.
Reposted by Andy Craig
🎉 BREAKING: WE DID IT! 🎉
After days of intense pressure from D.C., the Indiana Senate REJECTED the mid-decade gerrymandered map!
This victory belongs to every Indivisible member, every activist, and every Hoosier who called, emailed, and showed up.
After days of intense pressure from D.C., the Indiana Senate REJECTED the mid-decade gerrymandered map!
This victory belongs to every Indivisible member, every activist, and every Hoosier who called, emailed, and showed up.
December 11, 2025 at 10:06 PM
🎉 BREAKING: WE DID IT! 🎉
After days of intense pressure from D.C., the Indiana Senate REJECTED the mid-decade gerrymandered map!
This victory belongs to every Indivisible member, every activist, and every Hoosier who called, emailed, and showed up.
After days of intense pressure from D.C., the Indiana Senate REJECTED the mid-decade gerrymandered map!
This victory belongs to every Indivisible member, every activist, and every Hoosier who called, emailed, and showed up.
This bit about oh no we have need to do "serious" extensive investigations first is belied by the fact that the last impeachment they all voted for did none of that. Sometimes the matter is clear-cut and doesn't need dithering months and months of inquiry first, the facts are simple and known.
Significant statement from Jeffries and House Democratic leaders saying they will vote “present” on the motion to table Al Green’s resolution to impeach President Trump. They say they’re “laser-focused on fighting to lower the high cost of living” plus on health care and corruption.
December 11, 2025 at 10:03 PM
This bit about oh no we have need to do "serious" extensive investigations first is belied by the fact that the last impeachment they all voted for did none of that. Sometimes the matter is clear-cut and doesn't need dithering months and months of inquiry first, the facts are simple and known.
Reposted by Andy Craig
lol wut. dropping from 42 percent approval to 36 percent approval seems pretty significant. apnews.com/article/trum...
December 11, 2025 at 7:30 PM
lol wut. dropping from 42 percent approval to 36 percent approval seems pretty significant. apnews.com/article/trum...
spice level negative
December 11, 2025 at 8:46 AM
spice level negative
Reposted by Andy Craig
You could impeach him and mirror the tone and language of the Declaration of Independence. You could have constituents volunteer reasons in which they were personally harmed by his crimes, and it could be a true citizen's impeachment. (In Illinois, not hard!) A lot of visible avenues.
December 10, 2025 at 2:29 AM
You could impeach him and mirror the tone and language of the Declaration of Independence. You could have constituents volunteer reasons in which they were personally harmed by his crimes, and it could be a true citizen's impeachment. (In Illinois, not hard!) A lot of visible avenues.
Rep. Al Green spoke for ~20 minutes earlier this evening when he invoked Rule IX to force a vote on his resolution impeaching Trump for threatening members of Congress with death.
At the end, the speaker pro tem absurdly chided him for "engaging in personalities toward the president."
At the end, the speaker pro tem absurdly chided him for "engaging in personalities toward the president."
User Clip: Rep. Al Green Forces Impeachment Vote 12.10.25
Rep. Al Green invokes House Rule IX to impeach Trump for threatening members of Congress.
www.c-span.org
December 11, 2025 at 7:46 AM
Rep. Al Green spoke for ~20 minutes earlier this evening when he invoked Rule IX to force a vote on his resolution impeaching Trump for threatening members of Congress with death.
At the end, the speaker pro tem absurdly chided him for "engaging in personalities toward the president."
At the end, the speaker pro tem absurdly chided him for "engaging in personalities toward the president."
This is exactly the problem. You can't go on... accurately!... about how he's a lawless wannabe dictator who wants to destroy democracy and is leading a floridly corrupt kleptocracy, but then squirm and dodge when asked if he should be removed from office any time sooner than 2029.
It’s a necessity in order to actually describe many of the worst things that the administration is doing because the logical or only remedy for so many of them is impeachment. Probably part of why so many members of Congress have trouble speaking authentically about current political realities
December 11, 2025 at 4:47 AM
This is exactly the problem. You can't go on... accurately!... about how he's a lawless wannabe dictator who wants to destroy democracy and is leading a floridly corrupt kleptocracy, but then squirm and dodge when asked if he should be removed from office any time sooner than 2029.
There's a Hill bubble narrative, posing as savvy realism, in treating impeachment as some radioactive poison and so Democrats must squash any talk of it. But there's zero evidence for that. No polls back it up, nor recent history. It's all just pundit-brained conventional wisdom eating its own tail.
December 11, 2025 at 4:21 AM
There's a Hill bubble narrative, posing as savvy realism, in treating impeachment as some radioactive poison and so Democrats must squash any talk of it. But there's zero evidence for that. No polls back it up, nor recent history. It's all just pundit-brained conventional wisdom eating its own tail.
Dem leadership literally griping that members are doing something just because voters are asking for it and the media will cover it.
December 11, 2025 at 4:07 AM
Dem leadership literally griping that members are doing something just because voters are asking for it and the media will cover it.
1) Get caught trying.
2) But it's not a fact, anyway. Al Green already did it once and there was no rules change. And how's Johnsons' record at passing rules right now, esp. one that'd be disempowering backbenchers?
3) It makes no sense to worry about saving a rule only by refusing to ever use it.
2) But it's not a fact, anyway. Al Green already did it once and there was no rules change. And how's Johnsons' record at passing rules right now, esp. one that'd be disempowering backbenchers?
3) It makes no sense to worry about saving a rule only by refusing to ever use it.
In response to using Rule IX, a Dem rep's staff member told me that "it's a fact" that the majority will simply change the House rules to remove Rule IX to prevent a member from using it to force a vote on articles of impeachment. It's a defeatist pov but curious your response to them
December 11, 2025 at 3:31 AM
1) Get caught trying.
2) But it's not a fact, anyway. Al Green already did it once and there was no rules change. And how's Johnsons' record at passing rules right now, esp. one that'd be disempowering backbenchers?
3) It makes no sense to worry about saving a rule only by refusing to ever use it.
2) But it's not a fact, anyway. Al Green already did it once and there was no rules change. And how's Johnsons' record at passing rules right now, esp. one that'd be disempowering backbenchers?
3) It makes no sense to worry about saving a rule only by refusing to ever use it.
Reposted by Andy Craig
SKULL OF THOMAS AQUINAS: TAKE A LEFT NOW
PRIEST: No, the GPS says we have to keep going—
SKULL: I KNOW A SHORTCUT
PRIEST: Do you remember the last ti—
SKULL: FOR THOSE WITH FAITH, NO EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY; FOR THOSE WITHOUT IT, NO EVIDENCE WILL SUFFICE
PRIEST: No, the GPS says we have to keep going—
SKULL: I KNOW A SHORTCUT
PRIEST: Do you remember the last ti—
SKULL: FOR THOSE WITH FAITH, NO EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY; FOR THOSE WITHOUT IT, NO EVIDENCE WILL SUFFICE
'Skull of St. Thomas Aquinas being transported to Fossanova Abbey.'
Photograph by Daniel Ibanez
Photograph by Daniel Ibanez
December 10, 2025 at 5:10 PM
SKULL OF THOMAS AQUINAS: TAKE A LEFT NOW
PRIEST: No, the GPS says we have to keep going—
SKULL: I KNOW A SHORTCUT
PRIEST: Do you remember the last ti—
SKULL: FOR THOSE WITH FAITH, NO EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY; FOR THOSE WITHOUT IT, NO EVIDENCE WILL SUFFICE
PRIEST: No, the GPS says we have to keep going—
SKULL: I KNOW A SHORTCUT
PRIEST: Do you remember the last ti—
SKULL: FOR THOSE WITH FAITH, NO EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY; FOR THOSE WITHOUT IT, NO EVIDENCE WILL SUFFICE
I ain't reading all that, but I like how everyone has decided this guy in particular is an exception to the norm against publicly sharing pirated copies of paywalled pieces.
December 11, 2025 at 2:33 AM
I ain't reading all that, but I like how everyone has decided this guy in particular is an exception to the norm against publicly sharing pirated copies of paywalled pieces.
It wasn't some oopsie mistake. He knew exactly what he was doing and wanted to deliberately flaunt it.
“I can’t understand how he could possibly think it appropriate to go there,” said Edward Whelan, a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and a prominent conservative legal commentator. “You can argue about whether the rules clearly prohibit what he did, but he showed terrible judgment.”
Judge Emil Bove Faces Ethics Complaint for Attending Trump Rally
www.nytimes.com
December 10, 2025 at 11:44 PM
It wasn't some oopsie mistake. He knew exactly what he was doing and wanted to deliberately flaunt it.
The mayor of Albuquerque who appeared as himself in Pluribus was reelected to a third term yesterday.
December 10, 2025 at 10:05 PM
The mayor of Albuquerque who appeared as himself in Pluribus was reelected to a third term yesterday.
Reposted by Andy Craig
"I think we'll risk the carpool lane, St Thomas"
'Skull of St. Thomas Aquinas being transported to Fossanova Abbey.'
Photograph by Daniel Ibanez
Photograph by Daniel Ibanez
December 10, 2025 at 6:39 PM
"I think we'll risk the carpool lane, St Thomas"
Reposted by Andy Craig
Like a third of the Federalist Papers are basically “It would be horrible if Donald Trump became president and these features of the proposed Constitution will ensure that never happens.”
December 10, 2025 at 5:43 PM
Like a third of the Federalist Papers are basically “It would be horrible if Donald Trump became president and these features of the proposed Constitution will ensure that never happens.”
There are various reasons for this but one of them is that we have a regime speed-running even the most obscure and archaic grievances in the Declaration of Independence.
It’s striking how many of the most mundane features of American democracy, built centuries ago to protect against remembered tyrants from centuries prior, are still the bulwark against Trumpian fascism, while all the newfangled modern institutions simply collapsed on first contact with him
JUST IN: Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Snell just confirmed, at the prodding of U.S. Magistrate Judge Keri Holleb Hotaling, that this motion for dismissal followed a "no bill" from a grand jury.
That means the grand jury refused to indict.
That means the grand jury refused to indict.
December 10, 2025 at 5:32 PM
There are various reasons for this but one of them is that we have a regime speed-running even the most obscure and archaic grievances in the Declaration of Independence.
Reposted by Andy Craig
The Founders built a system designed to enable and legally legitimize popular resistance to a tyrant, via strong free speech protections, the right to jury trial, and all sorts of restrictions on direct federal government action against individuals.
And the People are resisting, as elites cower.
And the People are resisting, as elites cower.
It’s striking how many of the most mundane features of American democracy, built centuries ago to protect against remembered tyrants from centuries prior, are still the bulwark against Trumpian fascism, while all the newfangled modern institutions simply collapsed on first contact with him
JUST IN: Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Snell just confirmed, at the prodding of U.S. Magistrate Judge Keri Holleb Hotaling, that this motion for dismissal followed a "no bill" from a grand jury.
That means the grand jury refused to indict.
That means the grand jury refused to indict.
December 10, 2025 at 5:23 PM
The Founders built a system designed to enable and legally legitimize popular resistance to a tyrant, via strong free speech protections, the right to jury trial, and all sorts of restrictions on direct federal government action against individuals.
And the People are resisting, as elites cower.
And the People are resisting, as elites cower.