But they've been very abstract for a very long time, since military aviation evolved past throwing bombs out of prop planes by hand at the start of WWI. I doubt any of the bombers hitting Dresden could see people on the ground when they firebombed the city. Using drones instead of pilots is just a different point & click.
They're not good laws. They're just the only laws we can all mostly agree on
No, they aren't, and you're making it more complex that it needs to be. There is a common sense standard already available: the 85th percentile. Set speed limits by actual road layouts and conditions, as opposed to arbitrary zoning.
For example, residential speed limits in my town are 25 mph. On some narrow streets with lots of apartment buildings and parking on both sides of the street, the speed limits could actually be dropped to 20 mph. Whereas others are very wide streets with no street parking, all driveways exit onto side streets and all blocks have fences around the houses. Speed limit on these streets could easily be 40 mph.
Another example, my town is about 300 miles from Minneapolis/St. Paul. When I go to the Cities in the summer, I can usually drive through their highway construction zones at 60 mph. Back in my town, which has a small fraction of the population and traffic, the normal highway speed limits are 55 mph. In construction zones it drops all the way down to 40 mph. Stuuuuuuupid.
Sure, bad stuff has happened before like you say, but we didn't know about it at the time.
Blaming Bush has become sort of cliche he is just the elites latest stooge
Bullshit. We KNOW Bush has violated the Constitution, CONTINUES to violate it, and he's still in office. He still has the better part of a year left in office.
Except you missed where the US military isn't like the Chinese military. Unlike a Chinese army unit which could have people from one area and of one ethnic group, a US Army unit will have people from all over the US. In my units I had Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. The Asians could be Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, or Southeast Asians. Hispanics may be Chicanos, Mexicans, or Ricans. Some Whites might of been English, French, or German. We even had an Israeli, he had dual citizenship.
But why would a fascist government prone to "domestic military operations" feel limited to the way our military is currently organized? Rather than assign a recruit from Oregon to a unit in South Carolina, he'd be sent to a regional unit in Washington. A platoon deployed to New York would be made up mostly of troops from Texas and Alabama, and vice versa. And that's assuming a reasonably large scale action on the ground - you don't need that many to crew an attack helicopter or a bomber. And of course officers wont make it up the ranks unless they are willing to "take on" "domestic insurgents". While not in the military, see COINTELIPRO and the FBI's actions against radical subversives like civil rights activists.
Officers that toe the company line are promoted and put in positions of power. See: General Petraeus. Those who challenge it are pushed to the side. See: Admiral Fallon. And for a radical ideology taking over the military, see the evangelizing of the Air Force over the last few decades.
Better yet, ask the Iraqi militias.
Well, if our current batch of incompetent chickenhawks are running the fascist dictatorship, yes I have great confidence they will be overcome.
Can those satellite images tell the difference between combatants and noncombatants?
The satellites are for detecting and tracking any sizable amount of troops or arms.
But you're missing a big issue, how can you get the military to fire on civilians when soldiers are known to frag those who give bad orders?
You'd also think that if a President insisted that he had the right to imprison and torture Americans at whim, and that he would continue to do so as he saw fit, that he'd be impeached within 48 hours, and that's if he made the claim on a weekend. How's that working out for us?
Could it be that the Republicans haven't actually worked on an Amendment
Just because they haven't come close to passing doesn't mean they haven't tried. Which, you know, was the point.
Could it be that the Republicans haven't actually worked on an Amendment to ban abortions is because some Republicans are pro-choice?
Uh, no. If the GOP has a choice between backing a "moderate", pro-choice Republican in a blue district who votes with them on the rest of the issues vs losing a seat to a pro-choice Democrat who votes with them on none of the issues, obviously they're going to take the pro-choice Republican. See: Lincoln Chaffe, Christopher Shays.
Nobody votes for parties in this country. You vote for individuals who are representatives of a party, and not two are alike. Do you think Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were on the same page? How about Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton? No party is going to fit your laundry list of pet issues, some of them quite obscure, so you better start your own.
I want marijuana legalized. Which party should I vote for?
I want the Bono act repealed and copyright terms scaled back to 20 years. Which party should I vote for? I want the DMCA repealed. Which party should I vote for?
I don't know offhand of any politicians advocating for scaling back copyright laws. But this falls under the "primary crappy Dems, get better Dems elected" category.
I want it illegal to accept contributions from anyone who isn't eligible to vote for you. Which party should I vote for?
So not only will Puerto Rican's not be able to vote in the presidential election, they wont be able to support candidates? In any case, quibbling over the minutia of campaign finance laws is a distraction from the real solution: have public financing for all campaigns, for there will always be loopholes for other contributions. And if that gets your Libertarian streak all hot and bothered, which really costs you more: a few million for elections, or hundreds of billions in pork spending that rewards contributors?
I want it illegal to contribute to more than one candidate in any given race. Which party should I vote for? I want federal laws to expire after 5 years. Which party do I vote for?
Look, TJ was one of the pillars of this country, but he was a bit nutty to want the Constitution to be rewritten every 20 years. And you want federal laws to expire after 5? That is the craaaaazy and will just waste time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Wanting to limit contributions to a single candidate doesn't make much more sense.
By trying to use Tiananmen Square you show you're missing a big thing. Because the local military unit, the 38th Army of Beijing, refused to fire on the demonstrators the government had to call in the 27th Army from Mongolia.
Uh, no, because as I said, if a unit has a problem executing an order, a different unit will be sent in. As the Chinese government did, and now hundreds of protesters are dead. You aren't debunking my point. You're reinforcing it.
Complete and utter failure unless you agree totally with the editorial process of the paper.
It's so simple that even an idiot should understand it: the FBI manufactured a delay to hold up as an example of why warrants take to long and NSL's were necessary. If it wasn't Mueller himself it was someone else high up in the FBI, and this needs to be investigated.
Wow. Simply wow. Which part of the word "accountable" did you miss? Or do you not understand "justify"?
Yes, wow indeed. Just how incompetent are you, really? It's quite simple:
1. Law enforcement officers requests a warrant or a subpoena for a search. 2. Judge grants warrant/subpoena. 3. Law enforcement conducts an authorized search.
Not:
1. Law enforcement officers conduct search. 2. Search is challenged. 3. Search is investigated. 4. Law enforcement officer is punished for an unreasonable search.
We go with the former because steps 2-4 will have a low rate of success with the latter. If you are so damn stupid that you don't understand this, you need to make like Billy Madison and repeat grades 1 through 12.
Without regulation, there would be more companies like Comcast, not less. The barrier to entry isn't laws limiting companies from laying cable, but the cost in doing so. And of course once a company ponies up the money to do so, they're going to try and keep anyone else from doing the same. Also known as a monopoly.
You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. And the fact is that government investment and regulation means more competition amongst ISP's, not less, as other countries have proven. It means faster access and lower prices; some people in Asia or Europe can get better access than your local college for half as much money as a Comcast customer pays for a small fraction of that speed.
Deregulation for the sake of deregulation is as foolhardy as more regulation for the sake of more regulation. Air fares were falling faster before the airlines were deregulated. Since then, airlines have lost billions while prices have gone up for anyone not traveling between major metropolitan areas. Countries with single payer health care get better treatment for less than half what Americans pay for private insurance.
Finally, telecos can complain about regulation when they pay back the subsides they were given to build networks and start paying rent on all the land that their lines run across. Until that happens, they can take their regulation - and like it.
Your enthusiastic defense of a massive corporation against criticism does earn you the title of "rabid fanboi," though.
That's the problem with Apple: anyone who makes a rational, fact based defense of the company from rumormongers such as yourself gets called a "fanboi". Your rumor was debunked, time to deal with it and stop being a rabid asshat.
The other thing you fail to understand is that the military is made up of brothers/sisters/mom's/dad's of civilians. When they really grasp what they are doing there is going to be a HUGE military fallout.
Sure we have 2 million standing. But how many do you honestly think will be left if they have to start killing their own people?
I fail to understand nothing. You ever hear of a little place called Tiananmen Square? I wonder how many protesters were clinging to notions like yours while they were being run over with tanks.
The military isn't stupid. If those in command think a unit will have problems executing an order, they'll just use a different unit. No brothers/sisters/mom's/dad's to worry about.
But your comparison of these two scenarios demonstrates your ignorance of the history of revolution.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you were a complete moron. The point is that the idea of a militia defeating a modern, sophisticated army with guerrilla tactics is a fantasy, unless you are stupid enough to wag the war on your opponents terms. Stop watching your old copy of Red Dawn and pay attention to how the Israelis fight the Palestinians: they use intelligence, informants, and quick strikes with minimal losses.
Uhh...yeah last I checked they are about as close as the IDF is from beating them.
It's the Israeli Defense Force, you incompetent twat, not the Israeli Genocide Force. Who controls the West Bank? Israel. Who controlled the Gaza Strip? Israel, until they gave it up so the Palestinians living there couldn't vote in Israeli elections. The IDF has wiped the floor with Hamas and Hezbollah. Just as the U.S. Army would wipe the floor with you and your delusional gun nut buddies.
And all the anti-tax people care about is ending taxes for the programs that actually do some amount of good. You don't see Grover Norquist getting angry about our military spending.
No shit. Like how McCain talks about how he's going to solve the budget crisis by eliminating earmarks - which will only save $20-$30 billion per year. Whereas Iraq and tax cuts for the rich cost us hundreds of billions per year.
Slashdot Republicans all accuse me of being a liberal and slashdot Democrats all accuse me of being a neocon, and I accuse both camps of being fools and stooges for the corporations that run both major parties.
And I'll accuse you of buying into false equivalency. Take a look at just about any particular crock of shit that the Administration has tried to get through Congress: half the Democrats vote for it, half against, but the Republicans are always in lockstep support. See Military Commissions Act, FISA, etc. 50% rotten is better than 100% rotten.
So they easiest place to start is by cleaning up the Democratic party by primarying shitty Dems (like Joe Lieberman) and getting better Dems elected (like Jon Tester from Montana). And it's been Democrats leading the fight against crap like telecom immunity - not Libertarians or independents.
Whereas the GOP base is starting to splinter. Rather than realizing the party has fallen off the deep end, it's constituencies think they party hasn't gone far enough. We need more God in our schools. We need more military spending. We need more deregulation in our markets. More, more, more - even though these issues are what got us in this clusterfuck in the first place.
It's like Republican's and abortion: they would be aghast if a Constitutional Amendment actually passed to ban abortion, because then they couldn't use it as an election issue in every single election.
The difference is...only in the USA do we have two distinct paths of recourse...The First Amendment AND the Second.
Yeah, good luck with the second. Opposing federal agents with force just brings more federal agents with more guns with a stronger desire to kill you. And for those with delusions of defeating the Army with local militias, ask Hamas and Hezbollah how close they are to beating the IDF.
It's been proven time and again that it is extremely difficult to deal with a guerrilla force on it's own territory.
And you've seen Red Dawn too many times. Why don't you try asking Hamas and Hezbollah how close their guerrillas are to defeating the Israeli Defense Force? A fascist government isn't going to send troops combing through the Rocky Mountains for dissidents just so they can be picked off with hunting rifles. They aren't going to send military convoys through your town so they can be hit by IED's. They're going to use satellite imagery, informants, quick strikes and assassinations to deal with you.
No president has publicly insisted they have the right to spy without warrants, torture people and imprison people indefinitely without due process during peace time.
What's sad is how the Democrats still don't learn their lesson. The only Democrats to lose their seats in Congress since 911 have been those who voted for the war, like Tom Dashall and Max Cleland. On the recent FISA showdown, the GOP did their standard issue fearmongering, and idiot pundits like Joke Line did their typical hand wringing, and enough Democrats caved in the Senate (again) to pass the bill by a wide margin. But then the bill died in the House. And - Suprise! - the sky did not fall.
What Republicans did wrong by impeaching Bill Clinton is that they were investigating not crimes, but a person. All the Senate and House have to do is investigate crimes, and there have been plenty committed by this administration. And if they stonewall as they always do with claims of "executive privilege", then begin impeachment hearings, as they explicitly cut through all that BS.
Slashdot Mirror
But they've been very abstract for a very long time, since military aviation evolved past throwing bombs out of prop planes by hand at the start of WWI. I doubt any of the bombers hitting Dresden could see people on the ground when they firebombed the city. Using drones instead of pilots is just a different point & click.
I'm not sorry. Why should Apple or Microsoft be responsible for other peoples bugs? Especially when they don't follow Apple's programming guidlines?
They're not good laws. They're just the only laws we can all mostly agree on
No, they aren't, and you're making it more complex that it needs to be. There is a common sense standard already available: the 85th percentile. Set speed limits by actual road layouts and conditions, as opposed to arbitrary zoning.
For example, residential speed limits in my town are 25 mph. On some narrow streets with lots of apartment buildings and parking on both sides of the street, the speed limits could actually be dropped to 20 mph. Whereas others are very wide streets with no street parking, all driveways exit onto side streets and all blocks have fences around the houses. Speed limit on these streets could easily be 40 mph.
Another example, my town is about 300 miles from Minneapolis/St. Paul. When I go to the Cities in the summer, I can usually drive through their highway construction zones at 60 mph. Back in my town, which has a small fraction of the population and traffic, the normal highway speed limits are 55 mph. In construction zones it drops all the way down to 40 mph. Stuuuuuuupid.
Sure, bad stuff has happened before like you say, but we didn't know about it at the time.
Blaming Bush has become sort of cliche he is just the elites latest stooge
Bullshit. We KNOW Bush has violated the Constitution, CONTINUES to violate it, and he's still in office. He still has the better part of a year left in office.
Except of course that states don't have any more business limiting first term abortions than they do in passing Jim Crow laws.
Combining posts for the sake of expediency...
Except you missed where the US military isn't like the Chinese military. Unlike a Chinese army unit which could have people from one area and of one ethnic group, a US Army unit will have people from all over the US. In my units I had Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. The Asians could be Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, or Southeast Asians. Hispanics may be Chicanos, Mexicans, or Ricans. Some Whites might of been English, French, or German. We even had an Israeli, he had dual citizenship.
But why would a fascist government prone to "domestic military operations" feel limited to the way our military is currently organized? Rather than assign a recruit from Oregon to a unit in South Carolina, he'd be sent to a regional unit in Washington. A platoon deployed to New York would be made up mostly of troops from Texas and Alabama, and vice versa. And that's assuming a reasonably large scale action on the ground - you don't need that many to crew an attack helicopter or a bomber. And of course officers wont make it up the ranks unless they are willing to "take on" "domestic insurgents". While not in the military, see COINTELIPRO and the FBI's actions against radical subversives like civil rights activists.
Officers that toe the company line are promoted and put in positions of power. See: General Petraeus. Those who challenge it are pushed to the side. See: Admiral Fallon. And for a radical ideology taking over the military, see the evangelizing of the Air Force over the last few decades.
Better yet, ask the Iraqi militias.
Well, if our current batch of incompetent chickenhawks are running the fascist dictatorship, yes I have great confidence they will be overcome.
Can those satellite images tell the difference between combatants and noncombatants?
The satellites are for detecting and tracking any sizable amount of troops or arms.
But you're missing a big issue, how can you get the military to fire on civilians when soldiers are known to frag those who give bad orders?
You'd also think that if a President insisted that he had the right to imprison and torture Americans at whim, and that he would continue to do so as he saw fit, that he'd be impeached within 48 hours, and that's if he made the claim on a weekend. How's that working out for us?
Could it be that the Republicans haven't actually worked on an Amendment
Just because they haven't come close to passing doesn't mean they haven't tried. Which, you know, was the point.
Could it be that the Republicans haven't actually worked on an Amendment to ban abortions is because some Republicans are pro-choice?
Uh, no. If the GOP has a choice between backing a "moderate", pro-choice Republican in a blue district who votes with them on the rest of the issues vs losing a seat to a pro-choice Democrat who votes with them on none of the issues, obviously they're going to take the pro-choice Republican. See: Lincoln Chaffe, Christopher Shays.
Nobody votes for parties in this country. You vote for individuals who are representatives of a party, and not two are alike. Do you think Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were on the same page? How about Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton? No party is going to fit your laundry list of pet issues, some of them quite obscure, so you better start your own.
I want marijuana legalized. Which party should I vote for?
Easy: Barney Frank.
I want the PATRIOT act repealed. Which party should I vote for?
Jon Tester.
I want the Bono act repealed and copyright terms scaled back to 20 years. Which party should I vote for? I want the DMCA repealed. Which party should I vote for?
I don't know offhand of any politicians advocating for scaling back copyright laws. But this falls under the "primary crappy Dems, get better Dems elected" category.
I want it illegal to accept contributions from anyone who isn't eligible to vote for you. Which party should I vote for?
So not only will Puerto Rican's not be able to vote in the presidential election, they wont be able to support candidates? In any case, quibbling over the minutia of campaign finance laws is a distraction from the real solution: have public financing for all campaigns, for there will always be loopholes for other contributions. And if that gets your Libertarian streak all hot and bothered, which really costs you more: a few million for elections, or hundreds of billions in pork spending that rewards contributors?
I want it illegal to contribute to more than one candidate in any given race. Which party should I vote for? I want federal laws to expire after 5 years. Which party do I vote for?
Look, TJ was one of the pillars of this country, but he was a bit nutty to want the Constitution to be rewritten every 20 years. And you want federal laws to expire after 5? That is the craaaaazy and will just waste time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Wanting to limit contributions to a single candidate doesn't make much more sense.
By trying to use Tiananmen Square you show you're missing a big thing. Because the local military unit, the 38th Army of Beijing, refused to fire on the demonstrators the government had to call in the 27th Army from Mongolia.
Uh, no, because as I said, if a unit has a problem executing an order, a different unit will be sent in. As the Chinese government did, and now hundreds of protesters are dead. You aren't debunking my point. You're reinforcing it.
Complete and utter failure unless you agree totally with the editorial process of the paper.
It's so simple that even an idiot should understand it: the FBI manufactured a delay to hold up as an example of why warrants take to long and NSL's were necessary. If it wasn't Mueller himself it was someone else high up in the FBI, and this needs to be investigated.
Wow. Simply wow. Which part of the word "accountable" did you miss? Or do you not understand "justify"?
Yes, wow indeed. Just how incompetent are you, really? It's quite simple:
1. Law enforcement officers requests a warrant or a subpoena for a search.
2. Judge grants warrant/subpoena.
3. Law enforcement conducts an authorized search.
Not:
1. Law enforcement officers conduct search.
2. Search is challenged.
3. Search is investigated.
4. Law enforcement officer is punished for an unreasonable search.
We go with the former because steps 2-4 will have a low rate of success with the latter. If you are so damn stupid that you don't understand this, you need to make like Billy Madison and repeat grades 1 through 12.
Without regulation, there would be more companies like Comcast, not less. The barrier to entry isn't laws limiting companies from laying cable, but the cost in doing so. And of course once a company ponies up the money to do so, they're going to try and keep anyone else from doing the same. Also known as a monopoly.
You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. And the fact is that government investment and regulation means more competition amongst ISP's, not less, as other countries have proven. It means faster access and lower prices; some people in Asia or Europe can get better access than your local college for half as much money as a Comcast customer pays for a small fraction of that speed.
Deregulation for the sake of deregulation is as foolhardy as more regulation for the sake of more regulation. Air fares were falling faster before the airlines were deregulated. Since then, airlines have lost billions while prices have gone up for anyone not traveling between major metropolitan areas. Countries with single payer health care get better treatment for less than half what Americans pay for private insurance.
Finally, telecos can complain about regulation when they pay back the subsides they were given to build networks and start paying rent on all the land that their lines run across. Until that happens, they can take their regulation - and like it.
Your enthusiastic defense of a massive corporation against criticism does earn you the title of "rabid fanboi," though.
That's the problem with Apple: anyone who makes a rational, fact based defense of the company from rumormongers such as yourself gets called a "fanboi". Your rumor was debunked, time to deal with it and stop being a rabid asshat.
Mod parent up - apple fanbois all over this one
Yes, you can see them standing over there, right next to Big Foot.
I'm not jumping on Apple, I'm jumping on the people who are automatically defending what they think Apple has done, presumably because it's Apple.
And don't be surprised when somebody jumps on you for automatically jumping on Apple, just because it's Apple and you think they've done something.
The military isn't stupid. If those in command think a unit will have problems executing an order, they'll just use a different unit. No brothers/sisters/mom's/dad's to worry about.
But your comparison of these two scenarios demonstrates your ignorance of the history of revolution.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you were a complete moron. The point is that the idea of a militia defeating a modern, sophisticated army with guerrilla tactics is a fantasy, unless you are stupid enough to wag the war on your opponents terms. Stop watching your old copy of Red Dawn and pay attention to how the Israelis fight the Palestinians: they use intelligence, informants, and quick strikes with minimal losses.
Uhh...yeah last I checked they are about as close as the IDF is from beating them.
It's the Israeli Defense Force, you incompetent twat, not the Israeli Genocide Force. Who controls the West Bank? Israel. Who controlled the Gaza Strip? Israel, until they gave it up so the Palestinians living there couldn't vote in Israeli elections. The IDF has wiped the floor with Hamas and Hezbollah. Just as the U.S. Army would wipe the floor with you and your delusional gun nut buddies.
And all the anti-tax people care about is ending taxes for the programs that actually do some amount of good. You don't see Grover Norquist getting angry about our military spending.
No shit. Like how McCain talks about how he's going to solve the budget crisis by eliminating earmarks - which will only save $20-$30 billion per year. Whereas Iraq and tax cuts for the rich cost us hundreds of billions per year.
Slashdot Republicans all accuse me of being a liberal and slashdot Democrats all accuse me of being a neocon, and I accuse both camps of being fools and stooges for the corporations that run both major parties.
And I'll accuse you of buying into false equivalency. Take a look at just about any particular crock of shit that the Administration has tried to get through Congress: half the Democrats vote for it, half against, but the Republicans are always in lockstep support. See Military Commissions Act, FISA, etc. 50% rotten is better than 100% rotten.
So they easiest place to start is by cleaning up the Democratic party by primarying shitty Dems (like Joe Lieberman) and getting better Dems elected (like Jon Tester from Montana). And it's been Democrats leading the fight against crap like telecom immunity - not Libertarians or independents.
Whereas the GOP base is starting to splinter. Rather than realizing the party has fallen off the deep end, it's constituencies think they party hasn't gone far enough. We need more God in our schools. We need more military spending. We need more deregulation in our markets. More, more, more - even though these issues are what got us in this clusterfuck in the first place.
See: John Edwards campaign. When the corporations don't want you to win they simply don't give you news coverage.
Or how they try and kill you in the crib. See: John Edwards' haircut, the "Dean Scream".
It's like Republican's and abortion: they would be aghast if a Constitutional Amendment actually passed to ban abortion, because then they couldn't use it as an election issue in every single election.
The difference is...only in the USA do we have two distinct paths of recourse...The First Amendment AND the Second.
Yeah, good luck with the second. Opposing federal agents with force just brings more federal agents with more guns with a stronger desire to kill you. And for those with delusions of defeating the Army with local militias, ask Hamas and Hezbollah how close they are to beating the IDF.
It's been proven time and again that it is extremely difficult to deal with a guerrilla force on it's own territory.
And you've seen Red Dawn too many times. Why don't you try asking Hamas and Hezbollah how close their guerrillas are to defeating the Israeli Defense Force? A fascist government isn't going to send troops combing through the Rocky Mountains for dissidents just so they can be picked off with hunting rifles. They aren't going to send military convoys through your town so they can be hit by IED's. They're going to use satellite imagery, informants, quick strikes and assassinations to deal with you.
Remember how much crap was given to Clinton when he lied about monica?
He didn't even lie under the courts definition.
So dems- what the hell are you doing?
Being complete pussies, as usual.
No president has publicly insisted they have the right to spy without warrants, torture people and imprison people indefinitely without due process during peace time.
What's sad is how the Democrats still don't learn their lesson. The only Democrats to lose their seats in Congress since 911 have been those who voted for the war, like Tom Dashall and Max Cleland. On the recent FISA showdown, the GOP did their standard issue fearmongering, and idiot pundits like Joke Line did their typical hand wringing, and enough Democrats caved in the Senate (again) to pass the bill by a wide margin. But then the bill died in the House. And - Suprise! - the sky did not fall.
What Republicans did wrong by impeaching Bill Clinton is that they were investigating not crimes, but a person. All the Senate and House have to do is investigate crimes, and there have been plenty committed by this administration. And if they stonewall as they always do with claims of "executive privilege", then begin impeachment hearings, as they explicitly cut through all that BS.