Trump isn't going to veto the Epstein bill

[onenote]

Either directly or via the "pocket veto". He might allow it to become law without signing it, but I think the odds of that are less than 50 percent.

He said he would sign it. He urged repubs to vote for it. All but one did, and they would look like fools for following his recommendation if then pulled the rug out from under them. And while he's crazy, his handlers would stop him from acting that crazy.

[louis-t]

1. But it wouldn't be the first time a president vetoed

a bill he urged his party to pass, if I'm not mistaken. Watch for some shenanigan later this week.

[onenote]

2. Can you cite a specific example?

Preferably one where all but one member of the president's party followed the president's urging to vote for a bill that the president then vetoed?

[louis-t]

3. Found these.

Richard Nixon and the War Powers Act (1973):
Nixon expressed support for Congress's goal of having a role in decisions about war, stating he would welcome "appropriate legislation" that provided for an "effective contribution by the Congress".
However, he later vetoed the bill, deeming the specific restrictions within it to be "dangerous and unconstitutional".
Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938):
While this example doesn't show a veto, it demonstrates a president initially wanting a bill but delaying action, which is a similar dynamic.
Roosevelt had postponed action on a fair labor standards law but later asked for the bill to be brought back after his fight to "pack" the Supreme Court was over.
John Tyler and the Revenue Marine Service bill (1845):
Tyler's administration worked with Congress on a bill that would have restricted his ability to authorize the building of Coast Guard ships.
Despite the collaborative work, Tyler vetoed the bill to protect what he saw as his presidential prerogatives and existing contracts.
Congress, however, overrode his veto.

I was hoping for more modern examples.

[onenote]

4. None of those examples involve a president endorsing the specific bill he then vetoed.

Supporting the concept of legislation on a subject but vetoing the particular bill ultimately enacted is a far cry from asking your party to vote for a specific bill and then vetoing it.

Of course, the point is moot since, despite lots of posts speculating/predicting that Trump would veto the bill, either directly or via a pocket veto, he signed it the day it was presented to him.

[louis-t]

5. Just can't figure out if it will be heavily redacted

or held back on procedural shenanigans.

[onenote]

6. I'm certain it will be heavily redacted.

The interesting thing is whether they use the new "investigation" as an excuse not to go forward generally or with respect to specific individuals. It seems unlikely that they'd redact references to Clinton or other Democrats, even though they are the targets of the investigation.And unless they were to say they also were investigating Trump, they'd have no reason to redact references to him or his pals.

So they're in a sort of bind and it will be interesting to see what shenanigans they try to employ to get out of it