United States Congress of Fail (Part 3)

[GrumpyGran]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Shady, shady, shady: "Undisclosed deal guaranteed Roy Moore $180,000 a year for part-time work at charity"

  Reveal hidden contents

Former Alabama judge Roy Moore, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, once said publicly that he did not take a “regular salary” from the small charity he founded to promote Christian values because he did not want to be a financial burden.

But privately, Moore had arranged to receive a salary of $180,000 a year for part-time work at the Foundation for Moral Law, internal charity documents show. He collected more than $1 million as president from 2007 to 2012, compensation that far surpassed what the group disclosed in its public tax filings most of those years.

When the charity couldn’t afford the full amount, Moore in 2012 was given a promissory note for backpay eventually worth $540,000 or an equal stake of the charity’s most valuable asset, a historic building in Montgomery, Ala., mortgage records show. He holds that note even now, a charity official said.

A Washington Post review of public and internal charity documents found that errors and gaps in the group’s federal tax filings obscured until now the compensation paid to Moore, whose defeat last month of President Trump’s choice for Republican nominee in the Senate race will likely embolden far-right challengers to the party’s mainstream incumbents. Moore is the front-runner in the race to fill the seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The charity helped Moore thrive - financially and otherwise - after his ouster from the state’s Supreme Court in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the courthouse. The group has filed scores of legal briefs in cases involving conservative Christian issues, but it was in many ways built around Moore himself.

At a time when Moore was running for other public offices in Alabama, the charity kept him in the public eye and helped establish a nationwide network of donors while he took on controversial positions against same-sex marriage, Islam and the separation of church and state. Over the years, it has provided him with health-care benefits, travel expenses and a bodyguard, documents show.

The Foundation for Moral Law’s website routinely promoted Moore’s speaking engagements and his book, “So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom.” In his last two years as president, as fundraising dwindled, Moore’s compensation amounted to about a third of the contributions to the group, tax filings show.

The charity has employed at least two of Moore’s children, although their compensation is not reflected in tax filings. Moore’s wife, Kayla, who is now president, was paid a total of $195,000 over three years through 2015.

Moore’s charitable and political activities have also overlapped in significant ways. The former longtime executive director of the charity now serves as Moore’s campaign manager. The charity retained the same fundraising firm used by three of Moore’s most recent campaigns for state office, public records show.

An Internal Revenue Service audit of the Foundation for Moral Law’s 2013 finances, provided by the charity, concluded that it left out information about fundraising and other activities on its public tax filings and also identified discrepancies between those filings and its internal books. The IRS wrote that the issues “could jeopardize your exempt status.”

...

Seven charity and tax law specialists consulted by The Post said the nonprofit’s activities raised questions about compliance with IRS rules, including prohibitions on the use of a charity for the private benefit or enrichment of an individual.

“The biggest issue is the benefit to Roy Moore,” said Paul Streckfus, a former tax lawyer at the IRS and editor of the EO Tax Journal, when told of The Post’s findings.

In interviews with The Post, Alabama Circuit Court Judge John Bentley, a longtime member of the charity’s board and its former chairman, denied that the Foundation for Moral Law served Moore’s personal or political goals. He said the group’s officials did not intentionally do anything wrong. 

 But he said that he could not fully explain inconsistencies in audits and public tax filings, and that he and other board members did not provide enough oversight. He acknowledged the nonprofit was essentially run by Moore and his family.

“That’s my fault,” he said. “I should have been a lot more active than I was.”

Roy and Kayla Moore did not respond to interview requests. Kayla Moore provided answers to detailed questions in a statement, and the charity gave The Post internal documents to clarify why Moore received the promissory note. The agreement that he would receive compensation of $180,000 a year, described in those documents, has not been previously reported.

A year after his election to the state Supreme Court in 2000, Moore drew national attention and controversy for installing a 2.6-ton monument of the Ten Commandments in the court’s building. His ouster from the bench in 2003, after he refused to obey a federal court ruling to remove the monument, made him a hero among some evangelical Christians. 

As he fought against litigation to move the monument, friends and allies created an organization they called the Roy Moore Legal Defense Fund and began raising money. The organization’s first application to be recognized as a charity was rejected in 2004 because the IRS determined that it “operated for the benefit of private interests.” 

The group renamed itself the Foundation for Moral Law and broadened its mission, saying it would promote the idea that “our rights are given to us by our Creator.” The following year, the IRS approved it as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) public charity, allowing contributors to deduct donations. 

Moore became its chairman and traveled the country, giving speeches and making media appearances. He received no compensation at first, although the charity provided health insurance and covered travel expenses. The organization also gave him VIP-level security, paying for bulletproof vests and a bodyguard, a martial arts expert and cousin of former heavyweight boxing champion Evander Holyfield, records show.

“Judge was traveling the country speaking. He needed protection due to threats,” Kayla Moore said in her statement to The Post.

Political observers considered the nonprofit a showcase for the former judge.

“It was a platform for Roy Moore to advance himself on any possible front, whether it was political or oratorical,” said William Stewart, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Alabama and a longtime observer of Moore’s career.

Joining Moore at the nonprofit were two other state Supreme Court employees who also lost their jobs over the monument controversy. One of them, Richard Hobson — now Moore’s campaign manager in the Senate race — became the charity’s president. Moore’s daughter, Heather, became its receptionist. 

In an interview, Bentley, the board member, played down the hiring of Moore’s family members, describing them as “cheap labor.” He said he did not know exactly how much they were paid.

With donations pouring in — more than $1.5 million in 2005 — the charity bought a pre-Civil War office building in downtown Montgomery for $546,000 and began renovations costing hundreds of thousands more, records show. 

The charity hired the Richard Norman Company, a fundraising firm in Virginia that raised money for conservative candidates. Months later, as Moore launched a campaign for Alabama governor, he turned to the firm for his political fundraising as well, drawing donors from across the country.

In an interview, founder Richard Norman said his firm kept the charitable and political operations separate. But he acknowledged that in both contexts Roy Moore’s defiance of the federal government was a central selling point.

“He's known as ‘The Ten Commandments Judge,’” he said. “That story was an important part of every fundraising appeal we did.” 

Moore lost the race.

In 2007, Moore became the charity’s president, committing himself to 20 hours a week, according to tax filings. The board agreed to pay him; the question was how much. They considered a figure as high as $500,000 annually, according to an internal letter the charity provided to The Post.

...

On March 5, they decided to follow Moore’s lead. “Judge Moore has recommended a salary of $180,000,” Bentley, then the chairman, wrote to other board members. 

They agreed to pay him in an unusual way. Moore would be paid whatever speaking fees and donations to the charity he could generate through what was called “Project Jeremiah,” the group’s ministry to pastors and preachers. But he was guaranteed $180,000 a year under the agreement, with the charity making up the difference if Project Jeremiah revenue fell short. If the charity did not have the cash in a given year, the debt to Moore would accumulate.

The Foundation for Moral Law created a separate bank account and earmarked donations to “Project Jeremiah” specifically for Moore, Bentley said. 

“This is a very important project to restore a proper understanding of God to the preachers of our land, but I need your help!” Moore wrote in 2007 in a personal fundraising message about “Project Jeremiah” on the charity’s website. “My resources are limited.”

The salary agreement and “Project Jeremiah” were not disclosed in the charity’s tax filings that year. Moore’s compensation was reported as $105,500.

The charity’s descriptions on public documents of its payments to Moore varied greatly. In some years, including 2007, he was described as an outside legal contractor, tax filings show, and in others he was paid as president. His reported compensation ranged from $55,392 to $105,500 — and not until 2012 did the figure match the $180,000 the board had agreed to pay him.

...

Martin Wishnatsky, a spokesman for the charity, said Moore was never a legal consultant, despite the statements in tax filings.

“Judge Moore never received separate amounts for ‘legal work,’” Wishnatsky said in a statement. “That description was a shorthand for the services he provided to the Foundation that included overall supervision, educational programs, and participation in preparing amicus briefs on religious liberty and related issues.” 

By 2011, attention to Moore’s monument battle was waning. Donations to the Foundation for Moral Law were in a nose-dive, down by almost two-thirds from 2005. But the board stood by its pledge to give Moore $180,000 in compensation each year.

On Feb. 17, documents show, the board convened for an annual meeting in Gadsden, Alabama. There was only one item on the agenda: how to pay Moore for “arrearages of salary during the past four (4) years,” according to the board’s record of the meeting. 

Lacking the ability to pay him cash, the board agreed to give Moore a promissory note worth $393,000 that Moore could cash in on demand, documents show. The board backed up its promise with a second mortgage on the charity’s historic building. In effect, the board was giving him the opportunity to foreclose on its headquarters to collect what he was owed. It also authorized Bentley to increase the amount owed to Moore as needed.

Among the nine members on the board was Kayla Moore, who recused herself from the vote.

Later that year, while giving an opening statement on behalf of the charity in a legal dispute with a telemarketing company, Moore played down his financial arrangements.

“My salary does not come by way of a regular salary from the Foundation, but through a special project that I run so that I don’t inhibit the Foundation,” he told a jury in August, according to a transcript of the hearing in federal court in Ohio.

In December 2011, Bentley agreed to increase the amount of debt to Moore, anchored by the mortgage, to $498,000, records show. 

The back-pay arrangement was not disclosed to the IRS on annual tax filings until Nov. 14, 2012, one week after Moore won an election to return to Alabama’s Supreme Court. The tax filing, covering 2011, said he had been paid $393,000 in “retirement or other deferred compensation,” reflecting the amount in the original note, although mortgage records show the higher figure.

For 2012, Bentley bumped up the indebtedness to $540,000, mortgage documents show. On tax filings for that year, the charity said he was paid $138,000 in “reportable” compensation and $42,000 in “other” pay — for the first time reflecting the $180,000 total he was to receive each year under the agreement.

...

Moore’s full $180,000 compensation should have been disclosed each year, whether it was paid to him or accumulated as debt, said Marcus Owens, who led the tax-exempt organizations division at the IRS from 1990 to 1999.

“The treatment of the payments to him really is quite irregular,” Owens said.

Eve Borenstein, an expert on nonprofit tax law, said the annual tax filings, known as a Form 990, are the public’s only way to know how charities are spending donations and paying their employees each year.

“If people do not report what is intended to have sunlight on it, there’s no point in having the form,” she said.

Officials with the charity did not respond to questions about why its tax filings for the five years beginning in 2007 did not reflect the board’s obligation to pay Moore $180,000 a year.

Kayla Moore became the charity’s president when Moore returned to the Alabama Supreme Court in 2013, making $65,000 a year from 2013 to 2015. Roy Moore was kicked off the court for a second time last year for ordering state judges not to honor a U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage.

In February this year, the IRS concluded its audit of the charity’s 2013 finances, according to the documents provided to The Post. The IRS identified problems that it said could threaten the group’s tax-exempt status if not resolved.

The IRS wrote that the charity “did not identify its special fundraising activities.” It also found that the group’s tax filings contained figures that “did not reflect those recorded on your books of account.” The document does not detail the activities or figures at issue.

In recent weeks, the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group in Washington, accused the charity of openly promoting Moore’s Senate campaign through a Facebook page titled “Foundation for Moral Law.” Charities are prohibited by law from supporting or opposing political candidates. 

Kayla Moore said in her statement to The Post that the Facebook page “is not an official page of the Foundation for Moral Law.”

In an interview, Bentley said he could not account for all of the gaps and inaccuracies in tax filings, audits and other documents, in part because he had devoted so little time to overseeing the group’s finances. 

“I can understand why that would raise some concerns,” he said.

 

I'm of two minds on this. There's the whole claiming-you're-a-charity-when-you're-not thing. OTOH, I can't scrape up much sympathy for idiots who contribute to this kind of thing. If these morons want to give their money to support Roy Moore, I guess that's their right. I just hope they know he won't return the favor.

[GrumpyGran]

12 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

And of course Iowa's own fucking idiot of a Congressman had to open his trap...

 

We're talking about human beings here, meat puppet.

[GreyhoundFan]

"New volatility seizes tense fight for control of the Republican Party"

Spoiler

The tense fight for control of the Republican Party showed new signs of volatility on Wednesday, with conservative activists attacking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell even as he signaled that he plans to intensify efforts to install conservative judges on the federal bench.

A constellation of conservative leaders issued a joint call for McConnell and his top deputies to step down, marking the latest round of criticism the Kentucky Republican has received from members of his party.

Those activists also shrugged off comments McConnell made in an interview with the Weekly Standard, in which he appeared keen on ending the long-standing practice of giving senators a chance to block judicial nominees who would have jurisdiction over their states. Conservatives have been agitating for a more aggressive shaping of the bench in recent months.

Separately, an outside group affiliated with Stephen K. Bannon, the former chief strategist to President Trump who is waging a public war against McConnell and his allies, endorsed GOP Senate candidates in three states that were not objectionable to traditional Republicans.

The developments, coming in the middle of a week-long Senate recess, raised new questions about the trajectory of the intensifying war for the soul of the Republican Party and further blurred the battle lines within it. The complex struggle is expected to affect not only the midterm campaigns, but also the ongoing GOP attempt at a sweeping rewrite of the nation’s tax laws.

In a letter to McConnell, six hard-right activists vented frustration with the Senate’s lack of major legislative accomplishments this year, including its failure to undo the Affordable Care Act.

“It is time for you and your leadership team to step aside, for new leadership that is committed to the promises made to the American people,” says the letter. The signatories did not immediately endorse a replacement for the job of majority leader.

Although McConnell is generally respected and well-liked by Republican senators, who determine their own leadership, some rank-and-file lawmakers have been hesitant of late to align themselves closely with him. In recent weeks, he has come under intense criticism from elsewhere in the party, including from allies and associates of Trump, most notably Bannon.

McConnell’s job is not seen by Republican senators to be in immediate jeopardy, but the mounting attacks on him, which at times have come from Trump himself, have raised questions about his standing in the party.

Addressing reporters in a conference room inside the Capitol Hill office of FreedomWorks, a hard-right organization, five of the activists said that if McConnell does not step aside, they will wage an effort against him in next year’s midterm elections that will take the form of television ads and other advocacy in individual campaigns where his allies are on the ballot.

“If Mitch McConnell does not step down, we foresee a scorched-earth disaster from a furious Republican base that will take it out on elected officials in 2018 and again in 2020,” said Brent Bozell, the president of the Media Research Center. “It will begin simply by staying home — and rightfully so.”

A McConnell spokesman did not have any immediate comment on the letter. It was signed by Bozell, Senate Conservatives Fund president Ken Cuccinelli II, Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin, FreedomWorks president Adam Brandon, For America president David Bozell and Richard Viguerie, the chairman of ConservativeHQ.com. They have all long clashed with congressional Republican leaders.

In his interview with the Weekly Standard, parts of which were published Wednesday, McConnell stressed that the use of “blue slips” — named after the piece of paper senators from a potential federal judge’s state must sign to indicate their approval of his nomination — is a custom, not a rule, and that the use of them will no longer be enforced.

His comments came as he has endured increasing pressure from conservative groups. Politico reported this week that the conservative Judicial Crisis Network had planned to spend a quarter of a million dollars on ads pushing McConnell to more aggressively shepherd judicial nominees to passage, but his aides headed off the ad campaign.

“The majority,” meaning Republicans, will treat blue slips “as simply notification of how you’re going to vote, not as an opportunity to blackball,” McConnell told the Weekly Standard.

In an interview with the New York Times last month, McConnell said that the Senate would no longer be observing the blue slip tradition for appeals court judges — arguing that it was not fair to allow just one senator to block progress on an appeals court judge with jurisdiction over several states if other senators from affected states were on board.

But the activists who held the Wednesday news conference were not very impressed.

“I’m glad that he’s done that,” said Martin. But she added: “Getting rid of the blue slip — it was time to do that a few months ago.”

“No one in America has ever heard of the blue slip. That’s a complete swamp thing,” Brandon said.

McConnell cannot dictate the blue-slip policy shift on his own, and a spokeswoman for the majority leader urged against interpreting his comments too broadly. Taylor Foy, a spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said that the senator has a tradition of using blue slips, and “expects senators and the president to continue engaging in consultation when selecting judicial nominees.”

Meanwhile, the Bannon-affiliated group Great America Alliance endorsed Republican Senate contenders in three states: Rep. Marsha Blackburn in Tennessee; state auditor Matt Rosendale in Montana; and state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in West Virginia.

Republicans aligned with McConnell did not take issue with the nods. All three are running for seats that are either open or are held by Democrats seeking reelection.

The three candidates have not pledged to oppose McConnell’s leadership if elected, a stated priority for Bannon. And one of them has a campaign adviser whom Bannon has declared his enemy.

At a September rally produced by the alliance in Alabama, Bannon announced that Ward Baker, an adviser to Blackburn and outgoing Alabama Sen. Luther Strange, faced a coming “day of reckoning.”

The broader coalition of candidates backed by self-described anti-establishment groups could suggest a more complicated 2018 playing field, with rival parts of the party working on the same side in some races. “Our ‘Great America’ slate, which will expand in the coming weeks, is entirely about delivering results,” Eric Beach, the co-chair of the alliance, said in a release accompanying the endorsements.

One incumbent who appears to be safe from the hostility of Bannon and other conservative leaders bent on upending the makeup of the Senate is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). Bannon and Cuccinelli have said they are not targeting him for defeat.

McConnell’s inability to pass a bill in his chamber to repeal and replace the ACA as the GOP-controlled House did has made him a target of criticism among a growing number of Republicans. Trump has blamed him for the failure and voiced his disappointment publicly.

But the president has not called on McConnell to step down. Late last month, Trump expressed confidence in him.

Bannon, however, has more bluntly and actively opposed McConnell. The extent to which Bannon will be coordinating his efforts with the activists who spoke Wednesday is not clear, however.

“We are talking to many organizations, including Steve Bannon, about this,” Brent Bozell said. The others who joined him did not specify how extensively they planned to collaborate with Bannon.

Oh lovely, Cuccinelli has thrown in with Bannon. (note sarcasm) For the sake of the country, I hope they poison each other. If there's anyone as snake-like and nasty as Bannon, it's Cuccinelli. He ran for governor in Virginia in 2013. If he had won, I would have moved to Maryland or DC. He's actually a combination of the worst of Bannon and Pence. He wants to blow crap up and wants to take us back to the 'good old days' when white men were king and women, people of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ people were openly treated like crap every day. He was a big proponent of the push the Repugs had in Virginia to force any woman seeking an abortion to have a transvaginal ultrasound beforehand.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Here’s The Mugshot Of Rep. Greg Gianforte That He Really, Really Didn’t Want You To See"

Spoiler

A Montana judge on Wednesday released the mugshot of Rep. Greg Gianforte (Mont.), the millionaire Republican who was convicted in June of assaulting a reporter and fought the court to avoid being fingerprinted and photographed.

Bozeman Chronicle reporter Whitney Bermes posted the news and the photo to Twitter: 

... < picture >

Gallatin County District Judge Holly Brown ruled Wednesday that Gianforte’s photograph could be released to seven media outlets, according to the Chronicle. Neither Gianforte nor a county attorney objected to its release, the publication previously reported. 

Gianforte, 56, was charged May 24 — the day before Montana voters elected him to the U.S. House — with misdemeanor assault for body-slamming The Guardian’s Ben Jacobs. Gianforte pleaded guilty to the charge June 12, and a judge gave him a six-month deferred sentence and ordered him to perform community service and attend anger management counseling.

Later that same month, Gianforte and his legal team filed a motion arguing the court did not have the authority to require him to appear for fingerprints and a mugshot because he was not arrested or charged with a felony. The court ultimately denied the request, and he was booked into the Gallatin County Detention Center in Bozeman, Montana, in late August. 

The Gallatin County records office did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request Wednesday for a copy of the mugshot.

HuffPost asked the congressman at the U.S. Capitol in July whether he believed other Montanans cited for misdemeanor assault also shouldn’t be fingerprinted and photographed. He walked into his office without responding.

I guess if you don't want a mugshot, you shouldn't go hitting people.

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"New volatility seizes tense fight for control of the Republican Party"

  Reveal hidden contents

The tense fight for control of the Republican Party showed new signs of volatility on Wednesday, with conservative activists attacking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell even as he signaled that he plans to intensify efforts to install conservative judges on the federal bench.

A constellation of conservative leaders issued a joint call for McConnell and his top deputies to step down, marking the latest round of criticism the Kentucky Republican has received from members of his party.

Those activists also shrugged off comments McConnell made in an interview with the Weekly Standard, in which he appeared keen on ending the long-standing practice of giving senators a chance to block judicial nominees who would have jurisdiction over their states. Conservatives have been agitating for a more aggressive shaping of the bench in recent months.

Separately, an outside group affiliated with Stephen K. Bannon, the former chief strategist to President Trump who is waging a public war against McConnell and his allies, endorsed GOP Senate candidates in three states that were not objectionable to traditional Republicans.

The developments, coming in the middle of a week-long Senate recess, raised new questions about the trajectory of the intensifying war for the soul of the Republican Party and further blurred the battle lines within it. The complex struggle is expected to affect not only the midterm campaigns, but also the ongoing GOP attempt at a sweeping rewrite of the nation’s tax laws.

In a letter to McConnell, six hard-right activists vented frustration with the Senate’s lack of major legislative accomplishments this year, including its failure to undo the Affordable Care Act.

“It is time for you and your leadership team to step aside, for new leadership that is committed to the promises made to the American people,” says the letter. The signatories did not immediately endorse a replacement for the job of majority leader.

Although McConnell is generally respected and well-liked by Republican senators, who determine their own leadership, some rank-and-file lawmakers have been hesitant of late to align themselves closely with him. In recent weeks, he has come under intense criticism from elsewhere in the party, including from allies and associates of Trump, most notably Bannon.

McConnell’s job is not seen by Republican senators to be in immediate jeopardy, but the mounting attacks on him, which at times have come from Trump himself, have raised questions about his standing in the party.

Addressing reporters in a conference room inside the Capitol Hill office of FreedomWorks, a hard-right organization, five of the activists said that if McConnell does not step aside, they will wage an effort against him in next year’s midterm elections that will take the form of television ads and other advocacy in individual campaigns where his allies are on the ballot.

“If Mitch McConnell does not step down, we foresee a scorched-earth disaster from a furious Republican base that will take it out on elected officials in 2018 and again in 2020,” said Brent Bozell, the president of the Media Research Center. “It will begin simply by staying home — and rightfully so.”

A McConnell spokesman did not have any immediate comment on the letter. It was signed by Bozell, Senate Conservatives Fund president Ken Cuccinelli II, Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin, FreedomWorks president Adam Brandon, For America president David Bozell and Richard Viguerie, the chairman of ConservativeHQ.com. They have all long clashed with congressional Republican leaders.

In his interview with the Weekly Standard, parts of which were published Wednesday, McConnell stressed that the use of “blue slips” — named after the piece of paper senators from a potential federal judge’s state must sign to indicate their approval of his nomination — is a custom, not a rule, and that the use of them will no longer be enforced.

His comments came as he has endured increasing pressure from conservative groups. Politico reported this week that the conservative Judicial Crisis Network had planned to spend a quarter of a million dollars on ads pushing McConnell to more aggressively shepherd judicial nominees to passage, but his aides headed off the ad campaign.

“The majority,” meaning Republicans, will treat blue slips “as simply notification of how you’re going to vote, not as an opportunity to blackball,” McConnell told the Weekly Standard.

In an interview with the New York Times last month, McConnell said that the Senate would no longer be observing the blue slip tradition for appeals court judges — arguing that it was not fair to allow just one senator to block progress on an appeals court judge with jurisdiction over several states if other senators from affected states were on board.

But the activists who held the Wednesday news conference were not very impressed.

“I’m glad that he’s done that,” said Martin. But she added: “Getting rid of the blue slip — it was time to do that a few months ago.”

“No one in America has ever heard of the blue slip. That’s a complete swamp thing,” Brandon said.

McConnell cannot dictate the blue-slip policy shift on his own, and a spokeswoman for the majority leader urged against interpreting his comments too broadly. Taylor Foy, a spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said that the senator has a tradition of using blue slips, and “expects senators and the president to continue engaging in consultation when selecting judicial nominees.”

Meanwhile, the Bannon-affiliated group Great America Alliance endorsed Republican Senate contenders in three states: Rep. Marsha Blackburn in Tennessee; state auditor Matt Rosendale in Montana; and state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in West Virginia.

Republicans aligned with McConnell did not take issue with the nods. All three are running for seats that are either open or are held by Democrats seeking reelection.

The three candidates have not pledged to oppose McConnell’s leadership if elected, a stated priority for Bannon. And one of them has a campaign adviser whom Bannon has declared his enemy.

At a September rally produced by the alliance in Alabama, Bannon announced that Ward Baker, an adviser to Blackburn and outgoing Alabama Sen. Luther Strange, faced a coming “day of reckoning.”

The broader coalition of candidates backed by self-described anti-establishment groups could suggest a more complicated 2018 playing field, with rival parts of the party working on the same side in some races. “Our ‘Great America’ slate, which will expand in the coming weeks, is entirely about delivering results,” Eric Beach, the co-chair of the alliance, said in a release accompanying the endorsements.

One incumbent who appears to be safe from the hostility of Bannon and other conservative leaders bent on upending the makeup of the Senate is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). Bannon and Cuccinelli have said they are not targeting him for defeat.

McConnell’s inability to pass a bill in his chamber to repeal and replace the ACA as the GOP-controlled House did has made him a target of criticism among a growing number of Republicans. Trump has blamed him for the failure and voiced his disappointment publicly.

But the president has not called on McConnell to step down. Late last month, Trump expressed confidence in him.

Bannon, however, has more bluntly and actively opposed McConnell. The extent to which Bannon will be coordinating his efforts with the activists who spoke Wednesday is not clear, however.

“We are talking to many organizations, including Steve Bannon, about this,” Brent Bozell said. The others who joined him did not specify how extensively they planned to collaborate with Bannon.

Oh lovely, Cuccinelli has thrown in with Bannon. (note sarcasm) For the sake of the country, I hope they poison each other. If there's anyone as snake-like and nasty as Bannon, it's Cuccinelli. He ran for governor in Virginia in 2013. If he had won, I would have moved to Maryland or DC. He's actually a combination of the worst of Bannon and Pence. He wants to blow crap up and wants to take us back to the 'good old days' when white men were king and women, people of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ people were openly treated like crap every day. He was a big proponent of the push the Repugs had in Virginia to force any woman seeking an abortion to have a transvaginal ultrasound beforehand.

Oh, you have a governor's race happening! Need me to come up and drive you around to all those precincts we talked about?

So Giant-whore-te doesn't want his mugshot made public. What about all of those people in the Slammer? Did anybody ask them?

[GreyhoundFan]

10 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

Oh, you have a governor's race happening! Need me to come up and drive you around to all those precincts we talked about?

Yes, we elect a new governor next month. I'm quite concerned because the Repug candidate is awful (no big surprise). The Dem candidate is solid, but unexciting. I'm hoping and praying that the Dem can win. C'mon up and we can visit all the precincts!

[GrumpyGran]

5 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Yes, we elect a new governor next month. I'm quite concerned because the Repug candidate is awful (no big surprise). The Dem candidate is solid, but unexciting. I'm hoping and praying that the Dem can win. C'mon up and we can visit all the precincts!

And vote at all of them? Nobody will care that I'm a South Carolina resident, will they? 

[GreyhoundFan]

44 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

And vote at all of them? Nobody will care that I'm a South Carolina resident, will they? 

You know you have always wanted to meet Kobach. I'm sure he'd show up instantly if there were any "irregularities".

[GrumpyGran]

52 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

You know you have always wanted to meet Kobach. I'm sure he'd show up instantly if there were any "irregularities".

Ooooowww. 

[47of74]

13 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Here’s The Mugshot Of Rep. Greg Gianforte That He Really, Really Didn’t Want You To See"

  Hide contents

A Montana judge on Wednesday released the mugshot of Rep. Greg Gianforte (Mont.), the millionaire Republican who was convicted in June of assaulting a reporter and fought the court to avoid being fingerprinted and photographed.

Bozeman Chronicle reporter Whitney Bermes posted the news and the photo to Twitter: 

... < picture >

Gallatin County District Judge Holly Brown ruled Wednesday that Gianforte’s photograph could be released to seven media outlets, according to the Chronicle. Neither Gianforte nor a county attorney objected to its release, the publication previously reported. 

Gianforte, 56, was charged May 24 — the day before Montana voters elected him to the U.S. House — with misdemeanor assault for body-slamming The Guardian’s Ben Jacobs. Gianforte pleaded guilty to the charge June 12, and a judge gave him a six-month deferred sentence and ordered him to perform community service and attend anger management counseling.

Later that same month, Gianforte and his legal team filed a motion arguing the court did not have the authority to require him to appear for fingerprints and a mugshot because he was not arrested or charged with a felony. The court ultimately denied the request, and he was booked into the Gallatin County Detention Center in Bozeman, Montana, in late August. 

The Gallatin County records office did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request Wednesday for a copy of the mugshot.

HuffPost asked the congressman at the U.S. Capitol in July whether he believed other Montanans cited for misdemeanor assault also shouldn’t be fingerprinted and photographed. He walked into his office without responding.

I guess if you don't want a mugshot, you shouldn't go hitting people.

Typical.  Fuck stick thinks he's above the law.  In his mind laws are for non wealthy people.  Especially if they're women and/or minorities. 

[GreyhoundFan]

25 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

Ooooowww. 

I think Kobach would be no match for @GrumpyGran and me!

[AnywhereButHere]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I think Kobach would be no match for @GrumpyGran and me!

FJ Cage Match! My money's on you guys.

[candygirl200413]

Did we miss this? That the courts uphelded national prayer, Paul Ryan's response:

I remember learning about separation of Church and state and as a Christian even when I was like 7 learning that I was like omg yes that makes sense. This makes me puke (in addition to his comments later about PR stop needing the US for help but yet just showed his ass today there) and the no more subsidy's. I'm going to drink wine and enjoy my birthday.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s new sabotage of Obamacare actually points a gun at the heads of Republicans"

Spoiler

President Trump’s peculiar combination of malevolence, certainty in his own negotiating prowess and cluelessness about the details of policy sometimes leads him to issue fearsome-sounding threats that are rooted in a baffling misread of the distribution of leverage and incentives underlying the situation at hand.

Case in point: The big news of the morning, which is that Trump will cut off paying the “cost-sharing reductions” in his latest bid to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. Trump just tweeted that if Democrats don’t like this, they should negotiate with him to fix the law, in keeping with his previous suggestions that if he let the law fail, they would feel pressure to do this:

... < tweets from twitler >

In reality, this move actually puts more pressure on congressional Republicans than on Democrats to agree to such a “fix.”

As luck would have it, there is already a bipartisan set of negotiations — led by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the leaders of the health and education committee — that have been continuing over how to shore up the Affordable Care Act’s individual markets. According to a Democratic source familiar with the talks, there is broad agreement that Congress should appropriate the money to cover the billions of dollars in cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), which, if halted, could cause the individual markets to melt down. The sticking points are over how much flexibility the deal should give to give states in defining what counts as insurance coverage, and there’s a decent chance those sticking points will be resolved.

Indeed, Alexander has publicly confirmed that he believes Congress should appropriate the funds to cover the CSRs. He has also publicly allowed that he believes Murray has already made serious concessions towards the flexibility of ACA rules that Republicans want, though Murray still insists that the regulations requiring insurers to offer “essential health benefits” must remain. What this means is that, presuming a deal is reached, the real lingering question will be whether Republican leaders in Congress will accept such a compromise and allow a vote on it.

And the pressure on Republicans to do that will be intense. The Washington Examiner recently reported that vulnerable House Republicans worry they could have a major political problem on their hands if these payments are stopped, because it could harm large numbers of people in their districts. As it is, millions are enrolled in plans with cost-sharing reductions, which pay money to insurers to subsidize out-of-pocket costs, and if they are halted, insurers could exit the markets, further destabilizing them and leaving millions without coverage options. Tellingly, influential House Republicans such as Reps. Tom Cole (Okla.) and Greg Walden (Ore.) have called for Congress to appropriate the payments.

To be clear, the issue here is not necessarily that Trump is wrong on the merits for halting the payments. They are the subject of an ongoing battle over whether they are legal, and even some legal types who are sympathetic to the ACA think they probably aren’t. But there is no chance this is what is motivating Trump. We know this, because he previously said he believed threatening to cut off the payments — and more broadly, that letting Obamcare “fail” — would give him leverage over Democrats. It doesn’t, but this still confirms what is really driving Trump.

Regardless, right now, the issue is whether Congress will appropriate the payments to cover the CSRs. It would not be that hard to reach a bipartisan deal to do this, at which point the question will become whether GOP leaders and Trump will support it. If not, it is likely that Trump and Republicans will take the blame for any disruptions that ensue.

By the way, when Trump says Obamacare is “imploding,” which will allegedly pressure Dems, he’s lying: The exchanges were stabilizing, and many of their travails are largely attributable to his own multiple efforts to sabotage them. The public understands this: Large majorities say Trump and Republicans will own the ACA’s problems going forward and want them to make the law work.

So in what sense will Democrats feel pressure from Trump’s escalating sabotage? All the versions of repeal Trump has supported would harm more people than stopping the CSRs will. Why would Dems feel pressure to choose the former over the latter? It’s true that Dems, worried about the humanitarian toll this could have, might be more inclined to make concessions in the talks with Alexander. But all indications are that Alexander is approaching those talks in good faith and that a reasonable deal is possible.

In the end, Trump and Republicans are the ones likely to feel more pressure to support such a deal, which will put them in the tough spot of choosing between taking the blame for chaos in the individual markets and weathering the rage from the right that accepting a deal will unleash. Even if Trump doesn’t understand this, congressional Republicans surely do.

...

I hope that the Repugs are tainted because they have failed to do anything about the TT. Now, millions will be hurt, hopefully the Repugs will feel the pain, especially come November 2018.

[GreyhoundFan]

At least one grown-up with a backbone will be remaining in the senate: "Republican Collins to remain in Senate, ending speculation about bid for Maine governor"

Spoiler

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine announced Friday that she will not run for governor in 2018, renewing her commitment to serve in a sharply polarized Senate where her centrist Republican positions have made her a key bulwark against much of President Trump’s agenda.

Ending months of speculation about her political future, Collins, who does not face reelection until 2020, opted to stick with the job she has held for the last two decades, even as other moderate GOP lawmakers including Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.) and Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) are heading for the exits.

“The best way that I can contribute to these priorities is to remain a member of the United States Senate,” Collins told the business crowd, capping a speech in which she described her role as a bipartisan figure on such issues as health care and national security in Washington.

The Maine Republican made her announcement in the coastal Maine town of Rockport, at a Penobscot County Chamber of Commerce breakfast. Her decision was closely held, leaving Republican officials to speculate about her plans in recent days.

Collins read aloud a letter from a Senate colleague: “The institution would suffer in your absence. There are very few who have the ability to bring about positive change; you are such a person.” Her final decision, she said, came down to “my sense of where I can do the most for the people of Maine and for the nation.”

Collins is seen as the most middle-of-the-road Republican in the Senate, willing to buck Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) when she disagrees with them. She opposed two different efforts to dismantle and replace the Affordable Care Act earlier this year, citing the negative impact she believed the plans would have had on vulnerable Americans, particularly in Maine.

In a Senate where Republicans hold a slim 52-48 majority and Democrats are broadly united against much of Trump’s agenda, Collins’s vote can be pivotal. During the initial health-care push, she was one of three Republicans whose “no” votes ended the effort.

Her announcement Friday served as a reaffirmation of her desire to continue in that instrumental role, at a time when a growing number of Republicans worry about stopping Trump from making controversial decisions with far-reaching consequences.

Republicans are trying for a sweeping rewrite of the nation’s tax laws, and many of them hope the overhaul effort will wash away some of the deep anger in the party after the health-care failure. Collins is not viewed as a certain supporter of the tax endeavor.

Collins has come under criticism from Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) over her position on health care. Such hostility could have complicated her run for governor.

 

[47of74]

On 10/12/2017 at 2:07 PM, AnywhereButHere said:

FJ Cage Match! My money's on you guys.

Instead of Clegane Bowl we'll have FJ Bowl! 

My Congressional Douche Nozzle was the only Iowan who voted against aid for Puerto Rico;

Quote

The House approved an $36.5 billion aid package for hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico and to fight wildfires out west, with Rep. Rod Blum as the lone Iowan voting against it.

Rep. Rod Blum was the only Iowan among the 69 votes against the relief package. He said his no vote centered on the $16 billion included for the Federal Flood Insurance Program to pay off debt. The program is already $24.6 billion in debt before any claims from Hurricane Harvey or Irma. Congress is debating how to fix the program with a December deadline to keep it afloat.

"I disagree with the administration’s request to treat a $16 billion bailout of tax-payer money for the failing federal flood insurance program as an emergency, it is irresponsible for long-term planning of emergency relief services. It's Washington politics as usual - putting bad government policy in must pass bills," Rep. Blum said in a statement to KCRG-TV9.

Blum did vote in favor of HR 601 last month, which provided billions in emergency funding for victims of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. All Iowa representatives supported that bill, while Sen. Charles Grassley and Sen. Joni Ernst voted against it. 

Cut the bullshit, you asshole.  It's all about race.  

Our local news paper is so in love with him to the point that they get mad when people don't genuflect in front of Blum. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Rep. Chris Collins’s advocacy for biotech company broke rules, House ethics watchdog finds"

Spoiler

A House ethics watchdog has found “substantial reason to believe” that Rep. Chris Collins violated federal law and congressional rules by meeting with government researchers in his official capacity to benefit a biotech company he is invested in, and sharing private information to drum up investments in that company.

The New York Republican was an early backer of Innate Immunotherapeutics, an Australian firm that was developing a new therapy for multiple sclerosis, and recruited investors that included family, his congressional staff and House colleagues — including Tom Price, who later served as Health and Human Services secretary.

A high-stakes trial of Innate’s drug failed earlier this year, and its chief executive said in August that the firm is likely to shutter. But the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) started probing in March whether Collins overstepped bounds in his advocacy for the firm and corroborated some allegations in July.

The report’s findings could leave Collins, an early supporter of President Trump’s presidential campaign, vulnerable to ethics sanctions or even potential criminal prosecution based on allegations of insider trading.

The report was published Thursday by the House Ethics Committee pursuant to House rules requiring its public release. The panel is reviewing whether Collins has violated the chamber’s rules of conduct but has yet to make any determination and declined to make any comment Thursday.

Collins’s attorneys have denied the allegations of wrongdoing in the report. “Rep. Collins has done nothing improper, and his cooperation and candor during the OCE review process confirm he has nothing to hide,” they wrote in an Aug. 14 letter released Thursday by the Ethics Committee. “There is nothing in the record to suggest, let alone support, the conclusion that Rep. Collins violated House rules, standards of conduct, or federal law.”

Collins himself dismissed the findings to reporters Thursday, calling the investigation a “witch hunt” prompted by a Democratic lawmaker’s complaint. He noted that the central allegation from Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.) — that he supported a bill, the 21st Century Cures Act, that could have benefited Innate Immuno — was not supported by investigators.

Slaughter said Thursday that the report showed Collins “put his obsession to enrich himself before the people he swore to represent. It is a disgrace to Congress and to his constituents, who deserve better.”

Said Collins, “She’s a despicable human being . . . You don’t go after another member with fabricated allegations like she did.”

Collins’s ties to Innate Immuno have been under public scrutiny since January, when Price was found to have purchased a significant stake in the company amid his nomination as HHS secretary. Collins remains the largest shareholder in Innate Immuno, according to a listing on the firm’s website.

Price did not cooperate with the OCE probe, according to the report.

The OCE did not corroborate an allegation that drove much of the media coverage of Collins’s ties to Innate Immuno — that he acted improperly in recruiting friends and colleagues, including Price, to participate in a special discounted “private placement” stock sale.

But it did find other new instances of potential wrongdoing — notably, a Nov. 18, 2013, visit to the National Institutes of Health, where Collins and a House staffer visited with a key researcher into multiple sclerosis. In that meeting, Collins is alleged to have asked with help in designing Innate Immuno’s drug trial.

The meeting came after Collins, in a July 2013 hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology mentioned Innate Immuno’s drug to a top NIH official without disclosing his stake in the company. The official then invited Collins for a visit.

In interviews with OCE, Collins “stated that he went to NIH as a private citizen and that his visit had no relation to any official duties” but also described it as akin to a “high school field trip,” the report said. Asked why he brought a legislative staffer along to the meeting, he responded, “I don’t go anywhere alone.”

An unnamed NIH employee told investigators that Collins represented himself as being connected with Innate Immuno and said the firm was in need of “some help with the design of the next Phase 2 trial and he asked me whether I would be willing to help them and I said yes.” He did not, the employee said, discuss any constituents affected or any legislation involving multiple sclerosis.

The report also found that Collins on several occasions gave potential investors details on Innate’s drug trials that were not available in the company’s public filings. That, investigators found, could implicate federal insider-trading laws and the Stock Act — a 2012 law that makes clear members of Congress are covered by those existing laws.

“Given Innate’s intention to partner with, or become acquired by a large pharmaceutical company, updates on patient enrollment, the eventual completion of enrollment, and specific communications with pharmaceutical companies were likely important facts for investors making a decision about whether to purchase or sell Innate stock,” the report said.

Collins said Thursday that the NIH meeting was cleared in advance by the House Ethics Committee: “They said, ‘As long as there’s no nonpublic information discussed’ — and there certainly wasn’t — ‘sure, you can go on a tour anywhere you want.’ ” There is no mention of any official clearance for the meeting in the OCE report.

The discussion of Innate Immuno’s trial, he added, “was an afterthought at the end of a tour. I clearly understand the optics, but there was nothing done that was wrong.”

"I don't go anywhere alone." Um, Rep Collins, does that include the restroom? What an idiot.

[GreyhoundFan]

"5 reasons the GOP won’t dump Trump"

Spoiler

Last Sunday, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) declared President Trump to be childish and dangerous. And not only that: He said almost all of his colleagues agreed. “Look, except for a few people, the vast majority of our caucus understands what we’re dealing with here,” Corker told the New York Times after he labeled the White House an “adult day-care center” and said that Trump could set off World War III.

Six days later, precisely zero Republican senators have added their names to Corker’s criticisms. Why?

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson has a theory: Cowardice. “More than anything else at this moment,” he writes, “the nation has need of Republican vertebrates.”

But politicians aren’t just reflexive cowards; they are often calculated ones. And there are plenty of reasons we haven’t seen a mass exodus of GOP lawmakers from Trump — if lots of them do indeed agree with Corker.

Here are five non-mutually exclusive possibilities:

1. They still hope — against hope — that Trump will change

The media isn’t the only group that seems to be constantly waiting in vain for Trump to change. Surely he has to get that this isn’t working, they think. Maybe this speech suggests he’s toning it down, they think. John Kelly will restore some order, they think.

When you don’t understand something, it’s easy to think it will eventually correct its course into something more familiar — more tried and true. And just like some journalists seem to be half expecting Trump will eventually get it, Republican members of Congress probably half expect he will as well. In fact, they’re probably more likely to believe he will, because they really want him to.

Speaking out against Trump en masse is the point of no return — the moment they give up on everything and invite open warfare with a president from their own party. And you don't go to war until you’re sure diplomacy can’t work.

2. It’s an unnecessary risk, from a self-preservation standpoint

If there’s one thing politics selects for, it’s the self-preservation gene. The ditches along the road to power are littered with the corpses of the idealistic and the uncompromising. These members — especially those in the Senate — didn’t get here by introducing unnecessary risks into their careers.

And from strictly a self-preservation standpoint, speaking out against Trump is an unnecessary risk. It’s no surprise that the most vocal senator to speak out against him happens to be the only senator who has announced he is retiring in 2018. Most GOP senators, by contrast, will have to seek reelection in clearly red states — 20 states went for Trump by double-digits — where the general election is a cinch. That means their only obstacle to reelection is inviting a primary challenger or irritating the groups that might fund that primary challenger.

Even if speaking out against Trump is safe — and there’s evidence that it’s not, which we’ll get to — why even stir the pot? You’ve got lots of important things to do, after all, and you can only do them if you’re still a U.S. senator!

3. Some have paid the price for it

There is plenty of evidence that those who pit themselves against Trump suffer for it — especially in their standing with the GOP base.

Sen. Ted Cruz's numbers plummeted nationally and in Texas after he tangled with Trump at the 2016 Republican National Convention, and he’s been remarkably quiet about that “sniveling coward” Trump ever since. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) numbers are down in the gutter since Trump attacked him for failing to pass health-care reform. Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) both look much more vulnerable and have drawn primary challengers after not going along with Trump. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is now less popular with Republicans than he is with Democrats.

We have limited polling on all senators, but the polling we do have all points in the same direction: that it’s not just an unnecessary risk but a real hazard to reelection.

4. They don’t trust themselves

Trump was supposed to blow over. He was never supposed to run. Then he wasn’t supposed to win the primary. Then he wasn’t supposed to win the presidency.

The president has overcome the smart-people doubters at every turn. And it has to have congressional Republicans worried about underestimating him again. What if they simply don’t understand his appeal and his political instincts? What if Trump is playing the long game, and somehow they aren’t sophisticated enough to understand it?

They may not believe that, but you have to believe that there’s at least 10 percent of their mind that isn’t certain. And that’s enough to stymie any action. Trump has a way of taking what you see with your very own eyes and making you question whether it’s real.

5. It could destroy the GOP 

Feuding with Trump isn’t just throwing in the towel on the GOP agenda for the remainder of his presidency and possibly on your reelection hopes; it would also threaten to tear the party in half, setting off an existential crisis in which the GOP base is pitted against the establishment. These tensions have been around for the better part of a decade, ever since the tea party came along, and a full-scale war could mortally wound the GOP at a time when it’s actually about as powerful as ever.

Even if Trump is a nuisance whom Republicans simply can’t stand and they’d love to speak out against him, is it worth tearing the party apart to do so? If you’re a Democrat, you look at that last sentence and look at what Corker said, and you are apoplectic. Of course it's worth it. But if you’re not so certain that Trump is that existential threat, if you’re ideologically aligned with him and you think that this whole thing might eventually blow over, you may come to a different conclusion.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that it will — or that your position isn’t cowardly. At their root, all of these things place party or self ahead of the country. But they do explain why cowardice may be winning the day.

Yeah, that last paragraph is right -- they are placing party or self ahead of the country.

[GreyhoundFan]

Apparently Murphy isn't just a weaselly hypocrite, but a crappy boss as well: "Capitol Hell: Inside Rep. Tim Murphy’s Toxic Congressional Office"

Spoiler

WASHINGTON ― Constant tension. Occasional screaming. Unreasonable hours. Impossible expectations. Hardly any way out.

Current and former members of Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Murphy’s staff described a congressional office with a toxic atmosphere, one where Murphy and longtime chief of staff Susan Mosychuk terrorized underlings and devised ways to prevent them from leaving.

Murphy has resigned from Congress ― effective Oct. 21 ― ostensibly for asking his mistress, Shannon Edwards, to get an abortion. Murphy, ever the good Republican, says he’s anti-abortion.

But, as Politico reported last week, part of the reason the eight-term representative is abruptly leaving office is over how badly he treated his staff. If that’s the case, some former employees suggested Mosychuk should leave, too.

“I don’t think she’ll be allowed to stay,” one former Murphy staffer told HuffPost, “but I think the greatest tragedy of this whole situation is he’s taking the brunt of the blame for this.”

“He’s not the first member to cheat on his wife,” this former aide continued, “but Susan was the one who created this situation.”

Accounts differed on how bad Murphy’s office was for staff. The current legislative director, Christopher Schell ― whose mistreatment at the hands of Murphy was detailed by Mosychuk in a June memo ― suggested that recent news reports of the abuse didn’t reflect his experience. But the consensus from former aides who talked to HuffPost on the condition of anonymity was that their time working for Murphy was so bad it left them mentally scarred.

“I can’t emphasize enough how scary it was to be in that office, because that office is the most terrifying place,” another ex-staffer said.

The Politico story detailing some of the abuse Mosychuk dished out to staff said she would call aides “worthless,” their work “garbage.” Murphy could also lose his temper. “The Congressman would dress you down if you didn’t spell out an acronym,” one former staffer told HuffPost.

But the abuse from Mosychuk and Murphy was also more subtle than the occasional outburst or demeaning comment. The office found ways to mistreat staff within the House rules ― long hours (even during recess), expectations that employees almost always be at their desks, directives that aides not check personal email or use messaging apps like Gchat.

Murphy also required extraordinary preparation for even the most routine meetings. “He couldn’t open a door without a memo,” one former staffer said, adding that it wasn’t uncommon to get multiple emails on a Sunday, within minutes of each other, with multiple “Urgent” messages in a subject line when the email wasn’t urgent at all. The former aide showed HuffPost screenshots of this behavior.

Perhaps the worst example of the office perverting House rules ― while still operating within the letter of the law ― was how Murphy and Mosychuk used the student loan repayment program to strong-arm employees into staying in a poisonous work environment.

The program, meant to benefit House staffers, repays up to $833 a month to federal student loan providers for employees who agree to stay in their jobs for at least a year. If they quit early, an office can demand repayment.

The operate word there is “can.” In practice, offices very rarely ask employees who don’t finish a full year to pay back the money. “The member has the option to waive this repayment at his/her discretion,” a House overview of the program states. But in Murphy’s office, it was well known that anyone who left before a full 12 months would have to reimburse the House.

Mosychuk actively encouraged staff to sign up for the program, aides said, and employees would either have to stay for a year, or find a way to pay back the money.

Plenty of staff chose the latter.

Turnover in Murphy’s office was unusually high. In the memo that Mosychuk wrote to Murphy in June, she says staff turnover was nearly 100 percent in one year, and that the office had lost more than 100 employees since she started in 2003.

Mosychuk herself paints Murphy as volatile and impossible to please in that memo. She describes the episode involving Murphy’s new legislative director, or LD, in a way that suggests the Congressman, who claims to be a practicing psychologist, acted like a child.

You were storming around as we walked in, as we sat down for prep — having just arrived literally moments ago — you started in on the LD and verbally abused him, harassed him, chastised him and criticized all his work products. You called many of the work products that he literally gave up his weekend to produce as ‘useless.’ You pushed other documents off the table onto the floor because they weren’t what you wanted. Then you got angry and demanded we find the documents that you had just thrown on the ground. All the staff were scared of you. 

Mosychuk also says the memo’s purpose was to “formally” inform Murphy of the office’s “vulnerability to yet more legal action as a result of your behavior.” But two former staff members said they thought it was a “CYA” memo (“cover your ass,” if we’re spelling out acronyms).

Staffers said they were aware of rumors of a sexual relationship between Murphy and Mosychuk. According to former employees, one ex-aide once saw Mosychuk sitting on Murphy’s lap. Murphy’s former district director, Nick Rodondo, told a local radio station that he saw Mosychuk and Murphy feed each other. And, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Murphy wrote an email to his mistress admitting he “fell into” a relationship with a woman named “Susan.”

“I did not see its toxicity until I was months into it,” Murphy wrote to Edwards, the woman with whom he had an affair.

Mosychuk also claims in her memo that Murphy had “blocked me on your cellphone,” and said the Congressman had “inaccurately stated that I am blackmailing you.”

One current staffer said that may refer to potentially reporting Murphy’s volatile behavior. But former aides, who still stay in touch on group text message threads, have conjectured that the “blackmail” referred to Murphy’s relationship with Mosychuk.

One former employee said Murphy allowed Mosychuck’s abuse of staff “because he was either in love with her, or she was blackmailing him, and we all thought it was ‘B.’”

While no one on staff dared broach the matter with their bosses, that was a courtesy of privacy that employees themselves did not enjoy. Computer screens were positioned so that Mosychuk could make sure staffers were working at all times. She read their emails. She even wanted to know when they were going to the bathroom.

“Quite literally she told us to ask permission to go to the restroom and justified it by accusing us of not being competent enough to leave during times that weren’t busy,” one ex-staffer said. “Constant comments like that made us feel stupid and guilty.”

If Mosychuk did find you away from your desk, she would email you with some “trumped up emergency,” according to this former employee, and would make you return to the office as soon as possible, where she would berate you for “neglecting” your job duties.

“It was like a prison,” the staffer said.

There does seem to be some dispute over how bad the office is now. With such a high turnover, there are different generations of Murphy staffers ― and some generations seem worse than others.

In an earlier era, employees were expected to be at the office around 8:30 a.m. ― even when the House was in recess ― and they rarely left before 7 p.m. Current staff now sometimes leave by 6 p.m. when lawmakers are out of town.

“It’s not unusual for us to close at 5:30 on a Friday,” one current staffer said, braggingly.

Ex-staff also remember Mosychuk being stricter about staying at their desks. Two former employees said it used to be so bad that aides would try to distract Mosychuk so that workers could meet with other chiefs of staff for a quick job interview over coffee. Now the rules seem to have loosened, even if, as one aide put it, there’s still “a general sentiment that you should be at your desk as much as possible.”

The current feeling is employees should probably bring lunch back to their desks, but if someone ate a sandwich in the cafeteria, this aide said, “no one’s going to get pilloried for that.”

One aspect common among all generations of Murphy staffers was the feeling they had no one to turn to. Technically, there is an Office of Compliance, where House staffers can report mistreatment. But the sense among aides was that, if they reported an issue, it would immediately get back to Murphy and Mosychuk.

“Everybody is terrified to report something,” one former aide said, “because whether you’re on the Hill or off the Hill, there’s a consequence.”

“I had heard from former staffers that the only way to stop this was to go after [Murphy],” the aide continued, “which I didn’t want to do.”

Staffers were mostly just trying to find jobs elsewhere, they said, and they knew if it got back to Murphy and Mosychuk that they had reported an incident, their bosses could effectively “blackball” them with other congressional offices. (The office employee handbook makes clear that email can be screened: “Employees should not harbor any expectation of privacy in documents created on the equipment provided to them by the Office, including email.”)

“The only HR in Congress are the bills,” another former aide said. “There was nowhere to go. Talking to Ethics or [the Office of] Compliance would involve Susan. She had the ability to keep her job security, you did not.”

Some Murphy staffers said that Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who was close to Murphy, had to have known Murphy mistreated his staff. “There is no way he didn’t,” one staffer said.

Ryan’s office, however, said otherwise. 

“The speaker was not aware of this,” AshLee Strong, Ryan’s press secretary, told HuffPost.

Still, it’s fair to ask why Ryan didn’t know.

How is it that an office with such high staff turnover did not raise flags for congressional leadership? Why is it that staff seemed to be so scared of reporting issues to the Office of Compliance? And what will congressional leaders do now about Mosychuk’s continued presence in the office, even after Murphy’s resignation and the news reports about her mistreatment of staff?

A request for comment from Murphy went unreturned. And when HuffPost confronted Mosychuk earlier this week in the Murphy office, she had nothing to say.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Why this investigation into Congress’s ties to the drug industry has Washington’s attention"

Spoiler

Two popular villains in politics are the subject of a new Washington Post investigation: Congress and the pharmaceutical industry. And the investigation has grabbed Washington's attention.

The deeply reported story by Scott Higham and Lenny Bernstein, in partnership with “60 Minutes,” latches Congress and drug companies so closely together on a piece of opioid legislation that it raises some big questions, including: How much industry involvement in crafting legislation is too much? And is Congress doing enough to address the nation's prescription drug epidemic, or, have lawmakers, at the behest of drug companies making billions off addictive pain killers, potentially made it worse?

Higham and Bernstein report that in April 2016, at the height of the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history, Congress stripped the Drug Enforcement Administration of its most potent weapon to keep prescription narcotics from going straight from major drug companies to the nation's streets.

On Monday, moderate Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin III (W. Va.) called on President Trump to withdraw the nomination of Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) to be his drug czar. Manchin said he was “horrified” by the ties between the drug industry and Marino that were outlined in the investigation.  And Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said Monday she'd be introducing legislation to repeal the law.

Also Monday, Trump characterized drug companies as “getting away with murder.” Though he was talking specifically about prescription drug prices, Trump's eyebrow-raising comments suggests he'd be open to rolling back the industry's power in Washington. Democrats like Manchin say the first step is to withdraw his nomination of the lawmaker at the center of the investigation.

The law Marino authored took away the DEA's ability to freeze suspicious shipments from drug companies, shipments the agency was concerned were on their way to the wrong hands. This law was supported by some of the nation's major drug distributors, opposed by the DEA and, according to this investigation, was pushed through Congress and the federal government after its opponents were neutralized or had joined the other side.

“The drug industry, the manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and chain drugstores have an influence over Congress that has never been before,” former DEA investigative agent Joseph T. Rannazzisi says in the story. He was forced out of the agency in 2015.

In connecting the dots between Congress, the drug industry and this new legislation, the reporting in this story also illustrates what people despise about Washington. Here are a few examples:

A revolving door between the drug industry and those who regulate and legislate it: This stat from the investigation is eyebrow-raising: Since the DEA started to crack down on the opioid industry a decade ago, drug companies and their law firms have hired dozens of DEA officials, most of them from the division that regulates the drug industry.

“Some of the best and brightest former DEA attorneys are now on the other side and know all of the weak points,” said Jonathan P. Novak, a DEA lawyer. “Their fingerprints are on memos and policy and emails.”

A clear money trail between the drug industry and the lawmakers who go to the mat for them: The investigation finds that the drug industry contributed at least $1.5 million to two dozen lawmakers who supported versions of this legislation, including more than $100,000 each to three key players, Marino, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah.)

Marino and the bill's supporters argue that this law cracks down on an overly aggressive DEA and protects drug companies from any unfair or misguided use of federal power.

Alleged abuse of power: There's a lot of it in this story. In the heat of a related battle over the DEA's case against a major drug company, Rannazzisi, the aggressive DEA investigator, says he believes the then-deputy attorney general told him to back off (an accusation the official denies).

Later, Rannazzisi's opponents in Congress asked for, and received, a government watchdog investigation into Rannazzisi's rhetoric about them, accusing him of trying to “intimidate” Congress. Rannazzisi denies their accusations and says the investigation is why he retired after 30 years.

Congress glossing over controversial legislation: As you can tell by now, this legislation stirred up strong feelings among drug-policy officials, in part because it directly affects a crisis that left a death toll three times greater than the total U.S. military deaths in the Vietnam War.

But the broader Congress never got to debate this law. The final version of the bill eventually passed both chambers using a procedural tool that requires no debate on the floor. As a result, the bill technically passed without any opposition.

Scandal: In the middle of all this, one of the DEA's heads resigned after news reports that some of her agents attended sex parties in Colombia funded by cocaine cartels. This isn't directly related to the story, but it adds to the appearance of problems at the agency.

Antagonizing the media: As The Post and the “60 Minutes” team were trying to report this, they went to Capitol Hill to try to talk to Marino, the bill's author. Marino's staff called Capitol Police as the reporters tried to interview him at his office. This is remarkable, given that reporters routinely swarm lawmakers in Congress.

The Post is suing the Justice Department in federal court for access to records that it says could shed additional light on this entire saga. Some of those requests have been pending for nearly 18 months.

The entire piece is worth a read.

The article linked in the spoiler is lengthy, but worth a read. It's infuriating.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Two swing-state Democrats offer middle ground on health care"

Spoiler

A pair of swing-state Democrats are offering new legislation that would create Medicare-style options for non-elderly workers, with a heavy focus on rural areas that have few insurers offering coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

The proposal, from Sens. Michael F. Bennet (Colo.) and Tim Kaine (Va.), is politically significant because it tries to build on the existing law rather than the tear-it-all-down proposal of a national health-care system that is being offered by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Often called “single payer,” the Sanders proposal has gained steam among liberal activists who felt that last year’s failed presidential campaign by Hillary Clinton lacked a big progressive idea to galvanize the Democratic base. The single-payer plan, sometimes called “Medicare for All,” has already been embraced by many of the potential Democratic contenders for president in 2020, including prominent Senate Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Cory Booker (N.J.) and Kamala D. Harris (Calif.).

However, overall, it has drawn only a third of the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus as co-sponsors, and even some supporters say the single-payer proposal is more of an “aspirational” goal. No one is certain how to finance an idea that would use Medicare as the basis for all health plans. Many Democrats worry that it would require huge tax increases that would kill the plan politically.

This shows the Democratic gap between those looking at the mood of national activists who will play a key role in selecting the party’s 2020 presidential nominee and those running in competitive congressional races next year that will determine the majorities in the House and Senate.

That’s where Bennet and Kaine come in, with what they call “Medicare-X,” legislation they are formally unveiling this week. It would allow anyone to buy into a publicly provided plan using the network of Medicare providers and physicians, at similar rates, with lower-income workers receiving tax credits for the plan. In its first years of operation, this new Medicare option would be available only in counties that have one or no providers offering insurance on the ACA’s private exchanges.

It would eventually phase in to all counties and would effectively serve as what Democrats called the “public option” in 2009 and 2010, when they debated and passed the health law under President Barack Obama. The public option, passed in the original draft by the House, could not clear a filibuster in the Senate and was dropped from the final bill. That came even though Democrats had 60 members in their caucus, enough to clear a filibuster, because several opposed a public option.

Bennet and Kaine are offering a proposal that they believe is both realistic and politically viable. The original targets for Medicare-X would be in rural areas that have been hardest hit by insurance providers fleeing ACA exchanges.

This would create, Bennet said in a statement given to The Washington Post, “a plan that begins to fix this problem by giving families and individuals a meaningful and affordable alternative.”

“Consumers can compare it with available private options and make the choice best for their health,” Kaine said.

Other Democrats have been trying to advance their own plans. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) is proposing a bill that would allow people from ages 55 to 64 to buy into the actual Medicare program, while Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), sometimes mentioned as a 2020 contender, is preparing a buy-in proposal to Medicare that would be available to most of the public but would still compete with private insurers.

The public-insurance backup plan has gained currency in recent months as more insurers have withdrawn from the ACA’s marketplaces and left nearly half the nation’s counties with only one insurer in their marketplace for 2018.

These rural areas were the spots that broke most sharply against Clinton in the 2016 election, delivering larger shares of their votes to President Trump than to recent GOP nominees such as Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

That could make this proposal a more palatable offering for the 10 Democrats up for reelection in states that Trump won last year, as well as many others in competitive states.

Bennet and Kaine are both examples of the latter. Obama and Clinton won Colorado and Virginia in the past three presidential contests, but by small margins. Both have won close, highly contested Senate races, and both have experience in national politics as well — Bennet chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2014, while Kaine was his party’s vice-presidential nominee last year.

Still, this proposal shows that Democrats have moved to the left ideologically on health care. Eight years ago, the public option failed because moderate Democrats backed away from it; now a similar proposal is being offered as the safe ground for those facing a tough reelection.

For many liberals, this proposal will not be sufficient, craving the universal promise that Sanders is offering. “Right now, if we want to move away from a dysfunctional, wasteful, bureaucratic system into a rational health-care system that guarantees coverage to everyone in a cost-effective way, the only way to do it is Medicare for All,” the 2016 runner-up to Clinton for the nomination told The Post last month.

Democratic leaders have tread carefully on the single-payer proposal, voicing support for its goal of universal coverage but also suggesting that the short-term objective is playing defense to protect the ACA from Republican efforts to repeal the law and to undermine the already shaky insurance exchanges.

“None of these things, whether it’s Bernie’s or others, can really prevail unless we protect the Affordable Care Act,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters last month.

Bennet and Kaine are members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and are supporting the ranking Democrat, Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), in her negotiations with the chairman, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), to forge a bipartisan deal to shore up the ACA. That might entail some changes to the ACA while also establishing better financial footing for private insurers to offer ACA plans in those underserved areas.

They do not expect Medicare-X to become the law of the land immediately, but Bennet and Kaine believe that this proposal could be the next step — once Democrats can win back some power in Washington — toward getting more people health coverage.

By maintaining the existing structure, rather than tearing it down, they believe that it could eventually become a potential bipartisan agreement that attracts Republican support to forge a law that is not under constant assault like the ACA.

“I want Virginians — and all Americans — to have more health-care choices,” Kaine said.

"...realistic and politically viable..." yeah, that won't fly in the Repug-led congress.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Former GOP Rep. David Jolly: ‘We Might Be Better Off’ If Democrats Win The House"

Spoiler

A former Republican lawmaker says the nation might be better off if Democrats win back the House of Representatives in next year’s midterm election to help keep President Donald Trump in check. 

David Jolly, who represented a Florida district, called Trump “unstable” and “risky when it comes to matters of national security” in an interview with MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Monday night. 

He said:  

“I personally as a Republican in the past few weeks have wondered, is the republic safer if Democrats take over the House in 2018. I raised that issue with the leading Republican in D.C. last week, and the remarkable thing is he had been thinking exactly the same thing. This is a president that needs a greater check on his power than Republicans in Congress have offered.” 

Jolly suggested it could be a matter of national security. 

“We do know that we have a president who very well might put this nation at risk and this Republican Congress has done nothing to check his power,” he added. “Democrats could, and we might be better off as a republic if they take the House in 2018.”

Jolly, who won a House seat in a 2014 special election and then won re-election later that year, has been a frequent Trump critic who in August called him “an ill-tempered, unqualified and at times dangerous leader of the free world.”

A one-time critic of the Affordable Care Act, Jolly changed his mind after he lost his House seat last year and became unemployed.

“I lost my doctor, and I lost my plan in 2013, and I was angry about Obamacare, and I ran for Congress,” Jolly said over the summer. “But in 2017, as an unemployed person with a preexisting condition, I knew Obamacare was there as a safety net if my wife and I needed it.” 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"McCain condemns ‘half-baked, spurious nationalism’ in clear shot at President Trump"

Spoiler

PHILADELPHIA — An emotional Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) launched a thinly veiled critique of President Trump’s global stewardship Monday night, using a notable award ceremony to condemn “people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems.”

McCain said that “some half-baked, spurious nationalism” should be considered “as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”

The 2008 Republican presidential nominee spoke with Independence Hall in his line of sight, having just been awarded the Liberty Medal by the National Constitution Center, a nonpartisan institution built across the street from the spot where the Founding Fathers debated the nation’s future.

The award was presented by Joe Biden, the former vice president who served 22 years in the Senate with McCain. Biden is now chairman of the Constitution Center.

In his remarks, Biden paid tribute to McCain’s commitment as a captured Navy pilot refusing early release from his Vietnamese captors, to his bipartisan work in the Senate. Biden ended on a deeply personal note discussing his late son Beau’s admiration for McCain when Beau Biden went to Iraq on a tour of duty with the Army as a judge advocate general in 2008.

Beau Biden died of glioblastoma in 2015, the same form of brain cancer that McCain was diagnosed with in July.

McCain grew emotional at times during his remarks, recounting the 1991 speech of President George H.W. Bush on the 55h anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attacks. Bush is one of 29 recipients of the Liberty Medal. Last year the center honored Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.).

When it came to the portion of his speech about America’s place in the world, McCain gathered himself and delivered a blunt denunciation of the nationalist forces around the world, but most particularly of those at home:

To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain “the last best hope of Earth” for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.

We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil.  We are the custodians of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad. We have done great good in the world. That leadership has had its costs, but we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we did. We have a moral obligation to continue in our just cause, and we would bring more than shame on ourselves if we don’t. We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn’t deserve to.

Predictably, the TT has responded, on Faux radio, warning McCain that he hits back.

[GreyhoundFan]

"The GOP’s bump-stock cop-out"

Spoiler

Congressional Republicans are backing away from legislation banning “bump stocks” — devices used by Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock that effectively turn semiautomatic rifles into machine guns — and are turning to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to ban them by executive action instead. “We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix, and then, frankly, we’d like to know how it happened in the first place,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a news conference last week.

Ryan is wrong. Empowering ATF to ban firearms devices without explicit authorization from Congress is a far greater threat to the Second Amendment than any legislation Congress could pass.

In 2010, under President Barack Obama, ATF ruled that “bump-fire” stocks were legal under current federal law, declaring in a letter to manufacturer Slide Fire: “We find that the ‘bump-stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.” This was a proper, limited reading of our gun laws.

Now Republicans want ATF to simply overturn its 2010 determination that bump stocks are legal — effectively banning them by executive fiat. Do conservatives really want to set the precedent that ATF can ban firearms or firearm devices without explicit authorization from Congress? Imagine what Hillary Clinton would have done with that power as president.

If ATF takes such action, it could set a precedent for other executive action on guns without explicit congressional authorization. A future Democratic president could use this precedent to have ATF reclassify all semiautomatic weapons as machine guns. They would argue, correctly, that you don’t actually need a bump-fire stock to produce a bump-fire effect. It can be accomplished with rubber bands or a belt loop, or even without any external device by a skilled marksman. So, gun-control advocates could argue, all semiautomatic weapons are really in fact automatic guns — and thus banned under the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. They could use an ATF ruling banning bump stocks as precedent for a back-door re-imposition of the so-called assault weapons ban.

For the party that railed against Obama’s unlawful executive actions on immigration and other issues to now urge President Trump to take unlawful executive actions on guns that even Obama refused to take is stunning. Conservatives should not be setting a precedent for unilateral executive restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Moreover, Republicans are supposed to be working to roll back the regulatory state. Congress should be insisting that regulators act strictly within the laws Congress passes, not urging them to adopt expansive interpretations of laws that Congress never intended.

The better option is to pass limited, carefully crafted legislation to ban these devices. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and 38 Senate Democrats have introduced the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act that would “ban the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle’s rate of fire.” According to Feinstein, the bill “makes clear that its intent is to target only those accessories that increase a semi-automatic rifle’s rate of fire.”

Why are Republicans so reluctant to pass such legislation? Some were understandably spooked when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared that she hoped Feinstein’s bump-stock legislation would become a “slippery slope” to more expansive gun-control measures. But Republicans need to understand that the real slippery slope on guns lies in empowering ATF to unilaterally impose gun control by executive fiat, not from passing carefully crafted legislation. Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House. It is completely in their power to ensure that the Feinstein bill is properly limited in scope. They can even introduce bump-stock legislation of their own.

The other reason congressional Republicans are reluctant to pass legislation is that they are trying to avoid accountability. They fear being on record supporting any new “gun control” legislation. But a bump-stock ban is not a new gun-control measure; it simply closes a loophole in existing legislation. Bump stocks are designed to circumvent a ban on automatic weapons that Republicans and the National Rifle Association already are on record supporting and that was signed by President Ronald Reagan. Closing this loophole does not newly restrict gun rights; it simply comports with the intent of existing firearms laws.

Congress pulls these kinds of tricks all the time. Lawmakers find a way to increase the national debt limit while claiming they oppose it. Instead of killing Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, they vote on a meaningless “resolution of disapproval” — which allows congressional critics to claim they voted against the agreement knowing full well Obama would veto it and the deal would go into effect. These gimmicks are cowardly and an insult to the American people.

Now, rather than doing their jobs, congressional Republicans are hiding behind ATF — protecting their political reputations while putting the Second Amendment at greater risk. They should show more respect for the voters, the Constitution and the victims who died in Las Vegas. This is a chance for bipartisan action. Republicans should take it.

Obviously the author is more pro-gun than I am. But he is correct that the Repugs are being their typical hypocritical selves.

[GreyhoundFan]

NOOOOOOOOOOO: "Filing shows Pence's brother readying House campaign"

Spoiler

A new federal tax filing indicates that Vice President Mike Pence's brother, Greg, is preparing to launch a campaign for Congress in Indiana.

An operative with ties to Vice President Pence and Rep. Luke Messer, who is leaving his House seat to run for Senate, filed paperwork with the IRS this week to form "Greg Pence for Congress Inc." “for purposes of conducting a campaign in 2018 for the election of Greg Pence as United State Representative in Indiana.”

Greg Pence has been weighing a run for Congress in Messer's 6th District for months. Pence, a businessman, has appeared at his brother's side as he ran for office but would be new to political office himself. Greg Pence has already been deeply involved in Indiana politics this year through his work for Messer. He is serving as the chairman of Messer's Senate finance committee and starred in a video announcing Messer’s Senate bid.

Vice President Pence held the district before running for governor in 2012. The Pence family’s history in the 6th District, combined with Greg Pence’s ties to a national political and fundraising network through his brother, would make Pence a formidable candidate, Indiana operatives say.

Indiana operative Craig Kunkle, who has ties to both Mike Pence and Messer, is listed as the contact and custodian of records for the new committee. Kunkle is part of MO Strategies, a firm started by longtime Mike Pence aide Marty Obst. Kunkle is also a former campaign treasurer for Messer.

A Pence consultant did not respond to a request for comment.

Though he would be the biggest name in the race, other Republicans have already launched bids for the 6th District while Pence was considering his options, including state Sen. Mike Crider.

We don't need another Pence in office.