United States Congress

[clueliss]

Fear of getting shot?  Like the two men from India and one white guy that got shot by the racist in suburban KC?  One dead, two wounded?  Because the racist thought the two engineers from India were from the middle east?  

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, Cartmann99 said:

 

It's interesting how the "We love our guns!!1111!!" crowd is using the fear of getting shot as an excuse to not meet with their constituents. 

I thought that as well. The ironic thing is, the "We Love Our Guns Crowd" supporters will also be carrying. Isn't their idea to carry in case they can stop a shooting?

[GreyhoundFan]

45 minutes ago, clueliss said:

Fear of getting shot?  Like the two men from India and one white guy that got shot by the racist in suburban KC?  One dead, two wounded?  Because the racist thought the two engineers from India were from the middle east?  

I was reading about that. It was horrid. Apparently Jethro hollered "get out of my country" before shooting. And the authorities didn't know whether to classify it as a hate crime. Um, kinda sounds like one to me.

 

Another article I was reading referenced this one. Since I hate Paul Ryan with the fire of a thousand suns, I thought it was great. I realize it's not a new article, but I hadn't read it before: "The Flimflam Man". Some highlights:

Quote

One depressing aspect of American politics is the susceptibility of the political and media establishment to charlatans. You might have thought, given past experience, that D.C. insiders would be on their guard against conservatives with grandiose plans. But no: as long as someone on the right claims to have bold new proposals, he’s hailed as an innovative thinker. And nobody checks his arithmetic.

...

But it’s the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.

Mr. Ryan’s plan calls for steep cuts in both spending and taxes. He’d have you believe that the combined effect would be much lower budget deficits, and, according to that Washington Post report, he speaks about deficits “in apocalyptic terms.” And The Post also tells us that his plan would, indeed, sharply reduce the flow of red ink: “The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020.”

But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan’s request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has, however, stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.

And that’s about the same as the budget office’s estimate of the 2020 deficit under the Obama administration’s plans. That is, Mr. Ryan may speak about the deficit in apocalyptic terms, but even if you believe that his proposed spending cuts are feasible — which you shouldn’t — the Roadmap wouldn’t reduce the deficit. All it would do is cut benefits for the middle class while slashing taxes on the rich.

And I do mean slash. The Tax Policy Center finds that the Ryan plan would cut taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population in half, giving them 117 percent of the plan’s total tax cuts. That’s not a misprint. Even as it slashed taxes at the top, the plan would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population.

Finally, let’s talk about those spending cuts. In its first decade, most of the alleged savings in the Ryan plan come from assuming zero dollar growth in domestic discretionary spending, which includes everything from energy policy to education to the court system. This would amount to a 25 percent cut once you adjust for inflation and population growth. How would such a severe cut be achieved? What specific programs would be slashed? Mr. Ryan doesn’t say.

After 2020, the main alleged saving would come from sharp cuts in Medicare, achieved by dismantling Medicare as we know it, and instead giving seniors vouchers and telling them to buy their own insurance. Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s the same plan Newt Gingrich tried to sell in 1995.

And we already know, from experience with the Medicare Advantage program, that a voucher system would have higher, not lower, costs than our current system. The only way the Ryan plan could save money would be by making those vouchers too small to pay for adequate coverage. Wealthy older Americans would be able to supplement their vouchers, and get the care they need; everyone else would be out in the cold.

...

So why have so many in Washington, especially in the news media, been taken in by this flimflam? It’s not just inability to do the math, although that’s part of it. There’s also the unwillingness of self-styled centrists to face up to the realities of the modern Republican Party; they want to pretend, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, that there are still people in the G.O.P. making sense. And last but not least, there’s deference to power — the G.O.P. is a resurgent political force, so one mustn’t point out that its intellectual heroes have no clothes.

But they don’t. The Ryan plan is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future.

 

[RoseWilder]

Interesting tweet: 
 

I hope the media follows up on this. I think it's very suspicious that he's blocking all investigations. It makes me think he's guilty of something. 

[GreyhoundFan]

From Politico: "Exclusive: Leaked GOP Obamacare replacement shrinks subsidies, Medicaid expansion"

Spoiler

A draft House Republican repeal bill would dismantle the Obamacare subsidies and scrap its Medicaid expansion, according to a copy of the proposal obtained by POLITICO.

The legislation would take down the foundation of Obamacare, including the unpopular individual mandate, subsidies based on people’s income, and all of the law’s taxes. It would significantly roll back Medicaid spending and give states money to create high risk pools for some people with pre-existing conditions. Some elements would be effective right away; others not until 2020.

The replacement would be paid for by limiting tax breaks on generous health plans people get at work — an idea that is similar to the Obamacare “Cadillac tax” that Republicans have fought to repeal.

Speaker Paul Ryan said last week that Republicans would introduce repeal legislation after recess. But the GOP has been deeply divided about how much of the law to scrap, and how much to “repair,” and the heated town halls back home during the weeklong recess aren’t making it any easier for them.

The key House committees declined to comment on specifics of a draft that will change as the bill moves through the committees. The speaker's office deferred to the House committees.

In place of the Obamacare subsidies, the House bill starting in 2020 would give tax credits — based on age instead of income. For a person under age 30, the credit would be $2,000. That amount would double for beneficiaries over the age of 60, according to the proposal. A related document notes that HHS Secretary Tom Price wants the subsidies to be slightly less generous for most age groups.

The Republican plan would also eliminate Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion in 2020. States could still cover those people if they chose but they’d get a lot less federal money to do so. And instead of the current open-ended federal entitlement, states would get capped payments to states based on the number of Medicaid enrollees.

Another key piece of the Republican proposal: $100 billion in “state innovation grants” to help subsidize extremely expensive enrollees. That aims to address at least a portion of the “pre-existing condition” population, though without the same broad protections as in the Affordable Care Act.

It also would eliminate Planned Parenthood funding, which could be an obstacle if the bill gets to the Senate. And it leaves decisions about mandatory or essential benefits to the states.

According to the document, there’s only one single revenue generator to pay for the new tax credits and grants. Republicans are proposing to cap the tax exemption for employer sponsored insurance at the 90th percentile of current premiums. That means benefits above that level would be taxed.

And while health care economists on both sides of the aisle favor tax-limits along those lines, politically it’s a hard sell. Both businesses and unions fought the Obamacare counterpart, dubbed the Cadillac tax.

The document is more detailed than the general powerpoint House leaders circulated before the recess. Lawmakers are still in disagreement about several key issues, including Medicaid and the size and form of subsidies. Discussions within the House, and between House leaders and the White House about the final proposal are ongoing. President Donald Trump, who gives a major speech to Congress on Tuesday night, has said he expects a plan will emerge in early to mid March.

The exact details of any legislation will also be shaped by findings from the CBO about how much it will cost and what it will do to the federal deficit.

But the draft shows that Republicans are sticking closely to previous plans floated by Ryan and Price in crafting their Obamacare repeal package.

“Obamacare has failed," said HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley. "We welcome any and all efforts to repeal and replace it with real solutions that put patients first and back in charge of their health care rather than government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.”

Other changes proposed by Republicans align with previous ideas for strengthening the individual insurance market, which has been unstable under Obamacare with rising premiums and dwindling competition. For example, the legislation would allow insurers to charge older customers up to five times as much as their younger counterparts. Currently, they can only charge them three times as much in premiums. The insurers have been pushing for that change.

The proposal also includes penalties for individuals who fail to maintain coverage continuously. If their coverage lapses and they decide to re-enroll, they would have to pay a 30 percent boost in premiums for a year. Like the unpopular individual mandate, that penalty is designed to discourage individuals from waiting until they get sick to get coverage.

Republicans have vowed to dismantle Obamacare ever since it passed with only Democratic votes in 2010. But reaching agreement on what should come next has proven difficult since they gained full control of Congress and the White House.

Recent polling has shown that Obamacare is increasingly popular. Supporters of the health care law have been turning out by the hundreds at town hall meetings across the country to demand that Republicans answer questions about what’s going to happen to the 20 million individual who have gained coverage under Obamacare.

According to the latest Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll, released Friday morning, the public now views the Affordable Care Act more favorably than it has since the summer of its enactment. Some 48 percent view the law favorably — up from 43 percent in December. About 42 percent have an unfavorable view of the ACA — down from 46 percent in December. The pollsters say Independents are mostly responsible for the shift. A separate poll by the Pew Research Center found 54 percent approve of the health care law — the highest scores for Obamacare in the poll's history. Meanwhile, 43 percent said they disapprove.

So, Asshole Ryan is not just going to stick it to the millions who buy ACA individual insurance; he's going to fuck those of us who have employer-provided insurance. My premiums have gone up every year, but at least they are pre-tax at the moment. No more, if Ryan and his jackboot sycophants have their way.

[Cartmann99]

56 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

According to the document, there’s only one single revenue generator to pay for the new tax credits and grants. Republicans are proposing to cap the tax exemption for employer sponsored insurance at the 90th percentile of current premiums. That means benefits above that level would be taxed

How would one find this information to see where their premiums fall on this scale?

[GreyhoundFan]

20 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

How would one find this information to see where their premiums fall on this scale?

I found this about benchmark premiums. I don't know anything about the website, but the range of premiums looks like what I expected.

[GreyhoundFan]

Looks like filmmaker Ethan Coen write a poem about one of my least-favorite people, Paul Ryan: "Oh Where Did Your Balls Go, Paul Ryan?"

Quote

Oh where did your balls go, Paul Ryan?
Tell me, where did your testicles go?
Are they near, are they far,
Do you know where they are,
Where oh where did your testicles go?

Tell me where is your manhood, Paul Ryan?
Did you wake up with morals today?
You hate racism, but...
And the Jackass is—what,
Textbook racist, but kind of okay?

Do you long to speak plainly, Paul Ryan—
Call the Jackass a Jackass for once?
Proclaim, look! a creep who
Dodged the draft—taxes, too—
And who grabs any slow-to-dodge cunts?

You keep mum—being practical, Ryan?
Like the smooth and the smiling Mike Pence?
If alternative facts
Help the Paul Ryan acts
Then they’re true in some Paul Ryan sense?  

But then how do you guide yourself, Ryan,
With your conscience-lights all flashing Fail,
And your principles lost!
Would that they were embossed
On your rectum, and you could read braille!

Your bicameral ballsack, Paul Ryan
—Is it held by the Jackass, in trust?
Or perhaps, bereft man,
It’s beneath the divan
Where its wrinkles are gathering dust?

Do you even remember balls, Ryan?
Do you know why God gave you a pair?
Hang them where they belong
And what’s morally wrong
May be faced and be fought. Do you dare?

Well of course not, backboneless Paul Ryan.
You’re a jelly who’s learned how to smile.
When hard questions are asked,
You just let them float past
In can’t-locate-my-testicles style.

Will they ever be found, no-ball Ryan?
Any hope?  Any prayer?  Any chance?  
Other suit?  Or, no, worse:
Kellyanne’s other purse?
Does your dick mope around in your pants?

Have they scattered and hidden, Paul Ryan,
Like Republicans, hither and yon?
Are they near, are they far,
Do we know where they are?
Where oh where have our congressmen gone?

I had to bookmark it, so I could laugh every time I read something annoying about Ryan.

[RoseWilder]

Call. Call. Call. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

31 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

Call. Call. Call. 

 

Unfortunately, Bob Goodlatte won't do anything unless directed to do so by the Republican leadership. His district is one of the reddest areas of Virginia.  I'll call his office tomorrow anyway, as a Virginia voter.

 

"An Apology Letter To All Americans — From The Constituents Of Jason Chaffetz"

 

 

[RoseWilder]

Apparently, I'm not the only one who is repulsed by Jason Chaffetz:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/23/1637051/-The-Devil-May-Want-Payment-from-Chaffetz-Sooner-Than-He-Thinks

Quote

I lived in Utah just long enough, 15 years, to know how much damage he can really do.  I still have close family and friends there.  One topic they are ALL  upset about is Jason Chaffetz.  Even the GOP acquaintenances are starting to lose their patience with him. 

Several years ago, US Representative Chaffetz took a very sharp right turn when he rejected both his religion of birth AND his political party.  He may now be a practicing Mormon, but his arrogance and self-serving actions in the past few weeks demonstrate that he truly does not understand the broader Mormon faith and Utah culture as much as he thinks he does. He is at great risk of a serious backlash.  For the sake of our nation, this backlash it can’t come too soon!

Public opinion seems to be turning on Chaffetz:

Quote

Chaffetz is catching hell in the local and national news media for his obvious blind allegiance to Trump. He is getting major bad press locally about his attacks on national parks, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, etc.  Utah folks love the outdoors and their many wonderful parks. But, I guess some wealthy donors and public officials are not so fond of them.

In the past few weeks, They don’t like reading articles like this:

Public rejects efforts to steal 3 million acres of public land (proposed by Chaffetz) 

Chaffetz meets with Trump but does only on self-serving issue… not Trump’s involvement with Russia or anything meaningful

Chaffetz accuses protestors of being outside, paid agitators

And then we have the recent editorial from the Salt Lake Tribute taking Chaffetz to task for not investigating Trump. 

 

[RoseWilder]

CNN is hosting a Town Hall featuring John McCain and Lindsey Graham on Wednesday March 1st. 

http://thehill.com/media/320809-cnn-to-host-town-hall-featuring-john-mccain-lindsey-graham

 

[GreyhoundFan]

You couldn't make this crap up: "Rep. Devin Nunes’s strange defense of Trump: He was too busy to tell Flynn to talk sanctions"

Quote

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) faced some very tough questions from reporters Monday. Nunes was holding a news conference amid reports that the White House had enlisted him — the man in charge of investigating alleged contacts between the Trump administration and Russia — to talk to a reporter about the matter.

So Nunes was already under fire for making it look as though he isn't entirely neutral in all of this. But there was one particular answer Nunes gave Monday that strained credulity and made it appear as if he were bending over backward to see the best in the White House. It had to do with former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn's contact with Russia's ambassador to the United States in late December, about which Flynn misled the White House and was asked to resign.

...

But Nunes's reasoning leaves something to be desired. Here's the exchange:

QUESTION: Do you have any — have you heard any evidence at all, seen anything about anyone in the White House directing Mr. Flynn to discuss the issue — any issues with the Russian ambassador? Did anyone in the White House tell him to do that?

NUNES: No, look, I think this whole issue with General Flynn — General Flynn is an American war hero, one of the — put together one of the greatest military machines in our history providing the intelligence to basically eliminate al-Qaeda from Iraq. And he was the national security adviser designee, he was taking multiple calls a day from ambassadors, from foreign leaders and look, I know this because the foreign leaders were contacting me trying to get in touch with the transition team and folks that wanted to meet with President Trump or — President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Pence.

QUESTION: But did President-elect Trump at the time of the transition team tell Flynn to talk to the Russian ambassador?

NUNES: Look, I find that — I would find that hard to believe because they were so busy, and I think these conversations were all very short.

So Nunes is basically saying that Trump was probably too busy to have asked Flynn to talk sanctions with the Russian ambassador. This is a president who, of course, spends plenty of time watching cable news and tweeting. He's also a president who found time to go on what was billed as a thank-you tour in December.

It's also not as if instructing Flynn to assure the Russians on sanctions would have taken very long. It doesn't really seem like it would take more than a minute, really.

Jack Langer, a spokesman for Nunes, declined to expand upon Nunes's reasoning, saying: “There’s no further elaboration. He doubts Trump directed Flynn to talk sanctions.”

None of this is to say there is any evidence that Trump directed Flynn to talk sanctions. There isn't yet — at least not publicly. But the idea that Trump was simply too busy to have done so and that they didn't communicate for long enough periods of time doesn't really make sense.

An idiot who has time to Tweet about minutiae didn't have 30 seconds to speak to one of his key staff members? Yeah, right. How stupid does Nunes think we are?

[RoseWilder]

In case you want to know who is complicit in the Trump-Russia scandal: 

 

[fraurosena]

My special friend, Keith Olbermann:

Yes, I know some of you want to marry him. But he's my special friend, so there! 

[GreyhoundFan]

Another day, another Republican lying: "Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s false claim that two key Obamacare elements are ‘Republican provisions’"

Quote

Among the most popular parts of the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010 with zero votes from Republican lawmakers, are provisions that prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on a preexisting condition and requiring that adult children up to the age of 26 can be carried on their parents’ health plan. As Republicans craft a replacement for Obamacare, many have suggested that these ideas will be carried forward.

Yet we were surprised when we saw that, in response to a question about whether these provisions would be in the replacement, Rep. Marsha Blackburn told people in her district that these were actually “two Republican provisions which made it into the [Obamacare] bill.”

Could this be possible? Blackburn’s staff did not respond to repeated inquiries over several days for an explanation — generally a sign that the boss has messed up.

...

The article goes on to discuss the non-alternative facts. I guess Rep. Blackburn is buddies with Kellyanne, since she likes spouting falsehoods.

[sawasdee]

@GreyhoundFan

We're living in Oz........or there's been a time warp and we're back in Orwell's 1984.

[RoseWilder]

The Republicans in the House are stalling on the vote about Russia (for those who haven't read about this yet, Rep. Jerry Nadler has introduced a Resolution of Inquiry that would enable the House to investigate Trump's Russia ties) But Republicans are stalling the vote because they don't want to vote in front of the crowd that has gathered. They were hoping to quietly kill the bill and get no backlash for it: 

 

[sawasdee]

@RoseWilderI cannot thank you enough for your diligence, and time, in tracking what I believe to be the festering stink at the centre of the tRump presidency. I read every one, and follow the links.

Good on you, girl!

[formergothardite]

How long can they delay? At this point do they really think no one will notice if they vote without crowds? 

And yes, thank you @RoseWilder for keeping on top of everything for us! 

[RoseWilder]

@sawasdee  &  @formergothardite : You're welcome. I'm glad my obsession with the Trump-Russia stuff is helpful here because I feel like I'm driving everyone in my life crazy with this stuff. Although I did get my parents hooked on following this Russia story!

[GreyhoundFan]

"Top House conservatives would vote against draft Obamacare repeal bill"

Quote

A slew of House conservatives are beginning to publicly oppose a draft of the Republican Obamacare repeal bill that was leaked last week, presenting a serious roadblock to the GOP's increasingly complicated efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

Republican Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told CNN on Monday that he cannot support a draft of the GOP Obamacare repeal bill unless substantial changes are made.

Hours later, Rep. Mark Walker, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, announced that he, too, could not support the leaked version of the legislation.

By Tuesday morning, others were also openly airing their concerns. As he exited a House conference gathering, GOP Rep. Mark Sanford — the author of an alternative Obamacare repeal and replacement bill — told CNN that he could not support the legislation "in its present form." GOP Rep. David Brat, meanwhile, said that the majority of the Freedom Caucus would vote against the draft bill.

The mounting opposition come as top House Republicans are preparing to unveil legislation to repeal major portions of Obamacare and are struggling to bridge deep divisions within their own conference.

Meadows told CNN that what is unacceptable to him are the refundable tax credits included in the draft of the bill. Those tax credits, the North Carolina congressman said, are nothing short of an "entitlement program."

"What is conservative about a new entitlement program and a new tax increase? And should that be the first thing that the President signs of significance that we sent to the new President?" Meadows said in an interview. "A new Republican president signs a new entitlement and a new tax increase as his first major piece of legislation? I don't know how you support that -- do you?"

The congressman also took issue with the way the tax credits would be given out, arguing that it would make some wealthy individuals eligible.

"So the headline is that the GOP is reducing subsidies to needy individuals when in fact, the growth of the taxpayer-subsidized reimbursements will actually increase. The total dollars that we spend on subsidies will be far greater," he said. "So you can be a millionaire and not have employer-based health care and you're going to get a check from the federal government -- I've got a problem with that."

Asked whether the concerns were widespread within the Freedom Caucus, Meadows said plenty of others share his concerns and would also be willing to vote against the GOP Obamacare repeal bill -- though he declined to predict how many would be willing to draw a line in the sand.

Walker echoed Meadows, saying the draft bill "contains what increasingly appears to be a new health insurance entitlement with a Republican stamp on it."

"The draft legislation, which was leaked last week, risks continuing major Obamacare entitlement expansions and delays any reforms," Walker said in a statement. "It kicks the can down the road in the hope that a future Congress will have the political will and fiscal discipline to reduce spending that this Congress apparently lacks."

Walker said he would encourage other members of the Republican Study Committee to oppose the bill.

House Speaker Paul Ryan tried to downplay the rifts within his own party at a news conference Tuesday morning, insisting that there were no "rival plans" and that the House, Senate and White House are all working together.

"I feel at the end of the day when we get everything done and right, we're going to be unified on this," Ryan said.

And a senior GOP aide reacted with this statement: "Tax credits have long been a part of Republican health care plans, including the one authored by now-Secretary (Tom) Price that had broad support from members of the (Republican Study Committee) and Freedom Caucus."

A draft of the House Republican bill to repeal Obamacare obtained by CNN last week would replace the law's subsidies with less generous tax credits, increase the amount insurers could charge older Americans and more or less eliminate Medicaid for low-income adults.

The refundable tax credit would be given out based on age and range from $2,000 for those under 30 to $4,000 for those between ages 60 and 64.

The legislation was dated two weeks ago as of Friday, but a Republican source said the most updated version remains in the "same ballpark" as the draft. The bill is expected to be released sometime next week, according to leadership sources.

By Tuesday afternoon, multiple GOP aides indicated that no major changes had been made to the GOP draft bill. In a staff-level meeting Tuesday morning between the House Freedom Caucus and GOP leadership, aides announced no major changes to the leaked legislation and that it remained the same on the refundable tax credits and Medicaid fronts, according to a source.

Meadows' opposition to the draft bill illustrates one of many divisions that have come to light within the GOP over repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Plenty of Republican lawmakers have expressed reservations about moving too quickly on repeal without a clear alternative to the Affordable Care Act. Others, including members of the Freedom Caucus, are agitating for GOP leaders to take up a 2015 version of an Obamacare repeal bill that was vetoed by President Barack Obama.

To quell widespread concerns, GOP leaders earlier this year committed to including "replacement" measures in the Obamacare repeal bill -- a move that has seriously complicated the crafting of the legislation.

Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, another member of the Freedom Caucus, told CNN on Monday that he also has serious reservations about the repeal bill. He would not comment on how he would vote until he has seen a draft of the final measure.

"We didn't promise the American people that we would repeal it, except we're going to keep Medicaid expansion. We didn't promise the American people except we're going to keep some of the tax increases in it. We certainly didn't promise the American people we're going to repeal it but we're going to start this whole new entitlement called advanced refundable tax credits," Jordan said. "I think this is the wrong thing to do.

Hmmm. Maybe more people are understanding that healthcare is "complicated", especially since we have to make sure the for-profit insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies make a ridiculous amount of profit.

[RoseWilder]

I've been annoyed with NPR lately because they keep letting Republicans get away with their lies, but they recently had Jason Chaffetz on and they were tougher on him.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/24/1637246/-NPR-s-Steve-Inskeep-Takes-Weasel-Chaffetz-To-The-Woodshed-For-A-Lesson-In-Journalism

Here's part of the transcript: 

Quote

Inskeep: Were the people at your townhall meeting your constituents?

Chaffetz:  The majority were from Utah…

                  I won’t go on a fishing expedition with my committee…

                 Liberals are shocked Trump won and don’t understand it…

Inskeep:  Is the president exempt from conflict of interests?

Chaffetz:  He is exempt, and the law doesn’t require him to release his tax returns…

Inskeep:  I want to be clear,… emolument clause and other laws apply… Should Trump unwind his business…

Chaffetz:  Ask the White House… the president is exempt

Inskeep:  Let me interrupt, I want to be clear… the emolument clause forbids him from accepting gifts, bribery laws, are you suggesting it’s ok for the president to take a bribe or receive a gift from a foreign nation?

 Chaffetz: No of course not… but businesses and their on going operations…

Inskeep:  The president at Mar-a-largo…

Chaffetz:  That’s silly, (switch subject to security)…

Inskeep:  Trump and foreign investment (hotel deals with foreign money)

Chaffetz:  It’s something to pay attention long term, if there’s evidence…

Inskeep:  Are you looking into it?

Chaffetz:  I am not… there would have to be evidence… don’t think the committee will look into it.

Inskeep:  I want to be clear, isn’t that the reason you have an investigation to find evidence?

Chaffetz: Sure, sure uhh … we have to pick and choose what to investigate, I don’t pre-announce all investigations.

Inskeep:  .. If it was hillary you would be trying a lot harder, true?

Chaffetz:  No, I didn’t investigate Clinton before she was sworn in… (lot’s of BS about Benghazi )

I think Chaffetz is having some sort of contest with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to see who can be the most corrupt and hypocritical. 

[formergothardite]

What happened with the resolution of inquiry? It looks like they came back, but the livestream went down and then the republicans said they would write letters to the Justice Department? 

[RoseWilder]

Rep. Jerry Nadler has been live-tweeting the vote all day. And Rep. Nadler is calling out the Republicans for their vote against the inquiry. Here are a few more of the tweets: 

I am filled with rage right now. The Republicans are not only hypocrites, they are traitors.