United States Congress

[fraurosena]

In case nobody's noticed, @RoseWilder, @GreyhoundFanand I are serial double-posters. Just so you know. 

Annnnywayyy... The NYT has a comprehensive overview of the differences between the ACA and the Replace & Repeal (& fuck them in the arse) act:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/06/us/politics/republican-obamacare-replacement.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Quote

House Republicans released on Monday legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

It fundamentally changes how health care is financed for people who do not have insurance through work, and it eliminates the mandate requiring most Americans to have health insurance, a centerpiece of the Affordable Care Act.

Check the article itself for the overview.

[Childless]

48 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

No, it's not racist, ya'll!

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-citizen-manpreet-kooner-denied-entry-to-united-states

 

Racism is alive and well in the U.S.  Shocker.  

16 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

In case nobody's noticed, @RoseWilder, @GreyhoundFanand I are serial double-posters. Just so you know. 

Annnnywayyy... The NYT has a comprehensive overview of the differences between the ACA and the Replace & Repeal (& fuck them in the arse) act:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/06/us/politics/republican-obamacare-replacement.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Check the article itself for the overview.

There's no way you can keep premiums down and get rid of the mandate.  Not going to happen.  And I see they aren't implementing the hurtful parts until 2020, after mid term elections.  Cowards.

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, Childless said:

 

There's no way you can keep premiums down and get rid of the mandate.  Not going to happen.  And I see they aren't implementing the hurtful parts until 2020, after mid term elections.  Cowards.

Well, we've now seen Congress's craptastic ideas about healthcare. Time to repeal and replace them and the President. Sure hope this makes their supporters rethink their support.

[fraurosena]

13 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

Well, we've now seen Congress's craptastic ideas about healthcare. Time to repeal and replace them and the President. Sure hope this makes up their supporters to rethink their support.

That would mean they have to think. But that's so haaaard.... hurts their widdle bwaincells too much.

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

In case nobody's noticed, @RoseWilder, @GreyhoundFanand I are serial double-posters. Just so you know. 

Annnnywayyy... The NYT has a comprehensive overview of the differences between the ACA and the Replace & Repeal (& fuck them in the arse) act:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/06/us/politics/republican-obamacare-replacement.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Check the article itself for the overview.

Guilty as charged!! 

This "plan" of theirs is ridiculous. As @Childless wrote, you can't get rid of the individual mandate and keep premiums reasonable. My hope is that some of the Republicans are already saying they won't support it, so maybe it won't pass.

[fraurosena]

Oooooh... this sounds promising. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/07/rod-rosenstein-confirmation-hearing-trump-russia?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Quote

Will Trump’s nominee for deputy attorney general pledge to appoint an independent special prosecutor to investigate “the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia”?

That’s the question Democrats will be asking Rod Rosenstein during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday morning. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate minority leader, said on Monday that this is “far and away the most important question” that Rosenstein will need to answer. [...]

In a press conference on Monday, Blumenthal invoked the Watergate investigation of President Nixon, when senators used the confirmation process to force the president’s attorney general nominee to promise to appoint a special prosecutor and guarantee him independence to carry out his investigation.

That same precedent should be followed in Rosenstein’s confirmation process, Blumenthal said.

It's encouraging that Rosenstein seems to be respected as a 'straight shooter, an honorable public servant, and a fair man' by repubs and dems alike. Let's hope that Rosenstein will indeed make the pledge to appoint an independent special prosecutor. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Fuck you, Chappass, you nasty smug bastard: "Chaffetz: Low-income Americans will have to choose health care over iPhones"

Quote

Low-income Americans may have to prioritize purchasing health care coverage over gadgets such as iPhones under Republicans' Obamacare replacement plan, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said Tuesday.

The Utah lawmaker told CNN's Alisyn Camerota on "New Day" that he wants low-income Americans to be able to have more access to health coverage.

"But access for lower income Americans doesn't equal coverage," Camerota said.

"Well, we're getting rid of the individual mandate. We're getting rid of those things that people said that they don't want," Chaffetz replied. "Americans have choices, and they've got to make a choice. So rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care.

"They've got to make those decisions themselves," Chaffetz added.

Camerota asked if health care will "require some sacrifice" for lower-income Americans.

"We have to be able to lower the cost of health care," he said. "We do think that with more choices, that you will get a better product at a lower price and that will be good for everybody on the entire spectrum of income."

House Republicans introduced a bill Monday that would scrap Obamacare's individual mandate, a major pillar of the law, replacing it with refundable tax credits for individuals to purchase health insurance. It would also restructure Medicaid and defund Planned Parenthood.

"With Medicaid reductions and smaller tax credits, this bill would clearly result in fewer people insured than under the ACA," said Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation told CNN Money. "The House GOP proposal seeks to reduce what the federal government spends on health care, and that inevitably means more people uninsured.

Chaffetz also said FBI Director James Comey has not responded to his attempts to discuss President Donald Trump's unverified allegation that former President Barack Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower phones.

Chaffetz said lawmakers plan to investigate Trump's claims and that his attempts to reach Comey have been unsuccessful.

"I texted him," Chaffetz said. "I said, 'Please call me, if you can.'"

But Comey did not return Chaffetz's call.

"No response," he told Camerota. "But that's not atypical."

No, you asshole, low income people will have to choose healthcare or FOOD and HOUSING.

[fraurosena]

@GreyhoundFan that's horrifying! But totally in line with what we expected, so not surprising.

I just found this article. If true, then this whole Russian Connection thing is really, really wild and out there.

Swedish teenagers claim Russian TV crew offered to bribe them to cause trouble after Trump comments

In it, a couple of Swedishe teenagers from Rinkeby claim they were offered 400 krona (roughly $44) to show them some action.

Quote

The youngsters were from Rinkeby, a district in the northern outskirts of Stockholm, where riots broke out after the US President was ridiculed for suggesting there had been a terror attack in Sweden and referencing a Fox News report about alleged refugee violence which it said had gripped the country. 

 

[Audrey2]

45 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Fuck you, Chappass, you nasty smug bastard: "Chaffetz: Low-income Americans will have to choose health care over iPhones"

No, you asshole, low income people will have to choose healthcare or FOOD and HOUSING.

Okay, so I'm going to pretend that Chaffey's alternate facts make sense, although they don't. What is the cost of an iPhone? Around $600? How often are they upgraded? Every 2 years or so? Is he then saying that, for low income Americans, insurance will only cost $300 a year? Yeah we know that's a bald faced lie. Is he so delusional that he thinks lower income people buy a new iPhone every month or so? Every time we turn around, Chaffey hits a new level of stupid!

[GreyhoundFan]

"Republicans' Obamacare replacement bill: The winners and losers"

Quote

Republican lawmakers have long vowed that they can make health care more affordable and accessible. Americans will now see if Congress can keep that promise.

The House finally revealed its plan to repeal and replace major portions of the Affordable Care Act on Monday. While the bill will likely change a lot before it lands on President Trump's desk, it's already possible to see whom the winners and losers in the individual market and Medicaid could be.

Titled the American Health Care Act, the legislation calls for providing refundable tax credits based on a person's age and income. It keeps the Obamacare protections for those with pre-existing conditions, but it allows insurers to levy a 30% surcharge for a year on the premiums of those who let their coverage lapse. It lifts the taxes that Obamacare had imposed on the wealthy, insurers and prescription drug manufacturers. And it loosens one of the law's strict insurance reforms so that carriers can offer a wider array of policies that pick up less of the tab for getting care.

The bill also eliminates the enhanced federal match for Medicaid expansion starting in 2020 and revamps the funding for the entire Medicaid program.

The most glaring weakness of the GOP bill is that it will likely leave millions uninsured, experts said. Republican lawmakers have repeatedly skirted that question, but reviews of preliminary drafts by the Congressional Budget Office confirmed the problem, sources said.

"With Medicaid reductions and smaller tax credits, this bill would clearly result in fewer people insured than under the ACA," said Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "The House GOP proposal seeks to reduce what the federal government spends on health care, and that inevitably means more people uninsured."

Experts remain divided over the impact on the individual market. Some say insurers would flee or jack up their rates if millions of people drop out. Others contend that the Republican bill would stabilize the market and premiums because the reforms would give insurers more flexibility and entice more younger enrollees to sign up for coverage.

"If we let the ACA continue on its current trajectory, people really will lose coverage," said Doug Badger, senior fellow at the Galen Institute, a free-market, health-care think tank.

Here's who would likely lose under the Republican plan:

Lower-income folks could be left uninsured. Obamacare contains many provisions to help poor and lower-income Americans. It expanded Medicaid to cover adults who earn up to $16,400 a year -- some 11 million people in 31 states and the District of Columbia are now insured as a result.

Also, those with incomes just under $30,000 receive generous subsidies to lower their premiums, deductibles and out-of-pocket costs on the individual market.

The American Health Care Act would reverse much of this. It would end the enhanced federal Medicaid funding for new enrollees starting in 2020. Those already in the program could stay as long as they remain continuously insured. But since up to half have a break in coverage each year, it's likely participation would fall off quickly, said Jocelyn Guyer, managing director at Manatt Health, a consulting firm.

But the Republican bill would go beyond just eliminating Medicaid expansion. It would overhaul the whole program, which covers more than 70 million people, by sending states a fixed amount of money per enrollee, known as a per-capita cap. This would limit federal responsibility, shifting that burden to the states. However, since states don't have the money to make up the difference, they would likely either reduce eligibility, curtail benefits or cut provider payments.

All this could hurt not only poor adults, but also low-income children, women, senior citizens and the disabled.

The legislation also would eliminate the subsidies that reduce deductibles and co-pays for moderate-income policyholders on the individual market. And the tax credits it would provide would not go as far Obamacare's subsidies.

Folks making $20,000 a year take the biggest hit at any age under the GOP plan, a recent Kaiser study found. A 27-year-old would get only $2,000, instead of $3,225 under Obamacare, on average, while a 40-year-old would get $3,000 versus nearly $4,150.

However, the biggest loser would be a 60-year-old, who would receive only $4,000, instead of nearly $9,900 under Obamacare.

Older Americans could have to pay more. Enrollees in their 50s and early 60s benefited from Obamacare because insurers could only charge them three times more than younger policy holders. The bill would widen that band to five-to-one.

That would mean that adults ages 60 to 64 would see their annual premiums soar 22%, or nearly $3,200, to nearly $18,000, according to a study by the Milliman actuarial firm on behalf of the AARP Public Policy Institute. Those in their 50s would be hit with a 13% increase, or just over $1,500, and pay an annual premium of $12,800.

Also, the GOP bill doesn't provide them as generous tax credits as Obamacare. A 60-year-old making $40,000 would get only $4,000 from the Republican plan, instead of an average subsidy of $6,750 from the Affordable Care Act, according the Kaiser study.

The sick could get coverage, but it could be more limited. The GOP plan actually provides stronger protections for those with pre-existing conditions than some prior Republican proposals. Like Obamacare, it requires insurers cover these folks and prevents carriers from charging them more because of their health.

But the Republican plan would lift the requirement that insurers cover a certain share of the cost of getting care. This change would allow carriers to offer a wider selection of policies, including more with higher deductibles and co-pays. That could make it more difficult to find plans with low deductibles that the sick often want.

(However, the bill does not lift the Obamacare provision that limits how much enrollees have to pay out of pocket each year. For this year, the maximum is $7,150.)

Here's who would likely win:

Younger Americans could get cheaper plans. Obamacare was designed so that younger policyholders would help subsidize older ones. That would change under the Republican bill because it would allow insurers to charge older folks more.

This means that younger Americans would likely see their annual premiums go down. Enrollees age 20 to 29 would save about $700 a year to $4,000, on average, according to the Milliman study for the AARP.

Those under age 30 would also get a refundable tax credit of up to $2,000 to offset the cost of their premiums, as long as their income doesn't exceed $215,000 for an individual. It's more likely that younger folks who are earlier in their careers would fall under this cap.

The GOP tax credits would also likely be more generous than Obamacare's subsidies for these folks. For example, a 27-year-old making $40,000 a year would receive $2,000 under the GOP plan, but only gets a $103 subsidy from Obamacare, on average, a Kaiser analysis found.

The healthy could buy less expensive policies. Under Obamacare, only enrollees under age 30 and certain other people could buy catastrophic plans, which had lower monthly premiums but higher deductibles. In 2017, catastrophic plans came with $7,150 deductibles, but Obamacare enrollees couldn't use subsides to pay the premiums.

The American Health Care Act would open up such policies to everyone and allow enrollees to use tax credits.

This change, however, may not have as big an impact since insurers already offer plans with high deductibles that are eligible for Obamacare subsidies. Republicans dropped a provision from a prior draft that would have allowed carriers to sell policies that covered fewer benefits, such as maternity and prescription drugs. That would have made more of a difference for healthy consumers because they could opt for skimpier plans with lower premiums.

Higher-income Americans could pay fewer taxes, get more tax benefits. The legislation would eliminate two taxes that Obamacare levied on the wealthy to help pay for the law. Nearly everyone in the Top 1%, who earn more than $774,000 a year, would enjoy a hefty tax cut, averaging $33,000, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Those in the Top 0.1% would get an average tax cut of about $197,000.

And the bill would allow folks to contribute more to Health Savings Accounts, which are primarily used by better-off Americans who can afford to sock money away for health care expenses.

Also, the Republicans would enable people higher on the income scale to claim the tax credit to help pay their premiums. Under Obamacare, an enrollee who makes more than $47,500 is no longer eligible for a subsidy. The GOP plan would let a policyholder making up to $75,000 claim the full tax credit. The benefit would phase out slowly until the enrollee hits $215,000 in income.

Insurance companies could get a big tax break. Obamacare allowed insurance companies to deduct only $500,000 of their executives' pay as a business expense. The GOP bill would repeal that limitation, starting in 2018.

Top insurers pay their leaders millions in compensation every year so this provision could mean a nice tax savings for the companies.

There we have it -- the insurance companies, along with the highest income people, would be the biggest winners. The rest of us lose.

2 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

Okay, so I'm going to pretend that Chaffey's alternate facts make sense, although they don't. What is the cost if an iPhone? Around $600? How often are they upgraded? Every 2 years or so? Is he then saying that, for low income Americans, insurance will only cost $300 a year? Yeah we know that's a bald faced lie. is he so delusional that he thinks lower income people buy a new iPhone every month or so? Every time we turn around, Chaffey hits a new level of stupid!

I like how he was whining about Comey not responding to his text message. Um, first of all, pick up the damned phone, Chappass; second, maybe he just doesn't want to talk to you. He wouldn't be the only one.

[RoseWilder]

3 hours ago, fraurosena said:

In case nobody's noticed, @RoseWilder, @GreyhoundFanand I are serial double-posters. Just so you know. 

I think my problem might go beyond double posting. On Sunday night, I think I posted 8 times in a row and I was convinced people were going to think I'm insane . 

Remember the good old days, when there weren't 20 scandals a day. When we could leave the house to run a quick errand and not come home 45 minutes later and find that 5 bad things had happened while we were gone. Memories light the corner of my mind. Misty water colored memories. . . .

Oh sorry, I got teary-eyed for a minute there. 

[RoseWilder]

I'm starting to fear that we're never going to have a fair election ever again: 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Well, old Chappass got some pushback on his stupid statement about iPhones and had to backtrack.

Quote

A Republican lawmaker on Tuesday walked back his suggestion earlier in the day that low-income Americans may have to prioritize purchasing health care coverage over gadgets such as iPhones under Republicans' Obamacare replacement plan.

...

Chaffetz was swiftly rebuked for his comments on social media.

Rep. Larry Bucshon, R-Indiana, later said on "CNN Newsroom" that Chaffetz's comments were "unwarranted at this time."

"We don't want people to make choices in their life having to choose health care and leaving out other parts of their life that everyone else enjoys," Bucshon said.

Later Tuesday morning, Chaffetz walked back his remarks.

"What we're trying to say -- and maybe I didn't say it as smoothly as I possibly could -- but people need to make a conscious choice and I believe in self-reliance," he said on Fox News' "America's Newsroom." "And they're going to have to make those decisions."

...

Well, honey, stop going out and speaking. Maybe take a vow of silence. That would thrill many of us.

 

25 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

I think my problem might go beyond double posting. On Sunday night, I think I posted 8 times in a row and I was convinced people were going to think I'm insane . 

Remember the good old days, when there weren't 20 scandals a day. When we could leave the house to run a quick errand and not come home 45 minutes later and find that 5 bad things had happened while we were gone. Memories light the corner of my mind. Misty water colored memories. . . .

Oh sorry, I got teary-eyed for a minute there. 

I miss those good old days too.

[formergothardite]

27 minutes ago, RoseWilder said:

Remember the good old days, when there weren't 20 scandals a day. When we could leave the house to run a quick errand and not come home 45 minutes later and find that 5 bad things had happened while we were gone. Memories light the corner of my mind. Misty water colored memories. .

I used to rarely check the news, but now every morning I get up to see what terrible thing happened while I slept. And there is always something new! Can we go back to the days when a Vice President misspelling potato was drama?

[Childless]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Fuck you, Chappass, you nasty smug bastard: "Chaffetz: Low-income Americans will have to choose health care over iPhones"

No, you asshole, low income people will have to choose healthcare or FOOD and HOUSING.

Spoken like someone who has no clue.

[fraurosena]

Booyah, Nancy Pelosi!

 

[AnywhereButHere]

2 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

Okay, so I'm going to pretend that Chaffey's alternate facts make sense, although they don't. What is the cost of an iPhone? Around $600? How often are they upgraded? Every 2 years or so? Is he then saying that, for low income Americans, insurance will only cost $300 a year? Yeah we know that's a bald faced lie. Is he so delusional that he thinks lower income people buy a new iPhone every month or so? Every time we turn around, Chaffey hits a new level of stupid!

Okay, I get that he's trying to be facetious, but seriously. There I so much wrong with his statement besides playing word games with people's health and lives, not the least of which is that the cost of a cell phone probably won't even cover one office visit for a physical. So sure, forego that cell phone, get your one office visit, but be sure to stay healthy after that because you sure won't be able to afford the next visit, and guess what? You won't have a cell phone to call for an ambulance if you need one!

And yup, He probably does believe that all those "welfare freeloaders" sit on their asses all day, watching their big screen tvs while calling their friends and family on their brand spanking new iphones that they cadged off the poor, put-upon taxpayers. Maybe Ben Carson gave him a lobotomy too.

[formergothardite]

Thom Tillis didn't have a good day. He went to an ticket only event in NC and was interrupted by a guest who called him Timid Tillis for refusing to meet with the people of NC. 

Quote

 

That comment came after one business owner attending the $25-a-plate luncheon interrupted the event to loudly criticize the senator for not hosting any forums, even referring to him as “Timid Tillis.”

Steve Pogoloff said he did not regret referring to Tillis by that name. “He is, isn’t he?” said Pogoloff, who owns a software firm in Durham. “He’s cowardly. This is embarrassing as a resident of North Carolina. We have a proud tradition of great government here for decades.”

 

Quote

Tillis said any public meetings would have to be in a format in which people are respectful and are not shouting at one another

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article136832228.html

So basically you had to pay to ask him questions. Asshole. 

[GreyhoundFan]

The Twittersphere didn't take too kindly to Chapass' nasty iPhone remarks. I can't copy all the Tweets, but they tell the truth.

 

[RoseWilder]

Republicans are tried to make Jon Ossoff look bad and it backfired: 

http://shareblue.com/republican-super-pac-tries-to-attack-democratic-candidate-accidentally-makes-him-look-awesome/

Quote

In the wake of multiple victories in special elections around the country, Democrats are turning their sights on Georgia, where another special election on April 18th will fill the congressional seat vacated by Donald Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary, Tom Price.

Georgia’s 6th congressional district has been solidly Republican since 1978, when Newt Gingrich was elected to the seat. But this year, Democrats have a formidable candidate in Jon Ossoff, a documentary filmmaker and former congressional aide. Ossoff’s campaign has already raised $2 million in under two months, and he is leading polls by 6.8 percent.

Republican strategists on the Hill are alarmed by Ossoff’s meteoric rise, and a GOP super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund, just took out a $1.1 million ad buy against him.

But the ad didn't work out the way the Republicans had hoped it would: 

Quote

The obvious aim with this ad was to depict Ossoff as an immature fraternity guy, who is not ready to shoulder the responsibility of public office.

Instead, it made him look like a genuinely fun, humorous, and relatable person, and reactions on social media make clear how badly this ad backfired.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

An interesting analysis: "The three GOP factions that could doom Republicans’ Obamacare replacement bill"

Quote

As they roll out their Obamacare replacement plan, Republicans are quickly finding out what Democrats learned eight years ago: Even if you win control of Congress and the White House, there are still plenty of obstacles to passing laws that, in principle, your whole party agrees with.

Several factions within the Republican Party don't like some key details about this new health-care plan. In fact, there's enough opposition that these Republicans could derail the bill as it stands. It's something President Trump appeared to acknowledge when he offered up in a tweet Tuesday morning the opportunity for “review and negotiation.”

Trump appears to have done his math. Assuming no Democrats in either chamber support the bill, Republicans can't lose more than two GOP senators or 21 Republicans in the House. That doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.

Which means the factions opposed to Obamacare suddenly have a whole lot of leverage. Here's a look at the three main ones:

1) Western/Midwestern GOP senators: Don’t touch Medicaid in our states

2) Conservative/libertarian senators: Don’t subsidize people's health care

3) The moderate Planned Parenthood supporters

...

The article discusses each faction, including who is in it and what they are saying. Interesting stuff.

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, RoseWilder said:

Republicans are tried to make Jon Ossoff look bad and it backfired: 

http://shareblue.com/republican-super-pac-tries-to-attack-democratic-candidate-accidentally-makes-him-look-awesome/

But the ad didn't work out the way the Republicans had hoped it would: 

 

So that was $1.1 million well spent then...

--------------

MSNBC weighed in on Repub healthcare hypocrisy:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republican-health-care-plans-break-new-ground-hypocrisy

Quote

Republicans said the ACA was written without bipartisan input, which isn’t true, and which hasn’t stopped them from writing their alternative plan without even trying to solicit bipartisan input.

Republicans said deductibles are too high under the ACA, which led them to write a bill in which deductibles will be even higher.

Republicans said it was an outrageous abuse to pass elements of the ACA through the budget reconciliation process, and yet here we are, watching them try to push their own reform bill through the budget reconciliation process.

Republicans attacked “Obamacare” for not reaching universal coverage, and now they’re embracing a plan that would make the uninsured rate worse, not better.

New York’s Jon Chait had a piece in early January, highlighting the irony: “[T]he claims that conservatives have falsely made about passing Obamacare provide a true description of the Republican plan to undo it.”

There are all sorts of reasons to balk at the GOP health care plan. Save a little space on the list for the breathtaking hypocrisy on display.

 

[CTRLZero]

1 hour ago, RoseWilder said:

Republicans are tried to make Jon Ossoff look bad and it backfired: 

Wow, I just watched the video and kept waiting for horrible things like pussy grabbing or making fun of a disabled person, but no, just a young adult having typical college fun (while holding down a job, singing in an a capella group, and studying at an exceptional college).  I'm not in that state, but if this is the worst the Republicans can scrape up, a donation might be headed his way.

[GreyhoundFan]

"House Intel schedules first Russia hearing for March 20"

Quote

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes announced Tuesday the first public hearing in their investigation into Russia's meddling in the US election last year will be March 20.

Nunes said he has invited FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers, as well as former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Attorney General Sally Yates, to testify.

The House Intelligence Committee has set an aggressive schedule for its investigation, requesting a slew of documents from the intelligence agencies by March 17.

Nunes told reporters there is no evidence yet of President Donald Trump being wiretapped last year by then-President Barack Obama, but said the committee will look into it.

Trump made the allegation without presenting evidence on Twitter over the weekend.

About damned time.

[Destiny]

5 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

Remember the good old days, when there weren't 20 scandals a day. When we could leave the house to run a quick errand and not come home 45 minutes later and find that 5 bad things had happened while we were gone. Memories light the corner of my mind. Misty water colored memories. . . .

Oh sorry, I got teary-eyed for a minute there. 

This is me:

I'm exhausted and it's only march. Doesn't mean quit fighting or letting up, but damn, this is just tiring.