United States Congress of Fail (Part 2)

[GreyhoundFan]

"The Senate’s three tools on health care: Sabotage, speed and secrecy"

Spoiler

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had a problem when the American Health Care Act arrived from the House last month. What to do with a bill that is clogging your agenda but only 8 percent of Americans want you to pass and members of your own caucus swore was dead on arrival? McConnell couldn’t have missed the town halls filled with angry Americans who rely on Medicaid and see the Affordable Care Act’s protections for those with preexisting conditions as a godsend. The House bill — which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would cause 23 million to lose coverage and end those protections for many — threatened all of that.

Faced with that reality, McConnell could have started over and had the Senate develop its own legislation, perhaps even working with Democrats on a bipartisan alternative that could withstand the test of time. Instead, McConnell put a plan in place to pass something close to the House bill using three simple tools: sabotage, speed and secrecy.

● Sabotage: Given the unpopularity of the AHCA, Republicans have just one argument: Obamacare has failed. The GOP premise is “bad” beats “dead.” The problem is the facts don’t support this. Medicaid — which accounts for the bulk of the ACA coverage expansion — is successful, popular and bipartisan. The ACA’s individual insurance exchanges got off to an uneasy start, but after five years, insurer filings and independent reports all point to profitable insurers and stable or stabilizing markets — at least until President Trump intervened to rattle insurers.

Taking advantage of those now well-documented efforts to sabotage the ACA, McConnell is reportedly telling his members they have no choice but to pass a replacement. By acting fast, McConnell hopes to minimize the continuing and mounting evidence of sabotage as insurers file rates in places such as North Carolina and Pennsylvania that explicitly break out the specific impact of Trump’s sabotage.

● Speed: As he watched House members scrupulously avoid constituents while on recess, McConnell clearly recognized that his best bet would be to hold a vote before the July 4 recess in hopes this would minimize pressure on vulnerable senators such as Nevada’s Dean Heller — who won his seat by a mere 12,000 votes in a state where more than 200,000 will lose Medicaid coverage.

So last week McConnell deployed Rule XIV, a fast-track procedure that bypasses the committee process and moves the bill directly to the floor. Just as in the House, we’re on track to have a vote with no hearings (there were more than 100 for the ACA). Knowing the coverage loss will be significant, McConnell plans to vote within only days, or possibly even hours, of the release of the CBO score. Moving fast leaves opponents, and the public, with no time to catch up to the details.

● Secrecy. None of this will work if the content of the bill cannot be kept secret for as long as possible. A small group of Republicans is amending the House bill behind close doors. And for all the talk of having the Senate start over and fix the bad House bill, their reported changes appear to be minimal, and to follow the blueprint laid out by Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) that: “80 percent of what the House did we’re likely to do.” The ACA’s expansion of Medicaid would end. The caps on Medicaid spending imposed by the House bill would remain. With state approval, insurers would still be able to offer Swiss cheese policies that drop benefits people with preexisting conditions need most.

The secrecy is also necessary for backroom deals. Given the opioid crisis in her state, one would think the AHCA’s severe Medicaid cuts would mean Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) would never support it; the majority of opioid treatments in her state are provided by Medicaid. Similarly, one would think there is no price that would cause Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) to sign on to a deal whose consequences for her state would be worse than any other state. But McConnell is counting on being able to buy their votes relatively cheaply: possibly with a small “opioid fund” and an extra few years before the Medicaid expansion ends in certain states.

Of course there’s a better way. Not long ago, Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Capito talked about finding solutions that would lead to more people covered, not fewer. That’s an approach that could bring many Democrats to the table. Given the Senate’s narrow margins, by voting no, the three of them or others have the power to change the course we’re on and put health-care reform on a path to long-term political stability. And McConnell himself might not even mind. Something short of 50 votes will preserve the Senate’s role as our deliberative body with the good judgment not to bow to the political winds, particularly when the country needs its checks and balances to work like never before.

No surprise here, McTurtle is trying to screw the American people.

[sawasdee]

7 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Of course there’s a better way. Not long ago, Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Capito talked about finding solutions that would lead to more people covered, not fewer. That’s an approach that could bring many Democrats to the table. Given the Senate’s narrow margins, by voting no, the three of them or others have the power to change the course we’re on and put health-care reform on a path to long-term political stability. And McConnell himself might not even mind. Something short of 50 votes will preserve the Senate’s role as our deliberative body with the good judgment not to bow to the political winds, particularly when the country needs its checks and balances to work like never befor

But have they got the guts to stand against McConnell? To represent their constituents, they need to - but that doesn't seem to be a priority in this Congress.

I am also (not) amazed at , yet again, the sheer hypocrisy of the Repugliklans (totally stolen from @laPapessaGiovanna) who screamed blue murder that the ACA was rushed through - with over 100 hearings , and taking over a year, against no hearings and about 8 weeks. And a health bill put together by men only - thus effectively denying over 50% of the population any say, is being shoved down the throat of the nation.

[fraurosena]

11 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"The Senate’s three tools on health care: Sabotage, speed and secrecy"

  Hide contents

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had a problem when the American Health Care Act arrived from the House last month. What to do with a bill that is clogging your agenda but only 8 percent of Americans want you to pass and members of your own caucus swore was dead on arrival? McConnell couldn’t have missed the town halls filled with angry Americans who rely on Medicaid and see the Affordable Care Act’s protections for those with preexisting conditions as a godsend. The House bill — which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would cause 23 million to lose coverage and end those protections for many — threatened all of that.

Faced with that reality, McConnell could have started over and had the Senate develop its own legislation, perhaps even working with Democrats on a bipartisan alternative that could withstand the test of time. Instead, McConnell put a plan in place to pass something close to the House bill using three simple tools: sabotage, speed and secrecy.

● Sabotage: Given the unpopularity of the AHCA, Republicans have just one argument: Obamacare has failed. The GOP premise is “bad” beats “dead.” The problem is the facts don’t support this. Medicaid — which accounts for the bulk of the ACA coverage expansion — is successful, popular and bipartisan. The ACA’s individual insurance exchanges got off to an uneasy start, but after five years, insurer filings and independent reports all point to profitable insurers and stable or stabilizing markets — at least until President Trump intervened to rattle insurers.

Taking advantage of those now well-documented efforts to sabotage the ACA, McConnell is reportedly telling his members they have no choice but to pass a replacement. By acting fast, McConnell hopes to minimize the continuing and mounting evidence of sabotage as insurers file rates in places such as North Carolina and Pennsylvania that explicitly break out the specific impact of Trump’s sabotage.

● Speed: As he watched House members scrupulously avoid constituents while on recess, McConnell clearly recognized that his best bet would be to hold a vote before the July 4 recess in hopes this would minimize pressure on vulnerable senators such as Nevada’s Dean Heller — who won his seat by a mere 12,000 votes in a state where more than 200,000 will lose Medicaid coverage.

So last week McConnell deployed Rule XIV, a fast-track procedure that bypasses the committee process and moves the bill directly to the floor. Just as in the House, we’re on track to have a vote with no hearings (there were more than 100 for the ACA). Knowing the coverage loss will be significant, McConnell plans to vote within only days, or possibly even hours, of the release of the CBO score. Moving fast leaves opponents, and the public, with no time to catch up to the details.

● Secrecy. None of this will work if the content of the bill cannot be kept secret for as long as possible. A small group of Republicans is amending the House bill behind close doors. And for all the talk of having the Senate start over and fix the bad House bill, their reported changes appear to be minimal, and to follow the blueprint laid out by Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) that: “80 percent of what the House did we’re likely to do.” The ACA’s expansion of Medicaid would end. The caps on Medicaid spending imposed by the House bill would remain. With state approval, insurers would still be able to offer Swiss cheese policies that drop benefits people with preexisting conditions need most.

The secrecy is also necessary for backroom deals. Given the opioid crisis in her state, one would think the AHCA’s severe Medicaid cuts would mean Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) would never support it; the majority of opioid treatments in her state are provided by Medicaid. Similarly, one would think there is no price that would cause Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) to sign on to a deal whose consequences for her state would be worse than any other state. But McConnell is counting on being able to buy their votes relatively cheaply: possibly with a small “opioid fund” and an extra few years before the Medicaid expansion ends in certain states.

Of course there’s a better way. Not long ago, Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Capito talked about finding solutions that would lead to more people covered, not fewer. That’s an approach that could bring many Democrats to the table. Given the Senate’s narrow margins, by voting no, the three of them or others have the power to change the course we’re on and put health-care reform on a path to long-term political stability. And McConnell himself might not even mind. Something short of 50 votes will preserve the Senate’s role as our deliberative body with the good judgment not to bow to the political winds, particularly when the country needs its checks and balances to work like never before.

No surprise here, McTurtle is trying to screw the American people.

What I don't get is their blind focus on just getting this atrocity of a bill through, come hell or highwater. And in doing so they're completely overlooking the fact that the hell and highwater will inevitably follow. The American people will vote. And they will retaliate for what has been done to them. They will not forget the manner in which this was done either. 

Buh-bye, Repugliklans!

 

[AmericanRose]

They're probably hoping Americans will continue to have reliably short memories. Though I imagine losing your health insurance would be something remembered on a daily basis, especially if you relied on it...

There are 2 counties in WA state that won't be covered next year, and the comments on the article about it were.... I don't even know what to call it. Disheartening. Disgusting. Heartless. I wonder if this attitude of "I got mine, tough luck if you don't get yours" is only American, or worldwide.

 

[candygirl200413]

My thing is like I wonder how many of them are retiring after their latest term. Cause I really don't think any of them will get re-elected but also at the same time Trump voters really could care less.

[GreyhoundFan]

1 hour ago, candygirl200413 said:

My thing is like I wonder how many of them are retiring after their latest term. Cause I really don't think any of them will get re-elected but also at the same time Trump voters really could care less.

Sadly, as long as they have "the magic R" after their names, enough people will vote for them. Mostly because of "the babiezzzz" "my guns" or both.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is a bit of a surprise: "Senators strike comprehensive deal to increase Russia sanctions"

Spoiler

Senators have struck a deal to put a comprehensive Russia sanctions bill on the floor this week, according to those negotiating the legislation.

The measure, which will be attached to a bill to stiffen Iran sanctions that is under consideration, incorporates proposals to codify existing Russia sanctions, introduce punitive measures against Moscow in light of Russia’s aggressive activities in Ukraine, introduce measures addressing Syria and the realm of cyberhacking, and give Congress the power to review efforts by the administration to scale back sanctions against Russia before they can go through.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) filed the amendment late Monday, setting up a vote for later this week, after extensive talks with Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Foreign Relations Committee’s ranking Democrat, Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.), Banking Committee ranking Democrat Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and vocal Russia critics John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) were also involved in various stages of the discussion.

“This is a very comprehensive piece of legislation,” Corker said Monday night after the measures were introduced. “It really touches all the components.”

Various senators involved in the discussions had filed three different bills to increase sanctions against Russia over its involvement in the wars in Ukraine and Syria, as well as over allegations that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. Some proposed bills also included measures to give Congress the power to block the president from easing up on sanctions against Russia and to better counter Russian propaganda in the United States and Europe.

Corker said that he had drafted a fourth bill about three months ago addressing several of the points, but that his office had never released it.

The measure filed Monday night directs sanctions toward Russia’s intelligence and defense apparatus, as well as parts of its energy, mining, railways and shipping economy. It also includes provisions to punish those engaged in corruption and human rights abuses.

Schumer said in a statement that the new measure will “send a powerful and bipartisan statement to Russia and any other country who might try to interfere in our elections that they will be punished.”

The Senate has refrained from putting such a sanctions bill to a vote largely because Corker wanted to give the administration more time to attempt to make progress cooperating with Russia over the war in Syria — something he repeated Monday night that he never fully expected it could do.

“I wanted to give [Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson until two weeks ago,” Corker said, adding, “I’ve been ready the whole time.”

When asked whether the White House was on board with the measure, Corker hesitated, noting: “I have to believe that the administration has to at least strongly consider supporting this.”

He added, however, that he was sure the measure could receive a veto-proof level of support in the Senate.

Cue the tweet storm from the TT.

[CTRLZero]

24 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

When asked whether the White House was on board with the measure, Corker hesitated, noting: “I have to believe that the administration has to at least strongly consider supporting this.”

So, I'm suspicious, especially after watching the first cabinet meeting and witnessing all the orange-nosing.  It will be interesting to follow the progress of this measure, but I'm not going to hold my breath thinking there will be support. 

 

30 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

It also includes provisions to punish those engaged in corruption and human rights abuses.

They could also craft a bill directed at our own nation under Trump's reign.  Sad times.

[fraurosena]

This is not just a little disconcerting and very disquieting.

Read the whole thread. Reporters are being banned from the Capitol. The road to dictatorship is being paved, right before our noses. 

This is extremely alarming.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

@fraurosena -- several Repug congresspeople have been whining on the local news that there are "so many" reporters in the hallways of the Capitol building that it's "dangerous" and that they're afraid someone will get hurt. Yeah, right. They just don't want to have to answer questions.

 

"Jeff Sessions personally asked Congress to let him prosecute medical marijuana providers"

Spoiler

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is asking congressional leaders to undo federal medical marijuana protections that have been in place since 2014, according to a May letter that became public Monday.

The protections, known as the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, prohibit the Justice Department from using federal funds to prevent certain states "from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana."

In his letter, first obtained by Tom Angell of Massroots.com and verified independently by The Washington Post, Sessions argued that the amendment would "inhibit [the Justice Department's] authority to enforce the Controlled Substances Act." He continues:

I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime. The Department must be in a position to use all laws available to combat the transnational drug organizations and dangerous drug traffickers who threaten American lives.

Sessions's citing of a "historic drug epidemic" to justify a crackdown on medical marijuana is at odds with what researchers know about current drug use and abuse in the United States. The epidemic Sessions refers to involves deadly opiate drugs, not marijuana. A growing body of research (acknowledged by the National Institute on Drug Abuse) has shown that opiate deaths and overdoses actually decrease in states with medical marijuana laws on the books.

That research strongly suggests that cracking down on medical marijuana laws, as Sessions requested, could perversely make the opiate epidemic even worse.

In an email, John Hudak of the Brookings Institution characterized the letter's arguments as a "scare tactic" that  "could appeal to rank-and-file members or to committee chairs in Congress in ways that could threaten the future of this Amendment."

Under President Barack Obama, the Justice Department also sought to undermine the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment. It circulated misleading talking points among Congress to influence debate over the measure, and it attempted to enforce the amendment in a way that "defies language and logic," "tortures the plain meaning of the statute" and is "at odds with fundamental notions of the rule of law," in the ruling of a federal judge.

The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment has significant bipartisan support in Congress. Medical marijuana is incredibly popular with voters overall. A Quinnipiac poll conducted in April found it was supported by 94 percent of the public. Nearly three-quarters of voters said they disapprove of the government enforcing federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized it either medically or recreationally.

Through a spokesman, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R.-Calif.) said that "Mr. Sessions stands athwart an overwhelming majority of Americans and even, sadly, against veterans and other suffering Americans who we now know conclusively are helped dramatically by medical marijuana."

Advocates have been closely watching the Trump administration for any sign of how it might tackle the politically complex issue of marijuana legalization. Candidate Trump had offered support of state-level medical marijuana regulations, including the notion that states should be free to do what they want on the policy. But Sessions's letter, with its explicit appeal to allow the Justice Department to go after medical marijuana providers, appears to undermine that support.

The letter, along with a signing statement from President Trump indicating some skepticism of medical marijuana protections, "should make everyone openly question whether candidate Trump's rhetoric and the White House's words on his support for medical marijuana was actually a lie to the American public on an issue that garners broad, bipartisan support," said Hudak of the Brookings Institution.

Re: the last paragraph: Um, why would anyone wonder whether or not "candidate Trump's rhetoric" was a lie? He's lied about pretty much every single thing.

 

 

Guess what, @fraurosena? Jennifer Rubin just published an article about the media lockout: "A party afraid of doing its job in plain view"

Spoiler

Not since President Richard Nixon has the Republican Party tried so hard to conceal what it is doing from the voters. It reflects widespread contempt — starting with the president — for democracy and, frankly, abject fear that these politicians will be vilified for doing things the voters find repugnant.

Daniel Coats, director of national intelligence, and Adm. Michael S. Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, refused to tell the Senate Intelligence Committee whether they were asked to shut down the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein declined as well, and today before the Senate Appropriations Committee he wouldn’t elaborate on how he wound up sending a memo regarding then-FBI Director James B. Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton to the attorney general who had recused himself from all matters emanating from the 2016 election.

“I’m glad [Rosenstein] pledged not to fire [special counsel Robert S.] Mueller for anything other than a legitimate cause, but until he explains his involvement in the Comey firing, it’s hard to take too much comfort in it,” observes former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller. “He’s ducking the question by citing an ongoing investigation, but this goes to his conduct, not to others the department is investigating. It goes to his fitness to hold office, and I can’t help but think that if he had a decent explanation, he would just give it.” (Democrats didn’t help matters by failing to ask key questions such as how Rosenstein is overseeing an investigation that involves a firing in which he participated.)

Meanwhile on health care, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) comes right out to say he doesn’t want voters to know what Congress is up to. (“Well I think we’re not worried so much about that as we are getting it together so we can get a majority to vote for it.”) That was the approach of House Republicans, who had no real hearings, voted before a final Congressional Budget Office score was available and rushed through a compromise bill lawmakers had barely heard about. I suppose it is refreshing to drop the pretense that Republicans care about effective health-care policy, but hiding from voters because the product is so crummy strikes us as an argument for them to lose the majority. (For all their whining about backroom deals to pass Obamacare, that was an 11-month process, with hearings galore and completed scoring.)

Then today a new low. The Hill reports:

Senate Republicans on Tuesday shocked the Capitol with a crackdown on media access that immediately drew criticism from reporters and Democrats.

Reporters were told they would no longer be allowed to film or record audio of interviews in the Senate side hallways of the Capitol without special permission.

Television reporters will now need permission from senators, the Senate Rules Committee, the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms or the Senate Radio and TV Gallery, depending on location, before conducting an on-camera interview with a senator anywhere in the Capitol or in the Senate office buildings, according to a Senate official familiar with the matter.

This is an effort to escape scrutiny, to hide from voters and to muzzle the press. We suspect the GOP will retreat, but such a move would have been unimaginable before the Trump era.

We’ve written extensively on the erosion of democratic norms under President Trump. This is certainly evidence of that disturbing trend. However, what is most striking here is the degree to which both the administration and Congress feel compelled to disguise and hide what they are going. These pols are running scared, afraid the public will see what’s going on. They’re right, insofar as the more that voters see, the less popular they become.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"How the Republican Coward Caucus is about to sell out its own constituents — in secret"

Spoiler

The fate of the American health care system now rests with a group of allegedly “moderate” senators, who are getting ready to approve a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a repeal bill so monumental in its cruelty that they feel they have no choice but to draft it in secret, not let the public know what it does, hold not a single hearing or committee markup, slip it in a brown paper package to the Congressional Budget Office, then push it through to a vote before the July 4th recess before the inevitable backlash gets too loud.

“We aren’t stupid,” one GOP Senate aide told Caitlin Owens — they know what would happen if they made their bill public. Even Republican senators who aren’t part of the 13-member working group crafting the bill haven’t been told exactly what’s in it.

Today, we learned that in a break with longstanding precedent, “Senate officials are cracking down on media access, informing reporters on Tuesday that they will no longer be allowed to film or record audio of interviews in the Senate side hallways of the Capitol without special permission.” Everyone assumes that it’s so those senators can avoid having to appear on camera being asked uncomfortable questions about a bill that is as likely to be as popular as Ebola. As Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News tweeted about the secrecy with which this bill is being advanced, “I have covered every major health bill in Congress since 1986. Have NEVER seen anything like this.”

This is how a party acts when it is ashamed of what it is about to do to the American people. Yet all it would take to stop this abomination is for three Republicans to stand up to their party’s leaders and say, “No — I won’t do this to my constituents.” With only a 52-48 majority in the Senate, that would kill the bill. But right now, it’s looking as though this Coward Caucus is going to be unable to muster the necessary courage.

To understand the magnitude of what they’re doing, let’s focus on Medicaid, because it was supposed to be a sticking point on which some senators wouldn’t budge, particularly those whose states accepted the ACA’s expansion of the program. But according to various reports, the moderates have already caved.

Take Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, a state where over 175,000 people have gotten insurance thanks to the Medicaid expansion. For a while, Capito made noises about she wanted to preserve the expansion to protect her constituents. “I mean, we can’t just drop them off and wish them good luck,” she said. But no more.

Last week The Hill reported that Capito now supports eliminating the expansion after all — just doing it over seven years instead of the three years that the House bill required. The Charleston Gazette-Mail in Capito’s home state noted that Capito had said she didn’t want to drop all those West Virginians off a cliff, but “Instead, she would drop them off a cliff on the installment plan — around 25,000 per year for seven years.”

Or how about Ohio’s Rob Portman? In his state, 700,000 people gained insurance as a result of the Medicaid expansion. He drafted a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stating his opposition to the House bill because it didn’t protect those who gained insurance from the expansion. Now Portman also wants to phase out the expansion over seven years.

What about Susan Collins, supposedly the most moderate Republican in the Senate? While Maine hasn’t accepted the expansion due to the resistance of America’s Worst Governor™, Paul LePage, Collins has said that she would like to see her state accept the expansion (with some provisions that make it more uncomfortable for recipients, just so those poors don’t get the idea that they should accept it without shame). But we’ve been through this dance with Collins before — Democrats hope she’ll be a vote for moderation; she talks about how she wants to find a compromise; and in the end she votes with the GOP on every important bill.

It’s important to know that the Medicaid question isn’t just about the millions who would lose coverage if the expansion is eliminated. Paige Winfield Cunningham reports today that Senate Republicans are considering even deeper cuts to Medicaid than the $880 billion the House bill slashed out of the program. They’d pay for the slower elimination of the expansion by cutting money out of the existing program, so they could get rid of all of the ACA’s tax increases — which mostly affected the wealthy. In other words, they want to cut Medicaid to give a tax break to rich people.

Just as critical, they want to end Medicaid’s status as an entitlement, meaning that the program wouldn’t cover everyone who’s eligible. States would get a chunk of money to spend, and if more people turned out to need coverage, tough luck for them. The states would be offered “flexibility,” which in practice would mean permission to kick people off the program and cut back on benefits. And don’t think this is just about poor people — over half of Medicaid dollars go to the elderly and disabled. That means that they aren’t just undoing the ACA; they’re making things substantially worse for tens of millions of America’s most vulnerable citizens than they were even before the ACA passed.

And they’re hoping they can do all this before anyone realizes what they’re up to, making this an act of both unconscionable heartlessness and epic cowardice. Their efforts to hide what they’re doing show that they are still capable of feeling some measure of shame. But it might not be enough to stop them.

Sadly, it seems that nobody with "the magic R" behind his or her name is capable of feeling shame.

[fraurosena]

Ugh, anyone watching Sessions? I'm dizzy with all the spinning he's trying to do. 

[GreyhoundFan]

33 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Ugh, anyone watching Sessions? I'm dizzy with all the spinning he's trying to do. 

That makes me think of this:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

 

I agree with both tweets:

[fraurosena]

Oh my, he's getting really angry now, because Wyden accused him of stonewalling, and now he's not answering the question. Wyden is not letting this go, he's like a lisping pitbull! 

[fraurosena]

Blunt is spoon-feeding Sessions his answers. This is cringe-inducing to watch. Gah!

Ha, King is putting his feet to the fire now. Squirming Sessions is soo good to see.
 

Love this tweet:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Jennifer Rubin is earning her paycheck: "What stops Republicans from behaving rationally"

Spoiler

President Trump’s delusional outburst Monday claiming to have accomplished more than any president other than FDR at this stage in his presidency and the fawning praise recited by Cabinet members (in their best imitation of the Politburo) serve to remind us that this is not a normal presidency, and will never be one. On the day that another court ruled against Trump’s travel ban, a passable health-care reform bill is nowhere in sight and little appetite exists for a mammoth tax cut (another one beyond the America Health Care Act) with correspondingly mammoth debt, we can see just how divorced Trump has become from the reality of his failing presidency. That leaves many political watchers to wonder aloud why Republicans stick by the president.

It’s not like Hillary Clinton would be president, the argument goes. They’d get a sane, much more conservatively-doctrinaire president in Mike Pence. They’d no longer have to defend outlandish behavior, minimize his weird affection for dictators or turn a blind eye toward conflicts of interest. GOP lawmakers wouldn’t have to run with him as a ball and chain around their ankles in 2018. And Democrats, who have not had to devise much in the way of an agenda would have to rewrite their entire 2018 and 2020 scripts. From a self-serving perspective, continual defense of him seems downright nutty.

All of that is absolutely accurate but ignores a few salient facts.

First, unlike Senate and House Republicans during Watergate, there are few genuine leaders of principle whose sense of propriety is offended by Trump. The moral and intellectual quality of the current crew of Republicans pales in comparison to the type of Republicans who finally told Richard Nixon the jig was up. Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), House Minority Leader John Rhodes (R-Ariz.) and Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R-Pa.), who went to the White House, have few if any equals in today’s House and Senate. Those who do have the stature to move against Trump don’t necessarily have the base of the party, and those who have visions of the presidency dancing in their heads have been among the most craven apologists (e.g., Sen Tom Cotton (Ark.), Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.)) for Trump. In short, the charge that Republicans by and large put party above country is entirely valid. They’d rather let the country careen from disaster to disaster and scandal to scandal than stick their necks out.

Second, elected Republicans by and large cower in the shadow of Fox Non-News hosts, talk-radio opportunists and right-wing interest groups. They fear noticeable distancing from Trump will prompt the vultures of the right to swoop down up them, leaving only bones behind. So long as the characters who populate the right stick with Trump, elected Republicans, sadly, won’t lead. The tribal identification with party has robbed most in the GOP of common sense, good judgment and even patriotism.

Third, given the first two factors, Republicans continue to rationalize support for Trump, or at least line-straddling. Maybe this will all die down. They could still get tax reform. Once the president is forced out, the party will descend in chaos. Hey, gerrymandering will protect the House majority!

Finally, politicians read the polls. They see Republicans by and large still support the president. They have yet (at least until Georgia’s 6th Congressional District special election on June 20)  to lose a House seat in the Trump era. For now abandoning Trump seems more risky that sticking by him, especially if one has no concern for appearing like a slavish partisan.

What if Trump decides to fire special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, as Trump confidante Chris Ruddy, chief executive of NewsMax, said Trump is considering? That would spark a good deal of outrage in the press and among independents and Democrats. It might even cost Trump some support from sensible Republicans. A wholesale mutiny among Republicans however would not be guaranteed — even then. That reality gives one a full appreciation for how reluctant Republicans are to step out of line — even when it comes to defending an independent investigation by a man many of them praised.

In sum, the sad answer is that these Republicans won’t act out of principle, won’t challenge the right-wing echo chamber and won’t give up the delusion that they can get parts of their agenda through. Given truth serum, nearly all would prefer Pence to replace Trump; they just cannot summon the courage to make that happen. I suppose some undeniable smoking gun either of Trump’s Russian complicity or obstruction could force their hand, but increasingly it looks like the only thing that will convince them to abandon Trump is the certain prospect of political ruin. Even more likely, they’ll have to lose the House in 2018 before they realize Trump is politically radioactive.

Yes, ma'am!

[GreyhoundFan]

"Senate Democrats plan offensive to try to save Obamacare"

Spoiler

Senate Democrats are preparing an all-out war to try to save the Affordable Care Act.

With limited tools at their disposal, their plan is to hammer Senate Republicans for their secrecy, spotlight elements that would throw millions of people off their health coverage and fuel enough public outcry to make Republicans eyeing re-election fights very nervous.

The reality is that Democrats can’t really stop the Republicans who are using Senate budget rules that let them pass repeal legislation with only 50 votes and no chance to filibuster.

But alarmed by the GOP urgency to press ahead with repeal, they are lining up a two-track effort to try to save the Affordable Care Act: They plan a sustained attack on Republicans’ hypocrisy for ramming through a bill with no committee hearings after the GOP blamed Democrats for years for passing Obamacare with no Republican votes.

And when and if the bill comes to the Senate floor, Democrats will use every tool at their disposal to try to slow it down, from challenging the parliamentarian’s decisions on the arcane rules, to forcing a high-profile and lengthy series of amendment votes to shine light on the legislation.

A lengthy vote series, they say, could bring the bright lights of cable news, Twitter, activists and others to the process – and potentially even delay a June vote and force the GOP to endure a July recess when Democratic allies will mobilize in the states.

“We should mount a pretty epic stand if they get this bill to the floor,” said Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who has been a leading Democratic voice on defending the Affordable Care Act. “They’re hoping that the Russia scandal drowns out the fact they’re ready to steal health care from 23 million Americans to give a tax cut to their wealthy friends. We’ve got to make sure when this bill comes to the floor that the entire country is focused on what Republicans are doing.”

Republicans haven’t yet finished work on their bill, but its House counterpart would roll back the health law’s Medicaid expansion and lead to 23 million fewer Americans insured in ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The way to invigorate Democratic voters, senators said, is to focus outrage on the partisan track that Republicans are taking and how little public information is available about it.

“There is a sense of helplessness about it and a sense of urgency about it,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said on Tuesday morning after a party leadership meeting. “There’s also a sense: We’ve got to make sure the American people understand what’s happening here.”

If Republicans bring their Obamacare repeal bill to the floor using a Senate procedure called reconciliation, Democrats cannot filibuster the legislation. Liberal activists are pressing leaders to halt all Senate business in protest of the Republicans, but that idea is not under consideration, senators said.

But Democrats do have vote-a-rama -- a Senate procedure in which Democrats can force votes on an unlimited number of amendments. In theory, they can force votes for as many hours or days as they have amendments to offer, as long as senators are willing to vote every 15 minutes.

“There are a lot of Americans who I think aren’t as focused on this bill as they should be,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), pointing to all the attention on the firing of former FBI Director Jim Comey and the Russia investigation. “Outside the Capitol, it’s basically sunk off the radar screen. The advantage of having a several day long vote-a-rama, it would not just force some debate on amendment, it would also elevate the visibility of it.”

A counter strategy under discussion would be to offer no amendments at all. The theory, which some House Democrats pushed in that chamber, is to make the case that no amendment would make the repeal bill better.

In the interim, the party has at least a few days to try and get the repeal effort back on the front pages of newspapers and the top of newscasts to refocus public attention.

On Tuesday morning, as leading Senate Democrats gathered to plot a way forward, senators honed in on a video clip of McCaskill excoriating Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) over the GOP’s secretive process that went viral last week.

Some discussed a growing sense that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is using the Russia investigation and Trump’s war with Comey to distract attention from the health care debate and pass a bill with less scrutiny.

That’s hurting Democrats’ ability to rally the type of opposition that temporarily derailed the House’s repeal bill, they said.

People “were so engaged during the House consideration because they realized it is such a clear threat,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). “Because rumors were that Republicans wouldn’t be able to come to an agreement themselves in the Senate, people started engaging in other organizing on other issues.”

Some of the Democratic opposition will focus on procedure and take place behind closed doors. Democrats plan to challenge as much of the bill text as they can before the Senate parliamentarian, the nonpartisan staffer who has to decide if the bill fits the Senate process the GOP is using.

Democrats will argue that parts of the bill – such as anti-abortion language in the tax credits – don’t comply with the Senate requirement that every provision of the bill pertains to the budget.

There are also some outstanding questions about whether there is enough savings under the jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

If the parliamentarian sides with Democrats, Republicans would have to delete the language or try to rewrite it.

Short of knocking out some bill text, Democrats are left with few other options than to mount a process argument that even some Republican senators are in the dark about what is in the replacement bill.

Democrats say they are going to sift through the House and Senate process in 2009 and 2010 and confront Republican lawmakers with specific examples of OP amendments being adopted, contrasting it with a GOP process without open hearings or public sunlight.

Outside advocacy groups say that may not be enough. Indivisible, a liberal activist group, wants Democrats to stop all Senate action over the effort to repeal the law. They want Democrats to withhold consent to allow committee meetings or new legislation to make a point of protest.

“There should be no business as usual in the Senate,” said policy director Angel Padilla. “That is the only tool they have and they should use it.”

Democrats have ruled out stopping all action, though, believing it would be counterproductive to derail the approval of new Russia sanctions, for example. They also believe that protesting unrelated nominees and legislation would distract from health care and potentially unify Republicans to pass the repeal bill.

“My hope is that we don’t even have to consider that,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

 

[47of74]

Ugh.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40275055

Quote

Alabama lawmaker Mo Brooks told CNN House of Representatives Majority Whip Steve Scalise and aides were shot.

Police tweeted they were "investigating multiple shooting 400 block E Monroe St. Suspect believed in custody".

Mr Brooks said the shooter was armed with a rifle and was "blasting away" from behind the dugout, using it for protection.

The congressman, who said he took refuge behind a batting cage, described the attacker as a middle-aged white male "a little on the chubby side".

I hope everyone is OK and everyone recovers.

I hope Orange and the GOP don't see this as their Reichstag Fire.

[apple1]

Terrible that this happened. Very early to actually know any motivation for the shooting.

[GreyhoundFan]

The WaPo has a little more on the shooting: "Gunman fires on Alexandria park during GOP baseball practice; lawmaker Scalise among wounded"

Spoiler

A gunman opened fire Wednesday morning on a baseball practice at a park in Alexandria involving Republican members of Congress, injuring several people including at least one lawmaker, Steve Scalise, the majority whip, according to police and a congressman.

Alexandria police would only confirm that a shooting at Eugene Simpson Stadium Parkhad occurred and that one person was in custody.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), in an interview with The Washington Post, confirmed early details. King said Capitol Police confirmed the account to him.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told The Post that Capitol Police officers walked into the congressional gym around 7:30 a.m. Wednesday and told members about the shooting and said Scalise had been shot.

Scalise, from Louisiana, is the third-highest ranking House Republican and has a round-the-clock Capitol Police detail.

President Trump issued this statement: “The vice president and I are aware of the shooting incident in Virginia and are monitoring developments closely. We are deeply saddened by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the members of Congress, their staffs, Capitol Police, first responders, and all others affected.”

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) tweeted that a “shooter attacked a GOP baseball practice. Rifle. 50+ shots fired. 5 hit including Steve Scalise. I am not shot.” He estimated 50 to 100 shots were fired.

Scalise, who has been in Congress since 2008, represents a district that includes some New Orleans suburbs and bayou parishes. Before entering Congress, he was a lawmaker in Louisiana for eight years. Scalise and his wife, Jennifer, have two children and live in Jefferson, La.

The 7:30 a.m. gathering in the park in the 400 block of East Monroe Street was the final practice before Thursday night’s scheduled game between Republicans and Democrats at Nationals Park. The park is near the Potomac Yard shopping center on Route 1 and Old Town Alexandria. It has two well-groomed baseball fields, one big and one smaller, for little leaguers. It is adjacent to a YMCA and across the street from a CVS and an Aldi grocery store.

Katie Fillus of Alexandria had just gotten out of her car to walk her dogs in the park nearby when she said she heard “very, very loud popping sounds.”

“And a I knew a baseball team was practicing, and everybody started screaming: ‘Hit the ground! Hit the ground!’

She said she laid flat in the field as the gunshots grew louder — “like he was walking across the field toward all of us, the gunman, and I was screaming: ‘Can someone help me? I have my dogs and I can’t get behind anything.’ ”

Fillus said a police agent pulled out a gun and tried to shoot back. He was screaming, “Drop your weapon!’ And he shot her and she fell on the ground. She fell on the ground in front of us, and we were all just trying to lay as flat we could. And I belly crawled, dragging through the mud. I got to the car and I ducked under the car and I laid as close as I could under the car to hide from the person. then the police seemed to come.”

Brooks told CNN that he heard a loud “bam” behind third base.

“I see a rifle, and I see a little bit of a body and then I hear another bam and I realize there’s still an active shooter. At the same time I hear Steve Scalise over at 2nd base scream — he was shot,” he said.

Brooks said he ran to the first base side and hid behind a batting cage as gunfire continued.

He said Scalise crawled out of the outfield leaving a trail of blood, and that he was given liquids and put pressure on a chest wound.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) was at the gym on Capitol Hill when he was informed, according to two GOP lawmakers who saw him there. They said he immediately stopped his workout and headed out to handle the situation, guided by his own Capitol Police detail, which is always at his side. The lawmakers requested anonymity to discuss the speaker’s movements.

As Ryan left and after Capitol Police briefly told members about the shooting, the gym quickly quiet and members quickly packed up their belongings to also head to their offices, the lawmakers said.

“Nobody knew what the hell was going on,” one of the Republicans said. “People just left.”

There is a slightly heavier-than-normal police presence outside the U.S. Capitol with uniformed officers stationed at all entrances as normal but more officers guarding the East Front with long weapons. Tourists are still milling about for scheduled tours or visits to members’ offices.

There was one notable departure from the normal level of protection inside he building: Three uniformed officers stood outside the first floor office of House Majority a leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) standing watch.

As much as I despise most Repugs, I hate that this has happened. I don't want anyone injured. I want them voted out of office. I hope those who have been injured recover. According to local news station WTOP, the shooter is in custody.

[GreyhoundFan]

"As a prosecutor, Kamala Harris’s doggedness was praised. As a senator, she’s deemed ‘hysterical.’"

Spoiler

During Sen. Kamala D. Harris’s 25-year career in law enforcement, she has established herself as a formidable presence in the courtroom, on the campaign trail and ultimately in government.

She grew up watching her African American dad and Indian American mother protest for civil rights in Berkeley and took that fierce fight for justice with her to law school. She served two terms as San Francisco’s first female district attorney and was the first woman elected as California’s attorney general.

It’s the résumé of hard-charging legal advocate, not unlike many others in Congress, where she is now a freshman senator from California. Those who know her also know she doesn’t back down.

While such attributes are often rewarded in Washington, they’re not going over so well for Harris — at least with some male colleagues and cable commentators. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee responsible for investigating Russian interference with the 2016 election and connections between the country and Trump campaign officials, Harris has landed a star role in the country’s political drama.

She has used her prosecutorial background to ask pointed, tough questions — and for that she is being admonished. One former Trump campaign adviser on CNN called her “hysterical.”

To those who have observed hearings on Capitol Hill, especially high-visibility televised hearings involving partisan subjects, there has been little or nothing unusual about Harris’s behavior. Members get a small amount of time to ask questions and make their points. Unfriendly witnesses are inclined to string out their answers and let the clock run.

The result, one side rushing, the other stalling, is never pretty. The phrase, “just give me a yes or no answer,” is so often heard it ought to be engraved on the Capitol portico.

But twice now, Harris has been interrupted and chastised by male senators for her style of questioning during the hearings. It happened first last week during questioning of Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and then again Tuesday when Attorney General Jeff Sessions was testifying.

Each member of the committee had a limited number of minutes to question Sessions, who was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation after it was revealed that he had failed to disclose his contacts with Russian diplomats during the campaign.

Sessions and Harris spoke over each other throughout the interaction; Sessions seemed eager to slowly and thoroughly deliver his response, and Harris seemed just as eager to push him along, especially when his responses weren’t addressing the answers she sought.

At one point, Sessions said he was “not able to be rushed this fast.”

“It makes me nervous,” he told Harris.

Sessions refused to answer numerous questions from the panel, citing what he called a long-standing Department of Justice policy that prevented him from commenting on private communications with President Trump.

Harris asked if the policy was written down, to which Sessions gave no clear answer but instead explained the “principle” of it.

“Sir, I am not asking you about the principle,” Harris interjected. “I am asking — when you knew that you would be asked these questions and you would rely on that policy, did you not ask your staff to show you the policy that would be the basis for your refusing to answer the majority of questions we are asking you …”

At that moment, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cut in and appealed to the committee chairman, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)

“The witness should be allowed to answer the question,” McCain said.

“Senators will allow the chair to control the hearing,” Burr said, pointing to McCain. “Senator Harris, let him answer.”

Sessions then went on to describe the principle, at length.

Before Harris got her “yes or no” answer, Burr cut her off and said her time had expired.

After the exchange, Harris tweeted: “It was a simple question. Can Sessions point to the policy, in writing, that allows him to not answer a whole host of our questions today.”

The scene Wednesday was nearly identical to one that played out during a hearing last week, when Harris was questioning Rosenstein.

From him, Harris also asked for a simple “yes or no” answer to her question, a phrasing that is routine in hearings as members rush to ask as many questions as they can.

Would he sign a letter giving Special Counsel Robert Mueller full independence from the Justice Department during his own Russia probe, she asked.

“Senator, I’m very sensitive about time and I’d like to have a very lengthy conversation and explain that all to you,” Rosenstein responded.

“Can you give me a ‘yes or no’ answer?” Harris asked.

“It’s not a short answer, Senator,” Rosenstein said.

“It is,” she said, cutting him off. “Either you are willing to do that or you are not.”

The exchange felt like a contentious courtroom battle between a prosecutor and a key witness, one that apparently irritated McCain.

He interrupted Harris and told the chairman Rosenstein should be able to answer the question.

Harris continued interrogating the deputy attorney general, again pressing him to give a “yes or no” answer.

Then Burr interjected.

“Will the senator suspend?” Burr interjected. “The chair is going to exercise its right to allow the witnesses to answer the question, and the committee is on notice to provide the witnesses the courtesy, which has not been extended all the way across, extend the courtesy for questions to get answered.”

As with Sessions, Harris never got her answer before time expired.

Harris spokesman Tyrone Gayle told the Associated Press that the senator “has run countless investigations, and will follow the facts wherever they may lead to get the truth for the American people. That can only happen when witnesses answer questions,” he said.

Both hearing exchanges have prompted women to discuss aloud and online how Harris’s experiences with her fellow senators are only highlighting the treatment average women, especially women of color, experience every day.

Women of color “understand what Kamala Harris is dealing with,” Tanzina Vega, a CNN reporter who covers race and inequality, wrote on Twitter. “Raise your hand if you’ve been shushed, silenced, scolded, etc.”

Her words were retweeted nearly 2,000 times and garnered more than 3,000 likes.

“I thought so,” she responded. “Thanks ladies.”

...

Later Tuesday night, during a segment with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, former Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller said Sessions “knocked away some of the hysteria from Kamala Harris and some of the Democrats who wanted to make this a big partisan show.”

CNN political analyst Kirsten Powers quickly seized on Miller’s use of “hysteria,” a word with historic sexist undertones grounded in a psychological disorder tied to women’s physiology.

“How was Senator Kamala Harris hysterical?” Powers asked.

Miller said he thought there was no real effort to get a real question answered.

“I think she asked a lot of questions,” Powers said. “She was very dogged. I wouldn’t say she was any more dogged than Senator Ron Wyden was, would you say that?” (Wyden also had a contentious exchange with Sessions.)

“I think she was hysterical,” Miller said. “I don’t think Senator Wyden was trying to get to the bottom of answers either.”

“But he wasn’t hysterical,” Powers said. “She was.”

The CNN commentator and Trump supporter then chimed in: “Hysteria is a neutral quality,” he said.

“And yet,” replied Powers, “it’s just women that usually are called hysterical.”

Harris’s treatment has not gone unnoticed.

The admonishments from men have in fact elevated Harris’s profile, prompting comparisons with her with fellow female Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), who was censured during Sessions’s confirmation hearing earlier this year and inspired the rallying cry, “Nevertheless, she persisted.”

After a contentious exchange between Harris and Sessions during Wednesday’s intelligence hearing, Harris tweeted: “The women of the United States Senate will not be silenced when seeking the truth.

Screw you, Jason Miller.

[GreyhoundFan]

The WaPo has a live updates thread on the shooting.  Sadly, I doubt this will change any of the "keep your hands off my guns" crowd on the Republican side.

[Penny]

29 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The WaPo has a live updates thread on the shooting.  Sadly, I doubt this will change any of the "keep your hands off my guns" crowd on the Republican side.

You would think the opposite, that there would be stricter laws on guns. 

[GrumpyGran]

Uh-oh, Trump's going to speak. You know, it used to be that you could expect to hear "Our thoughts and prayers to those injured...appreciation to law enforcement...investigation going forward..." Why do I think that this will be much more divisive? And I have to say, congressmen who were there CAN NOT shut up about it. The left might be the same if the tables were turned but I can't help thinking "Oh, now you want to talk to the evil liberal media?"