United States Congress of Fail - Part 4

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

Is he running again in November? I hope the Dems find somebody strong to run against him.  I'm so sick of these people running unopposed.

[GreyhoundFan]

"A GOP senator’s remarkable admission about Trump and Mueller"

Spoiler

President Trump just uncorked a new round of Twitter attacks this morning on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and on the English language, quoting one of his staunchest legal allies as follows: “I think President Trump was right when he said there never should have been a Special Council appointed because there was no probable cause for believing that there was any crime, collusion or otherwise, or obstruction of justice!”

Yet Republicans appear increasingly dug into their position. Their stance is that of course Mueller should be allowed to finish his investigation, but they will not act legislatively to protect the probe, because this is not at all necessary, as Trump would never dream of taking action against it, since he would face severe consequences that Republicans will not enunciate in advance.

But a Republican lawmaker has just given away the real game behind this carefully crafted straddle. Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) was pressed by the Washington Examiner on why Republicans are hesitant to protect Mueller, and this is what happened:

Republicans in Congress are hesitant to antagonize President Trump ahead of ahead of difficult midterm elections, wary of sparking a backlash from a committed grassroots base more loyal to the White House.

Amid sky-high Democratic enthusiasm and a developing “blue wave,” Republicans can’t afford a war with Trump that depresses GOP turnout. Republicans might be worried about Trump’s attacks on special counsel Robert Mueller, but they are reluctant to push back, much less support legislation to curtail the president’s ability to fire Mueller and sideline the federal probe …

“The president is, as you know — you’ve seen his numbers among the Republican base — it’s very strong. It’s more than strong, it’s tribal in nature,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who decided to retire when his second term concludes at year’s end, after periodically sparring with Trump.

“People who tell me, who are out on trail, say, look, people don’t ask about issues anymore. They don’t care about issues. They want to know if you’re with Trump or not,” Corker added.

This is a candid glimpse from a leading GOP lawmaker into what’s really driving the Republican straddle on Mueller. As I’ve noted, Trump’s attacks on Mueller are putting Republicans in a tough spot. The educated swing voters who are driving the Democratic anti-Trump resurgence support the Mueller probe and may vote to oust Republicans who won’t check Trump’s excesses. But Trump’s attacks probably rally GOP base voters, large percentages of whom see the Mueller probe as a witch hunt, making it harder for GOP lawmakers to protect that investigation.

Corker just conceded that this is the driving motive. He suggested that GOP voters equate being “with Trump” in a “tribal” sense with not acting to protect Mueller. Republicans are mindful of this as they craft their position toward Mueller, which includes rhetorical support for the probe but no new substantive limits on Trump’s power to do what they say they don’t want him to do.

After all, some Republicans have already sponsored bills that would protect Mueller from Trump, by creating a process under which any removal of the special counsel would be subjected to judicial review and reversed if it were not for good cause. But these bills are stalled, and Republicans have no intention of changing that.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) yesterday voiced strong support for the Mueller probe. But he again said there’s no reason to act to protect it. And Republican leaders privately rebuffed yet another push by Democrats on this front.

I’m told by Democratic aides familiar with the negotiations over the omnibus spending package that Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi asked GOP leaders to insert a provision that would have protected Mueller from action by Trump, aides familiar with the talks say. But Republican leaders rebuffed the request. (Politico also reported this.) I could not ascertain whether GOP leaders gave a reason for doing so. A GOP aide countered that this was never part of the talks.

At bottom, the GOP position is basically to beg Trump not to bring the issue to a head, without taking any action to prevent it — and without signaling what Republicans will do in response if he does. Making this worse, University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck points out that if Congress does not act in advance, reinstating Mueller might actually prove legally harder than it would be to protect the investigation now. As Brian Beutler puts it: “Republicans pleading with Trump not to fire Mueller are more properly understood to be asking him not to put them in the position of having to capitulate.”

Corker has basically conceded that Republicans believe it would alienate the GOP base to signal that removing Mueller would meet with specific consequences. But if this is the case, and Trump does try to shut down or hamstring the probe, that would only further rally Republican voters behind him. Why would it be any easier to inflict consequences at that point? If, as Corker says, what matters most in this calculus is what GOP voters think of lawmakers’ tribal loyalty to Trump, it would only get harder. And really, why would Trump take any other lesson from what he’s seeing right now?

...

Shaking my head...

[fraurosena]

Let me get his clear. The Republicans on the Hill view the BT’s as the most important part of the electorate.

They have morphed into the Trumpvidian party. 

[WiseGirl]

6 hours ago, fraurosena said:

They have morphed into the Trumpvidian party. 

How the hell did we get to this place?

Time for real Republicans to get their shit together and leave this fucked up, racist Trump ruled party and become Republicans again. But they don't have the balls nor do they want to leave the ability to line their pockets behind.

 

[fraurosena]

18 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

How the hell did we get to this place?

Time for real Republicans to get their shit together and leave this fucked up, racist Trump ruled party and become Republicans again. But they don't have the balls nor do they want to leave the ability to line their pockets behind.

 

I think that their extreme gerrymandering efforts spectacularly backfired. They chopped up districts really badly in order for their party to have a certain win at elections. They did not realize that in doing so, they would be giving the 'win' to the BT, racist, ignorant and asinine part of the electorate, and now they're stuck , and have to pander to this meagre slice of the population, or lose. 

That's what you get for cheating. 

[Howl]

3 hours ago, WiseGirl said:

How the hell did we get to this place?

Time for real Republicans to get their shit together and leave this fucked up, racist Trump ruled party and become Republicans again. But they don't have the balls nor do they want to leave the ability to line their pockets behind.

I'm starting to think that Trump's insane tariff demands are starting to make Republicans very, very nervous, and might override their pants-wetting fear of the Trump base mob parading with torches and pitchforks.  Sudden application of tariffs can and in fact, are, upsetting global trade and the adverse unintended consequences snowballing toward economic disaster aren't far behind.  

*Puts on tin-foil hat and adjusts fit*  Speculating that battle fatigue is setting in from picking through the wreckage/damage control/spinning and decide that one or more of the ongoing scandals/outrageous bullshit has crossed a red line into fainting couch, pearl-clutching territory, and use that to leverage Trump out the door.  Not too likely, I know, but  insanity reigns, tornadic-force winds are constantly shifting, and the carnage is everywhere. 

Nah, they'll just continue to run around like frightened sheep, bleating about this and that, and as @fraurosena pointed out above 

I think that their extreme gerrymandering efforts spectacularly backfired. They chopped up districts really badly in order for their party to have a certain win at elections. They did not realize that in doing so, they would be giving the 'win' to the BT, racist, ignorant and asinine part of the electorate, and now they're stuck , and have to pander to this meagre slice of the population, or lose. 

That's what you get for cheating. 

[GreyhoundFan]

The House Repugs rammed through a $1.3 trillion spending bill that was just authored last night. So much for actually reading, deliberating, or having debate on the floor: "The Daily 202: Winners and losers in the spending bill". It only funds the government until the end of September.

Spoiler

THE BIG IDEA: Congressional leaders unveiled the details last night of a $1.3 trillion deal that will fund the federal government through the end of September. Republicans get a $78 billion increase in defense spending. Democrats get a $52 billion increase in domestic spending. Appropriators almost completely disregarded the austerity budget proposed by President Trump.

We’re still dissecting the 2,232-page bill, which was negotiated behind closed doors and must pass before Friday at midnight to avert another shutdown. It will almost certainly be the last major piece of legislation to get through Congress this year. Here are seven winners and seven losers:

WINNERS:

1. The troops: All military personnel will get a 2.4 percent pay raise. (Civilian federal employees get a smaller 1.9 percent raise.)

2. Defense contractors: The Pentagon gets $144 billion for new hardware, including missile defense. It’s the biggest increase since the Iraq War was launched 15 years ago.

3. Dean Heller: The Nevada Republican is the most vulnerable senator up for reelection in 2018, and he blocked efforts by the Energy Department to revive the unpopular nuclear storage program at Yucca Mountain. The ads write themselves.

4. Chris Van Hollen: The Democratic senator from Maryland blocked all funding for the construction of a new FBI headquarters because the administration has decided it wants the facility in the District, rather than his blue state. Van Hollen is trying to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, Barbara Mikulski, who used her seniority to bring home lots of bacon for Maryland.

5. Big Ag: The tax bill hurt large agricultural corporations by giving special advantages to farmer-owned cooperatives. Their lobbyists got language inserted to level the playing field. To get their support, Democrats secured the expansion of a low-income tax credit.

6. Big Bird: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting will get $465 million in federal funding. Appropriators also rejected Trump’s push to eliminate the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.

7. The integrity of our elections: “While a Democratic push to win provisions protecting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did not succeed, the bill does include hundreds of millions of dollars to combat potential interference from Russia or others in the November midterm elections,”  Mike DeBonis and Erica Werner report. “The federal Election Assistance Commission will receive $380 million to dole out to states to improve their election-related cybersecurity. And the FBI is set to receive $300 million in counterintelligence funding to combat Russian hacking."

LOSERS:

1. The Parkland kids: The bill includes the Fix NICS Act, which will modestly improve the background check system for buying guns by incentivizing states and federal agencies to share more records for the national database. Democrats also got language allowing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research into gun violence.

But these incremental reforms take political pressure off Republicans to pass a stand-alone bill. As tens of thousands of protesters descend on Washington this weekend to agitate for stronger gun control, GOP lawmakers will point to Fix NICS and the CDC rider to inoculate themselves from attacks that they’ve done nothing in response to the Florida school shooting.

This spending deal basically ensures that, among other things, the minimum age to buy an assault weapon won’t be raised from 18 to 21 — which would have stopped Nikolas Cruz, 19, from legally getting the AR-15 he used to kill 17 people on Valentine’s Day at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Democrats say this is the most they could realistically get, and they argue that doing it in the budget bill stops Republicans from sneaking through concealed-carry reciprocity, a top NRA priority, in a gun-focused package.

2. Trump’s border wall promise: The president wanted $25 billion of funding for the project. He only got $1.6 billion to construct defenses on the U.S.-Mexico border, but most of the money is earmarked for specific projects that would have probably gone forward even if Hillary Clinton was president. “The biggest catch is this: The barriers authorized to be built under the act must be ‘operationally effective designs’ already deployed as of last March, meaning none of Trump’s big, beautiful wall prototypes can be built,” Ed O’Keefe notes in a story with Mike DeBonis and Erica Werner.

Trump nearly derailed the whole package Wednesday because there was not more wall funding, but he relented after Paul Ryan paid an emergency visit to the White House residence. Mitch McConnell dialed in and was on speakerphone. “They argued that he was getting money for the border wall at a level the White House had been signaling was acceptable,” per Robert Costa and Josh Dawsey. “In recent days, he has insisted to associates that congressional Republicans ‘owe’ him more money for the wall since he has raised them millions for their reelection bids and signed the GOP-authored tax bill into law. Tuesday’s dinner gala for the National Republican Congressional Committee — the $32 million that event raised for House lawmakers, in particular — was on the president’s mind.”

3. The “dreamers”: This was also probably the last opportunity before the midterms to protect the undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children, as part of a deal for wall funding. They continue to be left in limbo.

4. Health insurance companies: Trump cut off cost-sharing reduction payments last fall that keep it profitable for insurers to offer plans to poor people. Then the tax bill eliminated the individual mandate, which means many healthy young people will no longer buy insurance plans. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) pushed hard for an amendment to restore some of the money being taken away from the big insurance companies, and Democrats were amenable because they want to shore up the Obamacare marketplaces. But then social conservatives demanded new restrictions on abortion to go along with it, a poison pill that killed the Collins-Alexander plan.

5. The House Freedom Caucus: The group of three dozen hard-line conservatives got rolled, as did Mick Mulvaney, the OMB director who used to be a member and took the lead in crafting the budget proposal Trump unveiled last month. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the Freedom Caucus, decried the deal because it funds Planned Parenthood, does not defund “sanctuary cities” and expands the national debt. He’s also mad that it does not “really” include money for the wall, and he doesn’t like stronger background checks for gun buyers. Many of the members in his caucus will vote no, but leadership does not need their votes. Meadows has Trump’s ear, but this again exposes the limits of his influence.

6. Betsy DeVos: The Education Secretary wanted to spend more than $1 billion promoting vouchers while slashing funding for the rest of her department by $3.6 billion, mostly by taking it from programs that help the poor. She also wanted to make big cuts to the Office for Civil Rights and eliminate grant programs that support student mental-health services.

The final deal basically does the opposite of everything she asked for. Her department’s funding goes up by $3.9 billion, but she gets zero of the dollars she wanted for the school choice program. There’s a $700 million increase in funding for a mental health program that will fund school counselors. There’s $40 million for a D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant that she wanted to eliminate. The Office for Civil Rights, after-school programs and early-childhood education programs all get money she said she didn’t want. (Moriah Balingit and Danielle Douglas-Gabriel have more.)

7. Transparency: The bill was released late on the night before the House votes to pass it. Negotiations were conducted behind closed doors, and dropping it at the 11th hour leaves little time for people to scrutinize the many handouts to special interests until after they’ve gone into effect. This is no way to run a government. (Here’s the full bill if you want to peruse it yourself.)

But, but, but: There are two notable exceptions. The Congressional Research Service now must publish online all the reports it prepares for lawmakers. The Secret Service will be required to release an annual report on travel costs for people under their protection, specifically adult children of the president. This is designed to expose how much taxpayers are spending to safeguard Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump on their overseas business trips.

-- On Capitol Hill, party leaders have shifted from negotiation mode to sales mode. Both sides in both chambers are declaring victory and now trying to whip votes for the bill:

From the president:

“These job-creating, life-saving investments stand in sharp contrast to the Trump Budget,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. 

The Speaker:

.

There are more self-congratulatory tweets in the article.

[AnywhereButHere]

So apparently rethuglicans aren’t all that happy with their spending bill. Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana called it a “Great Dane sized whiz down the leg of all taxpayers.” and to add to my amusement Joy Reid keeps referring to Caligula’s border wall as “My Precious”. She’s having a great time ragging on all Republicans and Caligula specifically. 

 

[Smoochie]

57 minutes ago, AnywhereButHere said:

So apparently rethuglicans aren’t all that happy with their spending bill. Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana called it a “Great Dane sized whiz down the leg of all taxpayers.” and to add to my amusement Joy Reid keeps referring to Caligula’s border wall as “My Precious”. She’s having a great time ragging on all Republicans and Caligula specifically. 

 

Joy had me laughing tonight too!  I love her!

[47of74]

So apparently rethuglicans aren’t all that happy with their spending bill. Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana called it a “Great Dane sized whiz down the leg of all taxpayers.” and to add to my amusement Joy Reid keeps referring to Caligula’s border wall as “My Precious”. She’s having a great time ragging on all Republicans and Caligula specifically. 
 

That’s insulting to Caligula to compare him to fuck face.

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

On 3/22/2018 at 4:36 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

The House Repugs rammed through a $1.3 trillion spending bill that was just authored last night. So much for actually reading, deliberating, or having debate on the floor: "The Daily 202: Winners and losers in the spending bill". It only funds the government until the end of September.

And the whole bill was almost derailed at the last minute, because a petty senator was still holding a grudge against a dead political rival.

Quote

For several hours Thursday night, a senator’s disdain for a deceased political rival threatened to spark a government shutdown.

According to two congressional aides familiar with the dispute, Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho) demanded that a provision renaming the White Clouds Wilderness in central Idaho after former four-term governor Cecil D. Andrus, who died last year, be removed from a fast-moving omnibus appropriations bill.

The request generated all sorts complications as Senate leaders sought to clear the 2,232-page $1.3 trillion spending bill ahead of a Friday night government shutdown deadline. Among them: changing the bill would require a House vote, as well — many hours after the House passed the bill and members left Washington for a two-week recess.

Aides to Risch did not respond to a message seeking comment on his objections. Risch would not comment outside the Senate chamber early Friday morning: “What part of ‘No’ don’t you understand?” he said. “Do I have a problem with my English? I don’t have any comment.”

The deceased rival, Cecil Andrus, was a respected Democrat in a very red state, who worked with politicians on both sides of the aisle to try to do what was best for their state. That's why he was elected governor of Idaho 4 times, even though the state legislature had a Republican majority. Senator Risch was willing to have the Federal government grind to a halt, just to keep a wilderness area from being named after Governor Andrus. Petty, vindictive, and selfish. I bet he fits right in with the current administration. 

[fraurosena]

It seems the GOP has a rogue among their midst, who sneakily put Russian sanctions in that bill. Sometimes it's a good thing the presidunce can't read. 

Congress Snuck New Russia Sanctions Into Spending Bill

Quote

Buried in the massive $1.3 trillion spending bill that Congress is considering this week are strict new punishments against Russia, in what lawmakers and aides say is a message to President Donald Trump to reconsider his relaxed posture toward Moscow.

The legislation, which Trump was always expected to sign, includes restrictions that bar many federal agencies from engaging financially or otherwise with the Kremlin and its backers on a number of fronts. Lawmakers from both parties viewed those provisions and others as an opportunity to enshrine new punishments against Vladimir Putin’s regime at a time when the Trump administration has taken heat for its refusal to immediately and fully implement mandatory sanctions and other punishments.

“Those [sanctions] were a good first step. But I do think that these newer sanctions hopefully put a little more bite to it. And frankly I think that’s a good thing,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told The Daily Beast. “The Russians are guilty of bad behavior all over the world. And so we shouldn’t be doing anything to encourage or condone that.”

The new measures come as the White House faces renewed criticism over its handling of Russia. Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that the president, against the advice of his top aides, congratulated Putin on winning re-election to another six-year term. He also did not press Putin on election-meddling or on the nerve-agent attack on a former Russian spy in the United Kingdom.

Multiple lawmakers and congressional sources from both parties said the new financial barriers aimed at punishing Russia are both robust and significant, and were crafted in light of Russia’s continued aggression in eastern Europe and the Middle East in addition to the likelihood that the Kremlin tries to meddle in the 2018 midterm elections.

Democrats pointed to Trump’s reluctance to publicly criticize Putin and speak out about Russia’s activities, and said it was necessary for Congress to step in whenever possible to send the administration a message.

“With the appropriations bill, bipartisan majorities are once again sending the president tough new measures to push back on Russia and shore up our election system against future interference,” Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told The Daily Beast. “It’s time that the White House listens to Congress and uses the tools we’ve provided.”

The spending bill bars the use of federal funds for “enter[ing] into new contracts with, or new agreements for Federal assistance to, the Russian Federation,” and allocates $250 million to the Countering Russian Influence Fund—a 150 percent increase from last year. Additionally, it authorizes significant new sanctions against Russia over its actions in eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Their origin, though, remains a mystery. While lawmakers were unsure who exactly inserted those measures into the 2,232-page spending bill, they said it represented a broad point of agreement among Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill in a policy area where Trump himself has, in their view, struggled.

“I think there is broad bipartisan concern that our president hasn’t been active in pushing back against Russian aggression—either its meddling in our last election and likely meddling in our next election, or its aggression toward its neighbors like Ukraine, Georgia and its interference in Syria,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told The Daily Beast.

Coons, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the language was “most likely added by senior senators who recognize that the Congress has acted forcefully and in a bipartisan way to demand sanctions and stronger action by the president and [we] have so far been largely disappointed. I think this is partly an effort of senior legislators from both parties to make progress on that.”

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) described the spending bill as a “wheelbarrow” of Congress’ priorities, and said he suspects the additional measures were included “in response to what’s been going on up here,” referring to mandatory sanctions against Russia that continue to receive bipartisan backing.

Because it’s an omnibus appropriations bill, that’s the logical place for that type of language to be,” Isakson said.

Despite Trump’s apparent unwillingness to outwardly criticize Putin and Moscow’s election-meddling practices, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have credited the Trump administration for taking actions against the Kremlin including a new lethal defensive weapons sale to Ukraine’s military, which is defending itself against Russian-backed separatists.

The omnibus includes financial punishments against Russia over its annexation of Crimea, which the U.S. and its allies have condemned. The legislation also includes a five-page section titled “Countering Russian Influence and Aggression,” which outlines specification prohibitions on federal dollars going to the Russian government.

Additionally, federal agencies are barred from directing financial assistance toward countries that are supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The bill also restricts federal agencies from investing in Crimea or other areas that the U.S. believes are under illegal control by Russia, and requires Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to direct Americans sitting on international financial boards to vote against any measure that funds programs which violate “the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

More broadly, the legislation directs funds toward “supporting democracy programs” in Russia including Internet freedom. It also allocates $380 million to the Election Assistance Commission to help states and localities improve their election infrastructure to guard it against cyberattacks. The Senate Intelligence Committee issued a series of recommendations this week on election security as part of its Russia investigation.

“It is reassuring that at least in this bill, we still have a bipartisan consensus with regard to national security issues,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) told The Daily Beast, speculating that Congress was aiming to “protect [Trump] from himself” by slipping in new punishments against Putin.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Aw, poor snowflake doesn't want to run if the odds aren't stacked in his favor: "Facing unfriendly new map, Pennsylvania GOP congressman won’t seek reelection"

Spoiler

Rep. Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) won’t seek reelection this year, complicating the party’s chances of holding a seat in the Philadelphia suburbs after a court decision struck down a GOP-friendly map.

“It’s the most difficult decision I can recall having to make,” Costello told MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt on Sunday night. “I have an 8-month old. I have a 4-year old. And it’s a very challenging job, serving in Congress with a young family.

Republicans in Costello’s 6th Congressional District had been told this week that he’d abandon his campaign before the May 15 primary. The decision was first reported by City & State Pennsylvania, shocking Republicans who viewed the 41-year old as a rising star.

While two other Republicans had filed to run in the 6th District, the incumbent had more than $1.3 million in his campaign account and had won his previous races with more than 56 percent of the vote. Both Republicans were running to the right of Costello, a business-friendly legislator who had opposed the GOP’s effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Democrats, who had persuaded businesswoman Chrissy Houlahan to run in the new district, now expect to face a weaker Republican nominee in November.

“Costello’s exit should set off alarm bells for vulnerable House Republicans,” said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Evan Lukaske on Sunday night. “[They] will also have to explain to middle-class voters why they’ve given repeated handouts to the rich and biggest corporations.”

Costello had been considering the decision since February, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court drew a new map to replace a gerrymander that Republicans put into place seven years ago. The 6th District, which had cut through three suburban counties in an L-shape, was reshaped to include all of Costello’s Chester County and part of Berks County.

That change turned a district that had narrowly backed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president into one that had given her a 10-point margin of victory over Donald Trump. Before Costello’s decision, the Cook Political Report rated the 6th District a “toss-up,” and the congressman had called on state legislators to impeach the judges who drew the new map. (Pennsylvania elects judges in partisan elections, and the majority that ruled on the map was mostly composed of Democrats.)

“The state Supreme Court, in a matter of a week or so decided to invalidate the map,” Costello said on Sunday night. “The first time in the history of the republic that a state Supreme Court has done that.”

Last week, as the filing period closed and the Supreme Court opted not to hear a Republican case against the new map, Costello filed to run. Democrats waited to see whether he’d reconsider, especially after the special House election victory of Conor Lamb (D) in a conservative Pittsburgh-area district rattled Republicans.

“If [Lamb] wins, you’re probably going to see another half-dozen Republicans say they’re not running again,” former vice president Joe Biden said earlier this month, after he campaigned for Lamb.

Republicans, who had waged several unsuccessful legal battles to stop the new map, now worry that it could cost them at least two seats in the Pennsylvania suburbs — the 6th District vacated by Costello, and the 5th District where scandal-plagued Rep. Patrick Meehan (R) has already announced plans to retire. After Lamb’s victory, Democrats are 23 seats away from taking the majority in the House. Costello is the 24th Republican congressman to retire this year with no immediate plans to seek higher office.

 

[Howl]

From @WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?'s post:

Quote

According to two congressional aides familiar with the dispute, Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho) demanded that a provision renaming the White Clouds Wilderness in central Idaho after former four-term governor Cecil D. Andrus, who died last year, be removed from a fast-moving omnibus appropriations bill.

Well, this is a flash from the past!  I tried to find the White Clouds many years ago way before the internet, and ended up backpacking in the close-by Sawtooth Mtns instead.  

The new name is Cecil D. Andrus–White Clouds Wilderness.  It is of great interest to me that Bureau of Land Management has not updated their web site to reflect the new name, but Wiki and other web sites have updated.  It could be that technically, the bill reflecting the name change won't be active until a certain date, but (for example) the original Bears Ears National Monument designated by Obama was instantly updated on the Federal web site. 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[Cartmann99]

That was fast...

 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, Cartmann99 said:

That was fast...

 

So God was just fucking with her I suppose.  First God tells her to run and then says "Psych! just kidding".

On 3/22/2018 at 1:48 AM, fraurosena said:

Let me get his clear. The Republicans on the Hill view the BT’s as the most important part of the electorate.

They have morphed into the Trumpvidian party. 

Husband keeps telling me not to call them TrumpDavidans as it is an insult to the Branch Davidians

[GreyhoundFan]

"‘It sucks’: Senators fume over McConnell’s tight grip"

Spoiler

Republican John Kennedy has served in the Senate a full 15 months — and not once received a roll call vote on one of his legislative amendments.

“I think it sucks,” the Louisiana senator fumed as Congress headed home in March for a two-week recess. The Senate has voted on only six amendments this year.

“All I hear is, ‘Well, it’s not done that way,’” Kennedy said of his call for a more robust debate of ideas on the Senate floor. “Well, the way we’ve been doing it for a long time sucks.”

When Mitch McConnell took over as majority leader in 2015 after years in the minority, he vowed to make good on a central campaign pledge of returning to a more “free-wheeling” Senate. And in the early days of his tenure, he did: McConnell presided over open, raucous floor debate on the Keystone XL Pipeline, winning praise even from some Democrats.

But the Senate has reverted to form. The body has taken just 25 roll call votes on so-called binding amendments so far during this two-year Congress, a sharp decrease from the 154 amendments voted on by this point during the 114th Congress under Barack Obama. Each year since McConnell took over, the Senate has voted on fewer nonbudget amendments: 140 in 2015, 57 in 2016, 19 in 2017 and six so far this year.

“There’s a lot of weeks I’m not sure why I show up,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

The number of amendment votes is a key barometer of the amount, if not the quality, of debate in the Senate. And the Senate’s increasingly lackluster debate, after McConnell promised the opposite, underscores both the limits to his power as majority leader and the pitfalls of making promises while in the minority of how different things would be if he were in charge.

The paucity of votes was caused in part by McConnell’s strategy of pursuing a partisan agenda in 2017 that didn’t need Democratic support. But it also reflects a lack of cooperation between the two Senate leaders. Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, said the Kentucky Republican “can and does make it easy” for senators to vote on amendments, but he blamed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for adopting then-Majority Leader Harry “Reid’s anti-amendment strategy” of shielding vulnerable senators from tough votes.

The figures in this story are based on a POLITICO analysis that encompasses amendments proposed by individual senators but that excludes repeat votes on individual amendments. It also leaves out amendments to budget resolutions, which don’t become law and can’t be limited by the majority leader.

McConnell can boast that he’s held three budget debates during his tenure as majority leader, with votes on 106 nonbinding amendments; Democrats repeatedly shirked writing a budget under Reid. But those amendments are effectively messaging proposals. And McConnell’s budgets were all intended to set up partisan votes on repealing Obamacare or overhauling the tax code while skirting Democrats’ filibuster. He does not intend to pass a budget this year.

Overall, the Senate under President Donald Trump is beginning to resemble the last two years of a Democratic majority in 2013 and 2014, when Reid (D-Nev.) was accused by one Republican of running the Senate like a “plantation.”

In the previous decade, under both Democratic and Republican majorities, the Senate regularly voted on 300 or more binding and nonbinding amendments, according to the Congressional Research Service.

But now, “Democrats didn’t want to vote on amendments when they were in the majority, and they really don’t want to vote on amendments in the minority,” Stewart said.

Schumer spokesman Matt House said McConnell has failed to uphold his pledges to open up the debate process.

“The numbers don’t lie. The fact is that Sen. McConnell has repeatedly blocked amendment votes on the few pieces of legislation we’ve considered in the Senate,” House said.

There’s blame to go around on both sides: A truly open process requires the cooperation of all 100 senators; a single obstinate lawmaker can consume hours or days of floor time.

And distrust is now so high among senators that some members won’t allow a vote on a colleague’s amendment unless they get one on theirs.

“We’ve sort of degenerated into [this] situation,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “We’re not very good at self-restraint.”

Further curbing floor time is the fact that the Senate, unlike the House, has to spend months each year confirming nominees. So if Democrats use Senate rules to delay nominees, Republicans say it becomes almost impossible to use the floor for legislation and amendments.

“One of the frustrating things is, in my efforts to get bills to the Senate floor, the answer is often: ‘We’ve got to get these confirmations complete,’” said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.).

Of course, the Senate rarely works on Fridays and takes regular recesses, another culprit for the lack of amendment votes.

The lack of debate is chafing at senators, particularly newer members who have never gotten an up-or-down vote on their proposals.

“What amendment process?” asked Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.). “I am being told by my colleagues that are senior here that this is not regular order. But it is becoming regular order.”

Senators are also writing fewer amendments, according to research from James Wallner, a fellow at the right-leaning R Street Institute and a former director of the conservative Republican Steering Committee. Through September, senators filed just 1,090 amendments, putting the chamber on pace to introduce far fewer than the 5,125 amendments in the preceding two-year Congress.

When a massive omnibus spending bill came up last month, senators had been conditioned to simply assume there would be no amendments. The package dropped days before the government was set to shut down, and by the time it arrived in the Senate there was no opportunity to change anything without risking a funding lapse.

Some Republicans are discussing reforms to the Senate that could conceivably ease the gridlock. One idea would eliminate one of two available filibuster opportunities on spending bills. Another would slash the number of hours a nominee can be delayed.

Some Republicans say McConnell sometimes gets frustrated when he can’t get Democrats to work with him on opening up debate. But on other occasions, they say, the Republican leader seems happy to have the chamber under his thumb on critical issues like government funding.

“There are times where I suspect the leader wants to be able to control,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). “But there have been a number of times where he’s said we’re trying to do an open amendment process.”

McConnell says “he wants to get out of this [standoff] and feels stuck with it,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.).

Wallner sees thing differently. The decline in amendments and debate, he said, “is entirely on McConnell.”

Two episodes this year underscore the Senate’s long fall from the heights of 2015, when McConnell eclipsed Reid’s 2014 amendment total in a matter of weeks. On a banking deregulation bill in March, liberal senators were eager to amend a bill they hated, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) preparing more than a dozen changes.

But those votes could have poisoned the compromise struck by Republicans and moderate Democrats, while putting vulnerable Democrats up for reelection in a tight spot. In the end, there was no open amendment process.

In February, McConnell promised Democrats an open immigration debate after they agreed to provide votes to reopen the government a month earlier. He kept his word by allowing immigration legislation on the floor, but the chamber sat in quorum calls — literally doing nothing as senators’ names were read aloud — while some senators negotiated privately.

Four immigration proposals received votes at the end of the week, and all four failed. It was the most votes on amendments the chamber had taken since December.

In both instances, spokesmen for McConnell and Schumer blamed the other leader. But many senators are sick of the finger-pointing.

“I was worn out after that 13-minute immigration debate,” Kennedy said sarcastically. “I had to go take a nap.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"House Ethics Committee will continue investigating GOP Rep. Duncan’s spending"

Spoiler

The House Ethics Committee said Wednesday that it will continue to investigate whether Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) misspent more than $100,000 in campaign and leadership PAC funds on personal expenses, including gifts, travel, club memberships and private events such as bridal lunches and baby showers.

Duncan might have broken House rules and federal law if he misused political funds, the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent ethics monitor, said in a detailed 57-page report.

“If Rep. Duncan converted campaign funds from Duncan for Congress or the Road to Victory PAC to personal use, or Rep. Duncan’s campaign committee or leadership PAC expended funds that were not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes, then Rep. Duncan may have violated House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law,” the OCE said.

The congressman, who has said he will not seek reelection, has represented his Knoxville-area district since 1988.

Attorneys from the firm of Webster, Chamberlain & Bean LLP, who represented Duncan, suggested any wrongdoing was committed without his knowledge and that he “cannot be held responsible.” In a 37-page letter to the ethics panel, also released Wednesday, they suggested Duncan’s all-encompassing approach to politics meant that virtually all of the expenses cited by OCE had a “campaign nexus.”

“They are not traveling to political events, throwing parties or purchasing club memberships to enrich themselves or live a more lavish life,” David P. Goch and Heidi K. Abegg wrote of Duncan and his family.

Some lawmakers have faced legal repercussions amid claims they misused political funds.

Former congressman Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) was sentenced to 30 months in prison in 2013 after pleading guilty to spending roughly $750,000 in campaign money on luxury items, celebrity memorabilia and family expenses.

In 2014, Rep. Robert E. Andrews (D-N.J.) resigned after facing years of allegations that he violated rules by using campaign funds to pay for personal trips to Scotland and Los Angeles. He refunded the money and denied wrongdoing.

And Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.) is under criminal investigation for allegations that he spent donations improperly on family vacations and private school tuition. He denies knowingly misusing funds.

OCE, which referred the Duncan case to the ethics committee in January, released details of the congressman’s spending. The document presents one of the most extensive accounts ever published by OCE of potentially problematic campaign spending by a member of Congress.

According to its investigation, Duncan spent approximately $25,000 on recreational travel for relatives and friends between 2008 and the present. Trips billed to either the campaign fund or leadership PAC included a luxury three-night stay for multiple families at the Greenbrier Resort in West Virginia in 2014 and lodging, mileage and food expenses in the Washington, D.C., area during the 2017 presidential inauguration.

The Greenbrier stay involved charges for 10 rooms, as well as amenity and food expenses such as $672.52 at the hotel spa for a total cost of $15,091, OCE found.

Political funds also paid for multiple family members to travel to New York between 2009 and 2011, and for one of Duncan’s sons — who had a campaign management role — to travel to Montana in 2010 for a “trip with friends” and to Washington, D.C., in 2016 for the White House Christmas party, according to OCE.

The campaign also spent more than $23,000 at Club LeConte in Knoxville, roughly half on membership fees and half on parties, including bridal events in 2009, 2014 and 2015 and baby showers in 2009, 2015 and 2016, the report stated.

Credit card statements reviewed by OCE showed another $13,715.83 in gift expenses at retailers such as Babies “R” Us and Williams Sonoma that appeared “in connection with special occasions, like weddings and baby showers.”

In interviews with the OCE, Duncan and his wife, Lynn, justified these expenses as campaign-related. Multiple family members had campaign roles at a given point or were involved with overseeing political funds, the report stated; one son spent approximately $13,525.40 on a cellphone account he used for campaign purposes, as well as calls related to his real estate business.

The events at Club LeConte were organized “for various women who had supported us in campaigns, which I always thought was a good thing to do,” Duncan told OCE in an interview. The events also helped “get votes from women,” he said.

Lynn Duncan said she typically bought gifts for “people that’ve helped in political campaigns over the years. . . . If it’s somebody that’s been very active for us, then I say ‘yes.’”

The campaign committee routinely purchased season tickets to sporting events and concerts between 2009 and 2013 and reported them to federal election officials as entertainment for constituents. In interviews, Duncan staffers said they sometimes gave tickets to lobbyists and campaign consultants.

Lawyers for Duncan said the OCE’s review stemmed from politically motivated accusations. They also accused the office of working outside its jurisdiction and violating other rules and said the ethics committee should dismiss the matter as a result.

“Representative Duncan is confident in asserting the principles he has governed himself by, both in public life as an elected official and in his private life, are of the highest standards,” they wrote. “He did not knowingly act in a way that was illegal, inappropriate or questionable.”

 

[Cartmann99]

This happened in Austin, so @Howl , where were you Tuesday night?  

[GreyhoundFan]

"Embattled Texas Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold resigns"

Spoiler

Washington (CNN)Rep. Blake Farenthold announced he's resigning from the House of Representatives effective Friday, a few months after news broke he used taxpayer money to pay a settlement to a former aide who accused the Texas Republican of sexual harassment and other improper conduct.

After his announcement, the National Republican Congressional Committee, which works to elect GOP candidates to the House, requested he pay back the money that was used for the settlement.

"I hope Blake is true to his word and pays back the $84,000 of taxpayer money he used as a settlement. As I have said repeatedly, Congress must hold ourselves to a higher standard and regain the trust of the American people," NRCC Chairman Steve Stivers said in a statement. "I'm confident we'll have a Republican in this seat come November."

Within minutes of his announcement, Farenthold appeared to have deleted his official Twitter account.

"While I planned on serving out the remainder of my term in Congress, I know in my heart it's time for me to move along and look for new ways to serve," he said in his statement Friday afternoon. "Leaving my service in the House, I'm able to look back at the entirety of my career in public office and say that it was well worthwhile."

The House Ethics Committee announced late last year it would investigate Farenthold for allegations of sexual harassment from his former aide, Lauren Greene, who received the $84,000 settlement after she sued Farenthold in December 2014 for gender discrimination, sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.

Farenthold denied some of the allegations against him but apologized using for inappropriate language and his role in creating a hostile workplace. Farenthold had vowed to repay the taxpayer money used for the settlement in December, but as of last month he had not yet paid back that money.

He announced in December that he would not be seeking re-election.

 

 

[Cartmann99]

24 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Embattled Texas Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold resigns"

  Hide contents

Washington (CNN)Rep. Blake Farenthold announced he's resigning from the House of Representatives effective Friday, a few months after news broke he used taxpayer money to pay a settlement to a former aide who accused the Texas Republican of sexual harassment and other improper conduct.

After his announcement, the National Republican Congressional Committee, which works to elect GOP candidates to the House, requested he pay back the money that was used for the settlement.

"I hope Blake is true to his word and pays back the $84,000 of taxpayer money he used as a settlement. As I have said repeatedly, Congress must hold ourselves to a higher standard and regain the trust of the American people," NRCC Chairman Steve Stivers said in a statement. "I'm confident we'll have a Republican in this seat come November."

Within minutes of his announcement, Farenthold appeared to have deleted his official Twitter account.

"While I planned on serving out the remainder of my term in Congress, I know in my heart it's time for me to move along and look for new ways to serve," he said in his statement Friday afternoon. "Leaving my service in the House, I'm able to look back at the entirety of my career in public office and say that it was well worthwhile."

The House Ethics Committee announced late last year it would investigate Farenthold for allegations of sexual harassment from his former aide, Lauren Greene, who received the $84,000 settlement after she sued Farenthold in December 2014 for gender discrimination, sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.

Farenthold denied some of the allegations against him but apologized using for inappropriate language and his role in creating a hostile workplace. Farenthold had vowed to repay the taxpayer money used for the settlement in December, but as of last month he had not yet paid back that money.

He announced in December that he would not be seeking re-election.

 

 

Yeah, there's nothing suspicious about abruptly quitting your job months before a planned exit, and running like the Devil himself is chasing you. 

[onekidanddone]

Snake farm. That is what I think when I see Ryan, McTurtle, that fucker King for Iowa.. and on and on

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]