United States Congress of Fail - Part 4

[onekidanddone]

Seems to me the Freedom Caucus suddenly worrying about "bigotry" is laughable. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is a good article about four young people arrested for protesting outside Lyan's office; "Here's What It's Like to Be Arrested for Protesting Paul Ryan"

Spoiler

“It was terrifying. I was really on edge,” says Naomi Caplan, 17, of Bethesda, Maryland.

On April 18, she and three friends — Rachel Zeidenberg, 16, and Eva Sofia Esposito, 15, of Bethesda, Maryland, and Jordan Joseph, 16, of Arlington, Virginia — went to House Speaker Paul Ryan’s office in Washington, D.C., for a protest.

Within the hour, they were in the back of a police van, hands bound behind their backs. Though they had only been in the hallway outside Ryan’s office for mere minutes, the girls were taken to a juvenile detention center where they spent hours in a holding cell, waiting for their parents to pick them up.

It started around 4:45 p.m., according to the girls. A group of 10 protesters met outside Capitol Hill and entered the Longworth House Office Building. It was the first time the whole group had met face-to-face.

As they walked inside, Naomi reminded the group that they didn’t have to do anything they didn’t want to. “There are other ways to help,” she says. “You’re not obligated to do anything. There’s no shame in not wanting to be arrested.”

Nevertheless, the girls walked inside, passed through security and sat down outside Ryan’s office. Then they laid down, a testament to the National "Lie-In" outside the White House earlier this year. Lying down, the girls explain, was not only more noticeable, but also symbolic of the thousands of gun-related deaths in the U.S. each year.

They came with a list of demands for federal lawmakers, including a ban on bump stocks, allocating funds for CDC gun violence research, and increased measures to prevent police brutality.

Naomi also expressed frustration with government inaction in the face of gun violence. “People are dying [from this],” she told Teen Vogue. “Silence is complicity. It’s their job to make laws to protect us and they haven’t been doing it.”

Although Ryan announced his retirement earlier this month, Rachel believes the outgoing Speaker of the House should still use his last few months in office for the better.

“He’s still very [influential],” says Rachel, whose group brought with them physical copies of a flier with their demands. “We want to protest the fact our representatives as a whole don’t represent the people. [For example,] the majority of Americans want stricter gun regulation. Paul Ryan fails to represent that.” Teen Vogue has reached out to Paul Ryan's national press secretary for comment.

She continued, “When those in charge don’t listen to what their constituents want, it’s unfair they face no repercussions.”

However, the girls didn’t get a chance to distribute the pamphlets, speak to the press, or confront Ryan. “We were willing to risk [arrest] to get the point across, but we didn’t expect it to be sudden,” Rachel told Teen Vogue. “We didn’t understand how little time it would take for us to get arrested.”

The entire ordeal transpired over the course of a few minutes, as seen on video. “As soon as we sat down, they surrounded us,” Rachel explains. The girls didn’t move. The officer explained that he’d give out three warnings, and if they didn’t stand up, they’d be detained.

“ONE.” The bullhorn echoed through the tiny, enclosed hallway.

“TWO.” Not wanting to be arrested, some of the girls started to get up and leave.

“THREE.” Only Naomi, Rachel, Jordan, and Eva remained. The police restrained the girls with zip tie handcuffs and took them into custody, where the girls were searched and had their belongings seized. (“Zip ties were painful, but [it was for a] worthy cause,” Naomi says.) Capitol Police communications director Eva Malecki told Teen Vogue in an email, "Four juveniles refused to cease and desist with their unlawful demonstration activities and were placed under arrest." In reference to the arrests, she cited a Washington, D.C., law prohibiting "crowding, obstructing, or incommoding" especially in the form of demonstrating. She also noted that another D.C. law prohibits demonstrations in any Capitol buildings.

All four girls stressed the importance of preparation for a demonstration like this. They advised that anyone eager to participate in a protest do their research so they know what to expect. They also say to reach out to organizations like the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU for legal support. Above all, know your rights, know the risks, and know how to reduce them.

“I was really scared, but I knew whatever happened, it would all work out. I was feeling like this [protest] could actually turn into something powerful. That this could create change,” Rachel says. Her advice when the officers put the cuffs on? “Know your rights, make sure you don’t resist. If you’re getting arrested, resisting can make it worse. Remain peaceful.”

Jordan also stressed the importance of peaceful protest. “This generation is not going to stop until change happens,” she told Teen Vogue. While she hadn’t had much experience going to protests prior to the March for Our Lives, she says the student activists from Parkland, Florida, inspired her.

“It woke me up,” Jordan says. “I realized this could actually happen anywhere. But then I saw how the kids from Parkland were speaking up and it showed me that I can do something, too, instead of just letting adults do it.”

Moreover, Jordan thinks it’s important to keep going, no matter what. “Just doing one walkout or protest won’t do anything. You have continue working at it to make a real change.”

Eva Sofia believes the demonstration was a testament to the resilience of the March for Our Lives movement. “We will put [ourselves] out there to get our point across,” she tells Teen Vogue. “This is a big issue,” she adds. “People are dying every day because of it.”

That’s why, despite being arrested, Eva Sofia says she will never give up in her activism. “I plan to continue voicing my opinion in the years to come,” she says.

“This is something worth fighting for.”

There are good links and videos embedded in the article.

[GreyhoundFan]

Hmmm: "In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post"

Spoiler

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) reversed course Thursday and agreed to keep the Rev. Patrick J. Conroy on as House chaplain after an extraordinary showdown that included the priest alleging anti-Catholic bias by Ryan’s chief of staff.

Conroy, who was forced to step down by Ryan last month, sent the speaker a letter rescinding his resignation and vowing to remain until the end of the year. Within hours Ryan had backed down, ending the possibility of what the speaker feared would be a “protracted fight” over what is supposed to be a unifying and spiritual position in the partisan chamber.

Ryan defended his original decision and continued to question whether Conroy was delivering sufficient “pastoral services” to the entire House. “I intend to sit down with Father Conroy early next week so that we can move forward for the good of the whole House,” Ryan said.

The decision capped a highly unusual dispute between the Catholic speaker, who announced last month that he would retire, and a Jesuit priest who has spent seven years serving as the spiritual adviser to 435 lawmakers and thousands of congressional staff.

Just a week ago, Conroy’s ouster had threatened to spark a political and theological firestorm. Most lawmakers thought Conroy’s original resignation, announced in mid-April, was voluntary, but Ryan faced a bipartisan backlash, particularly among the more than 140 Catholics in the House, when word spread that he had forced the priest into retirement.

Congress is away on a one-week break, and some GOP advisers hoped the issue would die down amid the flurry of other news. But then Conroy issued a two-page letter early Thursday accusing Ryan’s chief of staff, Jonathan Burks, of anti-Catholic bias.

Conroy spelled out in the most detail yet his April 13 confrontation with Burks that set the stage for his resignation days later.

The priest asked why he was being forced out. “Maybe it’s time that we had a chaplain that wasn’t a Catholic,” Burks said, according to Conroy’s account.

Conroy says Burks also brought up an opening prayer the priest delivered in November and an interview with National Journal in January.

During the tax-cut debate, Conroy delivered a prayer that some took as siding with Democrats. “May their efforts these days guarantee that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all,” Conroy prayed.

In the interview with National Journal in January, Conroy questioned whether Congress was rushing to judgment in pushing some lawmakers out of office who were accused of sexual misconduct.

In a statement from Ryan’s office Thursday, Burks took issue with Conroy’s version of events.

“I strongly disagree with Father Conroy’s recollection of our conversation. I am disappointed by the misunderstanding, but wish him the best as he continues to serve the House,” Burks said in the statement.

Conroy is just the second Catholic priest to serve as chaplain, but those two priests have held the position since 2000. Conroy wrote that he initially believed Ryan had the power to fire him when he had the clash with Burks, so he submitted his first resignation letter April 15.

Conroy, who said he is under the “advice of counsel,” questioned whether Ryan has that power because his position is an office of the House, voted upon for a two-year term at the start of each Congress. The chaplain, who had intended to resign May 24, believes there was no just cause for him to be ousted from the position.

“I have never been disciplined, nor reprimanded, nor have I ever heard a complaint about my ministry during my time as House chaplain,” Conroy wrote Thursday.

In previous statements, Ryan denied that the Jesuit priest’s political views played any role in the ouster and said he had heard numerous complaints about Conroy’s lack of interaction with lawmakers. He reiterated that position in his statement Thursday.

“To be clear, that decision was based on my duty to ensure that the House has the kind of pastoral services that it deserves,” Ryan said.

Conroy’s term lasts through the end of this year. It will be up to the leaders of the next Congress to decide whether to keep Conroy on or go with a new chaplain.

The chaplain issue flared up last week after The Washington Post reported that Conroy had been forced into resigning by Ryan, following a period where most lawmakers believed he was resigning of his own volition.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle questioned the timing of the decision and complained that Ryan had given only vague reasons for why Conroy was pushed out.

Ryan has said numerous lawmakers complained to him about Conroy’s services but none have spoken publicly about their criticism, which created a vacuum that Conroy and his defenders filled.

They have suggested that the priest was pushed out because of an anti-Catholic bias among some of the evangelical Republicans in Congress, as well as the belief of some conservative lawmakers that Conroy fit in with some of the more liberal positions held by the Jesuit community.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

3 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

Pfft. It’s not about what’s actually in those documents. It’s all about what he can say is in them. 

[fraurosena]

Oh good grief! Can't he just shut up already? This is getting beyond ridiculous and is straying into the realm of insanity.

‘Send in the G Men’: Devin Nunes calls for John Kerry to be arrested by the FBI

Quote

The chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is calling for former Secretary of State John Kerry to be the very first person ever arrested under a constitutionally dubious 1799 law.

Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) made his demand to imprison the former Massachusetts Democrat under the Logan Act, which could theoretically result in three year in federal prison.

The allegations followed a new Boston Globe report on former Secretary of State Kerry working to save the Iran nuclear deal.

Rep. Nunes retweeted the story, saying it was time to “Send in the G Men.”

“G Men” is short for “government men” and since 1935 has been used exclusively to refer to FBI special agents, the Bureau claims.

Only two indictments have ever been made under the Logan Act, with neither going to to trial.

 

[AmazonGrace]

Because Trump is a very good man, y'all.

[GreyhoundFan]

Hatch is walking it back: "Orrin Hatch apologizes to John McCain for funeral comment: ‘I shouldn’t have said anything’"

Spoiler

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has apologized to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for saying it was “ridiculous” for McCain to request that President Trump not attend his funeral, a remark that drew a swift rebuke from McCain’s daughter Meghan McCain.

“I agree with the daughter,” a remorseful Hatch told The Washington Post on Tuesday. “I shouldn’t have said anything yesterday. I agree a hundred percent with her.”

Hatch also sent a letter to McCain apologizing for his comment and for suggesting that McCain would not return to the Senate, according to a person familiar with its contents. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private exchange.

McCain is at home in Arizona battling a serious form of brain cancer.

“I’d like everybody to take a collective breath and chill out on my dad for a second — especially Orrin Hatch,” Meghan McCain said Tuesday, speaking on ABC’s “The View,” a program she co-hosts.

The New York Times reported over the weekend that McCain’s close associates have informed the White House that their plan for his funeral is for Vice President Pence to attend but not Trump. Trump and McCain have a troubled past. As a candidate, Trump had said that McCain, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, was not a war hero because he was captured by the North Vietnamese.

Hatch told reporters Monday that McCain’s funeral plan was “ridiculous,” according to multiple reports.

Damned straight that he shouldn't have said anything.

[fraurosena]

12 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Hatch is walking it back: "Orrin Hatch apologizes to John McCain for funeral comment: ‘I shouldn’t have said anything’"

  Hide contents

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has apologized to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for saying it was “ridiculous” for McCain to request that President Trump not attend his funeral, a remark that drew a swift rebuke from McCain’s daughter Meghan McCain.

“I agree with the daughter,” a remorseful Hatch told The Washington Post on Tuesday. “I shouldn’t have said anything yesterday. I agree a hundred percent with her.”

Hatch also sent a letter to McCain apologizing for his comment and for suggesting that McCain would not return to the Senate, according to a person familiar with its contents. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private exchange.

McCain is at home in Arizona battling a serious form of brain cancer.

“I’d like everybody to take a collective breath and chill out on my dad for a second — especially Orrin Hatch,” Meghan McCain said Tuesday, speaking on ABC’s “The View,” a program she co-hosts.

The New York Times reported over the weekend that McCain’s close associates have informed the White House that their plan for his funeral is for Vice President Pence to attend but not Trump. Trump and McCain have a troubled past. As a candidate, Trump had said that McCain, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, was not a war hero because he was captured by the North Vietnamese.

Hatch told reporters Monday that McCain’s funeral plan was “ridiculous,” according to multiple reports.

Damned straight that he shouldn't have said anything.

 

Can you realistically walk something back like that which you stated so very publicly though? I don't think so. Once said, it cannot be unsaid. And he was very, very clear on what his true thoughts are on the matter. I hope his repentance is sincere, but I'm guessing he's only attempting to go back on what he said because of all the - very justified - fallback he's been getting over it. 

[onekidanddone]

14 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Hatch is walking it back: "Orrin Hatch apologizes to John McCain for funeral comment: ‘I shouldn’t have said anything’"

Damned straight that he shouldn't have said anything.

Fucking Republicans shit weasel scum wealthy white trash dick wads.  They think they can do or say anything they want with impunity. Then when people are rightly outraged they "walk it back". No! You don't get to say shit and ask for a do-over. 

[Cartmann99]

Trump showing up at McCain's funeral would be like inviting the Westboro Baptist idiots to a gay person's funeral. Trump can go and be a horse's ass somewhere else during McCain's funeral.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Tom Cotton is filled with rage. Thank God he wasn’t tapped as CIA director."

Spoiler

As I sat in the hearing room watching Gina Haspel’s confirmation hearing to be director of central intelligence, I felt an overwhelming sense of relief . . . that Tom Cotton wasn’t nominated to run the CIA.

Cotton, a 40-year-old Republican senator from Arkansas and a Trump loyalist, had been the front-runner for the position. But President Trump instead tapped a career CIA operative, and Cotton was on the dais when Haspel testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

Haspel has her flaws. Her lawyerly statements about torture and her role in destroying tapes of black-site interrogators using it did not inspire confidence that she would stand up to Trump if he pressed her to, say, poison Angela Merkel’s Pilsener.

But Haspel’s flaws are nothing compared with those of Cotton, who has surpassed Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) as the most disliked member of the Senate. He used his five minutes of questioning time to “clear up” and to “take exception to” the “entirely false” things his colleagues said, peppering his remarks with gratuitous partisan swipes.

And then, he kept going.

When Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, was questioning Haspel about moral standards, Cotton heckled his senior colleague from the other side of the dais.

A few minutes after that, when intelligence committee Vice Chairman Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) was giving closing remarks about former CIA director John Brennan’s views on torture, Cotton interrupted again.

Warner winced and looked over at Cotton. “Excuse me,” he said.

Cotton kept on heckling. “That would be the same Mr. Brennan who supports her nomination!”

Chairman Richard Burr (N.C.) hammered the gavel to silence his fellow Republican.

“The senator will suspend,” he ordered.

Cotton ignored Burr. “We need the full record on the record!” he continued.

“No,” Burr repeated. “The senator will suspend.”

Cotton still refused. “John Brennan supports her nomination!” he said, before quieting.

Such an outburst, and rebuke, is unusual — but Cotton is no ordinary guy. Colleagues and staff on the Hill report that he can be as nasty privately as he is publicly, as uncivil to Republicans as he is to Democrats. He imputes ill motives to those who disagree with him. He served in the military but now treats politics as war.

He is, in short, an embodiment of what ails Washington: no compromise, and no disagreement without disagreeability.

It was Cotton who went to the White House to dissuade Trump from backing a bipartisan immigration compromise. When Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) observed that Cotton had become “sort of the Steve King of the Senate,” Cotton retorted that Graham “didn’t even make it off the kiddie table in the debates.”

It was Cotton, too, who suggested that Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Graham were lying about Trump referring to “shithole” African countries — even though Trump and the White House hadn’t denied he used such language.

It was Cotton who in 2015 wrote a letter to “the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” discouraging them from negotiating with the Obama administration.

It was Cotton who in 2016 denounced the “cancerous leadership” and “bitter, vulgar, incoherent ramblings” of then-Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

And, most revealingly, it was Cotton who blocked confirmation of Cassandra Butts to be ambassador to the Bahamas. Butts died awaiting confirmation, but before that she told Frank Bruni of the New York Times that Cotton told her that because she was a friend of President Barack Obama’s, “blocking her was a way to inflict special pain on the president.” Bruni reported in 2016 that Cotton’s spokeswoman did not dispute Butts’s account.

The Haspel nomination is a case in which reasonable people can disagree. Demonstrators portrayed her as “Bloody Gina” the “torturer.” She, by contrast, went full Carrie Mathison in her opening statement, describing brush passes, dead drops, dusty alleys and dismantled cells.

In between those caricatures are fair and principled concerns: that she’s allowing declassification only of favorable information about her; that she’s reluctant to say it was wrong to do “enhanced interrogation”; that she’s naive to think Trump would never ask her to do something inappropriate.

But Cotton could see only malignant motives. “If Hillary Clinton had won and nominated you to be CIA director, how many votes do you think you would have gotten?” he asked Haspel, in a statement full of partisan invective that preceded his heckling.

I asked Cotton’s office if he had regrets about the hearing. Cotton replied to me in a statement: “I regret Senator Warner implied that Gina Haspel and other CIA officers belonged in jail. I regret Senator Reed compared patriotic CIA officers to terrorists. I regret Senate Democrats are shocked when they are called to account. . . . I regret Senate Democrats are so blinded by their hatred of Donald Trump.”

And I regret that this rage-filled man can’t understand that his opponents are not his enemies.

What a douchecanoe.

[fraurosena]

This news makes me want to do a little happy dance. 

 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

This news makes me want to do a little happy dance. 

Praise Rufus!

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Grassley is such a grasshole: "Grassley reignites SCOTUS war"

Spoiler

Chuck Grassley infuriated Democrats in 2016 by refusing to take up Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. Now they’re growing even madder at the Senate Judiciary chairman for advising any high court justice contemplating retirement to get on with it.

“There is no principled stand. They will use whatever rationale they find expedient. There’s no conviction or principle to this. There’s no method to the madness,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

In the future when Republicans lose the Senate, he warned: “There will be a price to pay.”

Democrats think they have a shot a taking the majority back this fall and are aghast that Grassley and other Republicans are publicly nudging Justice Anthony Kennedy or other justices who are eyeing the exits to hang it up so they can confirm a new justice before the election. A Democratic majority would likely force President Donald Trump to nominate a more consensus pick for the Supreme Court, if Democrats would allow a vote at all after how Garland was treated.

The 84-year-old Grassley delivered his retirement advice in an interview with Hugh Hewitt Thursday. “I just hope that if there is going to be a nominee, I hope it’s now or within two or three weeks, because we’ve got to get this done before the election,“ Grassley said. “So my message to any one of the nine Supreme Court justices, if you’re thinking about quitting this year, do it yesterday.

Grassley later clarified to reporters that he’s not telling Kennedy to retire. But he made clear that if anyone wants to get out during Trump’s presidency, they ought to do it now or Republicans may have to swallow a “more moderate” justice next year if they lose the Senate.

“I’m suggesting to them that if they’re the type of people that want Trump to replace them … that they ought to think about retiring yesterday,” Grassley told reporters. “Elections have consequences. We could end up without having a Republican Senate.”

By Grassley’s estimate, it would take more than two months from the time Trump names a new justice until Grassley’s committee would hold a hearing, and then a few more weeks before the justice would reach the Senate floor for a vote. If Kennedy or another justice were to retire now, conceivably the Senate could fill the vacancy in September or October, ahead of the election.

Grassley said he’s only heard “rumors” of a pending retirement. Other GOP senators said the same. But clearly those rumors are gaining steam: Asked a similar question in an interview last month, Grassley said it had been months since he’d heard any talk of Kennedy retiring.

“We can’t prepare for a Supreme Court vacancy until it actually happens. And you’ll know that [when] the guy or woman will wake up one morning and say: ‘I call it quits.’ And nobody else probably has any inkling of it,” Grassley said in late April.

The open talk of filling a vacancy this year is a striking contrast to what happened in 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, Garland was nominated in March and Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked him from having a hearing, much less getting a floor vote.

Now that Trump is in charge, and the Senate majority is in play, Grassley wants to go as fast as possible.

“Giving a push of Supreme Court justices toward retirement raises some serious questions. And in light of what happened to Merrick Garland I think Republicans ought to think twice,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “It is a signal that they are worried about future control of the Senate in light of a Supreme Court vacancy.”

“What is their rule?” asked Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) of Republicans. “There is no rule.”

Chatter about the high court has been increasing in Republican circles, both as a motivator for conservatives ahead of the election and as a potential problem if Republicans lose the Senate to Democrats this fall — a long-shot, but not impossible, scenario. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) kicked off the open rumination earlier this year, suggesting that “Kennedy is going to retire around sometime early summer” and that it would help motivate the GOP base in tight races like his own reelection campaign in Nevada.

Meanwhile, McConnell has prioritized the confirmation of lifetime judicial appointments to lower courts above all else the rest of the year. On Thursday, the Senate confirmed its 17th circuit judge of the year, the fastest pace in more than 40 years for a new president.

“I would think we should confirm any nominee to the Supreme Court promptly, and I think that would be the overwhelming consensus among Republicans,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). “There is a very significant possibility of a vacancy this summer.”

Unless moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska rebel against a conservative nominee, there is little Democrats can do to stop Republicans — a major source of concern for the minority. Republicans changed the Supreme Court threshold to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court last year after Democrats mounted a filibuster, and now future nominees need only a simple majority to win confirmation.

“If it’s another ultraconservative judge I hope that Democrats and some moderate Republicans will say ‘no‘ to the president," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

That could all change if Democrats win the Senate back and a future Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is controlling the floor. Hence Grassley’s advice to any justice who’s on the fence about leaving and wants to be replaced by a Republican.

There are few things that Senate Republicans can do unilaterally with their 51-seat majority, but confirmations are one of them. And there would be nothing more consequential in the Senate this year than a Supreme Court fight.

“If [Grassley is] trying to coordinate with the judicial branch in order to pack the court for the far right and to further the vision of turning its constitution on its head …. Then that would be a terrible thing,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who led the filibuster against Gorsuch.

Not every Republican is as comfortable as Grassley is in reminding the nine justices that the clock is ticking.

“I don’t think that that’s our call,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

But Grassley’s sentiment is shared by most GOP senators, even if they won't say it as explicitly.

“Only one person knows, and that’s Justice Kennedy,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said of the justice’s plans. “I assume if there’s a vacancy that Sen. McConnell and Sen. Grassley will make that a priority.”

 

[fraurosena]

Time for another little happy dance! 

 

[AmazonGrace]

Investigated by the Dem Coalition? But they're not law enforcement, are they?

What does the investigation entail?

[Howl]

Texas Dems filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.  From the Dallas Morning News in April 

Quote

WASHINGTON -- Texas Democrats have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging presidential contender Ted Cruz and his associates violated campaign finance laws.

The complaint, dated April 22, asserts that Cruz national co-chairman J. Keet Lewis broke election laws at an official campaign fundraiser in December by asking attendees to donate unlimited amounts, as well as to make corporate contributions to the pro-Cruz Stand for Truth PAC.

Full text: Texas Democrats allege Cruz campaign violated federal election laws during Dallas fundraiser

 

[Howl]

On 4/6/2018 at 5:08 PM, Cartmann99 said:

On 4/6/2018 at 4:44 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

"Embattled Texas Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold resigns"

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

He's like the Thing That Wouldn't Die!  Heard this while listening to NPR yesterday.  

Not An Onion Story: Blake Farenthold Gets A New Job Lobbying Congress  It’s only been a month since he quit his House seat amid an ethics committee probe into sexual harassment allegations.

He has an arduous 90 minute commute each way from Corpus Christi to the Calhoun Port Authority in Port Lavaca, Texas.  Wallowing in idle speculation here, but possibly THE $160,000 ANNUAL SALARY makes it all worthwhile?  And no, he has no intention of paying back the $80,000+  because why bother?  It's a post corruption world, y'all.

I listened to Ray Wylie singin' Ssssssnake Farm on the radio last week.  There used to be a Snake Farm on I-35 north of San Antonio when I was a kid.  It gave me the creeps just driving by it.

ETA: Erma Gerd!  It's still there, but it's gotten an upgrade to Animal World and Snake Farm Zoo, with a spiffy web site.  Yup, same spot on the highway, west side. 

[AmazonGrace]

Shh don't mention the R word , congressman wants to talk about how great the economy is instead  

 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

I listened to Ray Wylie singin' Ssssssnake Farm on the radio last week.  There used to be a Snake Farm on I-35 north of San Antonio when I was a kid.  It gave me the creeps just driving by it.

A RWH fan!!!! I admit to having a little fan girl crush on him. The Messenger makes me cry ever time I listen. His version of Choctaw Bingo is divine, and who can't sing along with Redneck Mother?  Ray's music led me to discover James McMurtry and Hays Carl. 

Do you follow Mother Hubbard on twitter? Ray and Judy sure as shit aren't Trump people.

Oh and Ray's son Lucas and McMurtry's son Curtis are becoming damn fine musicians in their right.   

 

ETA: Snake farm....just sounds nasty...

[fraurosena]

13 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Shh don't mention the R word , congressman wants to talk about how great the economy is instead  

 

So Americans don't talk about racism, they only practice it?

Head, meet sand.