United States Senate

[WiseGirl]

And then you have one of my senators. I'm proud to be represented by him.

 

Spoiler

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by WiseGirl
added text

[fraurosena]

The #MoscowMitch thing is obviously getting to him. Keep up the pressure, folks. It's working.

 

Here are a few examples of how Moscow Mitch is getting called out on his treachery.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"A colonel accused a four-star general of sexual assault. A Senate panel will decide what happens next."

Spoiler

Gen. John E. Hyten’s chances of being confirmed as the military’s second-highest officer may come down to one thing this week: whether senators believe an Army colonel’s ­charges that he sexually assaulted her while she was under his command — accusations he denies.

Col. Kathryn Splet­stoser has accused Hyten, who is currently responsible for the country’s nuclear arsenal as the head of U.S. Strategic Command, of making unwanted sexual contact with her on several occasions in 2017 while the two were traveling for work.

Both Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee maintain that her account is plausible, but some members have also said they are wary of taking her uncorroborated word over the categorical denials of a decorated four-star Air Force general endorsed by high-ranking colleagues.

The Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations investigated Spletstoser’s allegations but could not substantiate her claims. In a statement, U.S. Strategic Command spokesman Bill Clinton said the command had “fully cooperated” with the probe, noting that Air Force officials found that “there was insufficient evidence to support any finding of misconduct on the part of Gen. Hyten.”

Former Air Force secretary Heather Wilson, who was briefed on investigators’ findings before leaving her position earlier this year, said in an interview Sunday that “the Air Force left no stone unturned in its investigation and the Senate has been thorough as well.”

“Based on what I know of the complete investigation,” she continued, “I believe General Hyten was falsely accused.”

Now questions about the integrity of that probe, conducted after President Trump nominated Hyten to serve as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are putting the high-stakes case of he-said-she-said to a Senate with little experience adjudicating these matters — save for last year’s politically charged hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, at which Christine Blasey Ford testified that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while they were both in high school.

“I don’t think there has been a separate effort in the Senate to try to determine some way of responding to individual nominees when this issue has come up,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), a member of the Senate’s Armed Services and Ethics committees. “That affects how people decide to vote, one way or another.”

Senators may have to cast their vote soon: The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), has scheduled Hyten’s official public confirmation hearing for Tuesday, the last step before the panel and then the full Senate vote on his confirmation. Spletstoser said the committee has denied her request to speak at the hearing, unless she has “new information” to present.

Spletstoser’s public remarks would probably mirror much of what she has told the panel in private and alleged in a Washington Post interview: that Hyten had taken a liking to her when he took over U.S. Strategic Command in November 2016, picking her to be his “point person,” but that two months in, he started making overt and unwelcome advances during official overnight trips.

The first time was in January 2017, she alleges, when Hyten grabbed her left hand as she was exiting a work meeting in his hotel room in Palo Alto, Calif., pulling it in toward his groin so she could feel his erection before she moved her hand away. In June 2017, Spletstoser said, Hyten interrupted a work meeting in his Washington, D.C., hotel room to fondle her breasts and kiss her — and she pushed him away and admonished him, she said. That prompted Hyten to panic, she said, and ask her through tears: “Are you going to tell on me?” Though she felt he had clearly “crossed a line,” she assured him she would not, she said.

Yet it was during the Reagan National Defense Forum in December 2017 that Spletstoser said Hyten made his most aggressive move, arriving uninvited at her hotel room in workout clothes carrying a binder, and claiming he wanted to discuss work matters. Within minutes, Spletstoser said, Hyten had pinned her against him and begun “grinding on me hard, like he wants to take my clothes off and have sex . . . and then I realize, he’s ejaculating.”

Those episodes are a sampling of the predatory encounters Spletstoser said she experienced with Hyten. But for senators, the challenge is determining whether they are true.

“I’m trying to determine what the facts are, and that’s very much in contention,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who has said he finds Spletstoser to be credible. “The factual differences are very stark.”

If Spletstoser’s account is correct, it would mean Hyten committed a crime, but if she is lying, as an active-duty service member, she will have committed a crime for which she could be court-martialed.

Spletstoser said that she initially kept quiet because she could not figure out “how do you report that on a four-star” without the risk that her life would be “wrecked on a certain level” — and that she remained silent after leaving Hyten’s command because she assumed he was on his way to retirement and her replacement was a man. She decided to tell her story only after Hyten was nominated, she said, “because he’s going to be in for another four years and he could do this to somebody else.”

But according to a former senior Air Force official privy to the investigation’s findings, the testimony of other witnesses directly contradicts Spletstoser’s accusations. The official said that sometimes, Spletstoser also contradicted herself, though she disputes that claim.

Her timing has also raised questions about whether she made up the allegations to retaliate against Hyten, for forcing her to resign from his staff after an inquiry determined that she had created a “toxic work environment” and questioning her mental state. That report was delivered weeks after the alleged December 2017 encounter, which Hyten says never happened.

Spletstoser’s service records, which she provided to The Washington Post, indicate that she had routinely received accolades from her commanders before that point. Hyten wrote in late 2017 that she was in the “top 1%” of all the people in her rank that “I have seen in my 36 years of service,” noting that she was “ready today” to be promoted to brigadier general. The authenticity of the documents could not be verified.

Sworn statements, provided by Spletstoser, from the inquiry into her professional conduct that concluded in early 2018 indicated that while some in the command took offense at her “negative behavior,” they also blamed Hyten for giving her “the highest of top-cover.”

In the interview, Spletstoser acknowledged that she was tough, foulmouthed and often brusque — traits that she attributes to her Army background and the fact that part of her job was to “clean house” in her group. But she said that after Hyten’s management style was questioned, she believes he attempted to “destroy me and my life, my career, everything” to protect his reputation.

Those are just some of the competing claims that fell to military investigators to sort out in their 1,400-page report, which reflects interviews with 53 people in three countries and 13 states, and thousands of emails. The inquiry “determined there was insufficient evidence to support any finding of misconduct against General Hyten,” according to Col. DeDe Halfhill, a Defense Department spokeswoman. Inhofe has described the report, which has not yet been made public, as “very thorough.”

Yet other senators question whether an investigation that was ultimately delivered to one of Hyten’s four-star peers was truly impartial, pointing to what they see as anomalies in how the case was handled.

“The military has a clear process. My concern with this case is that they didn’t follow their process,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who noted that Hyten had not been subjected to certain basic protocols for accused parties.

“They didn’t suspend his clearance, they didn’t remove him temporarily from his position,” Duckworth said, adding that Spletstoser only got to review a redacted copy of the investigative report less than a week ago. “If Senator Inhofe is going to have this vote now, then I’m going to have to vote from the perspective of, the process was not truly followed, so how do I know and how can I fully trust the completeness of the investigation?”

The 27-member Armed Services Committee has devoted an uncommon level of attention to examining the merits of Splet­stoser’s case and the official probe of it, convening at least four times behind closed doors to let members quiz military personnel about their investigation and pore over the evidence they reviewed, as well as hear out Splet­stoser and Hyten. Both spoke to the panel last week for about three hours each in separate sessions.

Democrats and Republicans alike have spoken highly about the way panel leaders have approached the case — even if they are unsure that the process they have divined can serve as a model for reviewing similar claims.

“The committee’s doing the right thing by doing this respectfully, and they’re really going into every detail and covering the issue the way it should be covered,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), a member of the panel. “One of the issues we have in America is innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, we’ve got this sexual assault issue, and it’s struck a nerve and is something we’ve got to wrestle with as a society . . . it’s hard to generalize about that right now.”

“In the context of criminal law, conviction occurs when there is proof beyond reasonable doubt. But what we have here is a promotion — nobody is entitled to be promoted,” Blumenthal said. “So it has to be a different standard, but I don’t think anyone has articulated it.”

The case also presents another challenge to lawmakers: determining whether the military’s system for reviewing sexual assault and rape cases can provide justice for victims.

“There is a continuing issue of sexual assault in the military, and the work that has been done — and there’s been a lot of work done in the Senate — still has not addressed the core problem,” said Shaheen, who supports efforts led by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to take such cases out of the chain of command. “I hope there will be a renewed effort to look at the issue broadly again, because clearly what we have been doing has not been ­working.”

Spletstoser said the military system is designed “to protect junior people from junior people,” but falls apart when the accused perpetrator is so high-ranking he has no apparent boss.

Spletstoser said she ultimately came forward because if Hyten “is promoted to vice chairman, it tells every general officer that they are above the law” and victims “that if you are sexually assaulted, by your superior officer, as long as he does it behind closed doors, not only will your perpetrator not be prosecuted in a court of law, but he may just end up getting promoted to an even higher position,” according to a prepared statement for her closed-door testimony.

“I beg of you not to let this happen,” she said.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

McConnellism is a great term. I need to start using it.

 

[47of74]

I’d buy Rand a ticket so he could go back to hell but somehow I doubt they’d want him back.

[fraurosena]

 #MoscowMitch indeed.

Ex-McConnell staffers lobbied on Russian-backed Kentucky project

Quote

Two former top staffers to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have lobbied Congress and the Treasury Department on the development of a new Kentucky aluminum mill backed by the Russian aluminum giant Rusal, according to a new lobbying disclosure.

The disclosure comes as Democrats are pushing the Trump administration to review Rusal’s $200 million investment in the Kentucky project — concerned that the mill will supply the Defense Department — and as McConnell weathers criticism for helping block a congressional effort to stop the investment.

Indeed, the Russian firm was only able to make the investment after it won sanctions relief from penalties the Treasury Department initially imposed in April 2018 on Rusal and other companies owned by Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch and Kremlin ally accused of facilitating Moscow’s nefarious activities, such as seizing land in Ukraine, supplying arms for the Syrian regime and meddling in other countries’ elections.

Attention over the sanctions relief deal have specifically focused on McConnell, given his role in halting a bipartisan congressional effort to stop the penalties rollback. McConnell told reporters in May that his support for lifting the sanctions was “completely unrelated to anything that might happen in my home state.”

“A number of us supported the administration,” McConnell said. “That position ended up prevailing. I think the administration made a recommendation without political consideration. And that’s — that was how I voted — the reason I voted the way I did.”

It’s not clear whether the former staffers — Hunter Bates, a former McConnell chief of staff, and Brendan Dunn, who advised the Kentucky Republican on tax, trade and financial services matters before heading to K Street last year — directly lobbied McConnell’s office over the aluminum mill project. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the law and lobbying firm where Bates and Dunn work, and McConnell’s office declined to comment on whether they had done so.

In Washington, it’s common for congressional staffers to lobby their former colleagues.

Former Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who’s now a lobbyist representing Rusal’s parent company, EN+, gave McConnell “a heads up” on the Rusal deal prior to its announcement, according to a disclosure filing first spotted by The New York Times.

The lobbying push by McConnell’s former staffers, one of whom left his office in November 2016 and the other who left a year ago, also comes as McConnell is being criticized for blocking election security bills in the wake of Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign. McConnell took to the Senate floor earlier this week to rebut accusations that he’s kowtowing to Russia, prompting the hashtag #MoscowMitch to begin trending on Twitter.

The lobbying disclosure, made last week, shows Bates, Dunn and three other Akin Gump lobbyists are working for Braidy Industries in the new Ashland, Ky., aluminum mill. Rusal holds a 40 percent stake in the project.

Democratic lawmakers have called for an investigation of the project by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency body that can recommend the cancellation of foreign financial arrangements with U.S. firms over national security concerns. 

It's quite telling that McConnell's office declined to comment if there had been direct lobbying efforts made to them. If there hadn't been, it would have been in their best interests to state that publicly. 

[47of74]

I hear Moscow Mitch doesn’t like his new nickname. I would tell him if he prefers I could use my original “term of endearment” for him. Namely Bitch McFuckstick.

[fraurosena]

2 hours ago, 47of74 said:

I hear Moscow Mitch doesn’t like his new nickname. I would tell him if he prefers I could use my original “term of endearment” for him. Namely Bitch McFuckstick.

I kinda like the sound of Moscow-Bitch McFuckstick.

I couldn't care less if he likes it or not. He certainly doesn't care about other people, so why should anyone care how he feels?

[47of74]

I kinda like the sound of Moscow-Bitch McFuckstick.
I couldn't care less if he likes it or not. He certainly doesn't care about other people, so why should anyone care how he feels?

Good point. I’m looking into scheduling a once a day tweet with the #MoscowMitch hashtag for as long as he’s in office.

[fraurosena]

Herein lies the real danger #MoscowMitch poses. This will reverberate for decades to come, even if the GOP is obliterated in the elections next year.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

You truly couldn't make this up: "GOP senators push Trump admin for a new tax break for the wealthy"

Spoiler

Republican policymakers already approved a massive package of tax breaks a year and a half ago, and by any fair measure, the GOP tax plan hasn't worked out as planned.

It's against this backdrop that several Republican senators are demanding another tax cut to benefit the wealthy -- though this one would come from the Trump administration, not from Congress. The L.A. Times' Michael Hiltzik explained yesterday that 21 GOP senators, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), sent a joint letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin "demanding that Mnuchin deliver a new tax cut via executive fiat."

The GOP complains that the capital gains tax isn't indexed to inflation. As a result, the argument goes, taxpayers including "everyday Americans" are charged taxes on gains that are due purely to inflation, not to the real appreciation of their stocks or bonds.

"This treatment punishes taxpayers for the mere existence of inflation and is inherently unfair," the senators write.

The supposed unfairness could be rectified if Mnuchin were to redefine the concept of "cost basis" -- that is, the price at which an asset was purchased -- to include inflation.

That may sound a little complicated, so let's unpack this a bit.

The New York Times reported one year ago today that the Trump administration was "considering" a unilateral tax cut, that would almost exclusively benefit the wealthy, by using its regulatory powers "to allow Americans to account for inflation in determining capital gains tax liabilities."

The article added, "The Treasury Department could change the definition of 'cost' for calculating capital gains, allowing taxpayers to adjust the initial value of an asset, such as a home or a share of stock, for inflation when it sells."

The Washington Post's Matt O'Brien recently characterized this as "the most useless and regressive tax cut ever."

As we discussed a year ago, the question of indexing capital gains taxes to inflation has been around for a while, though the conversation has clearly progressed to new levels of late. Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum summarized the debate nicely:

Let’s say that ten years ago you bought $1,000 in shares of DrumCo stock. Naturally it’s a well-managed company and today those shares are worth $1,300. You sell them for a $300 profit, and pay a nice, low 20 percent capital gains tax of $60.

But then you start to think. What about inflation? That $1,000 in 2008 is the equivalent of $1,150 today. Your real profit is only $150, and $60 represents a capital gains tax of 40 percent. What a rip off! Part of your “profit” is really just keeping up with inflation. Why do you have to pay any taxes on that?

Under current tax law, inflation is irrelevant. Lawmakers have generally concluded that it’s too tricky to change the law, so they’ve instead created a low capital-gains tax rate to make investors happy.

A sizable group of Republican officials apparently believes that’s not quite good enough. They like the idea of tying a low capital-gains rate with an inflation adjustment, in the process creating a new massive tax break.

And what’s wrong with that? A few things, actually. First and foremost, the policy is profoundly regressive, delivering nearly all of the benefits to the very wealthy. The very rich don’t need yet another tax break, and polling suggests such a move would be wildly unpopular.

Second, it’s very likely that the Trump administration can’t legally make major changes to our federal system of taxation without congressional approval. If Mnuchin and his team -- at the urging of 21 GOP senators -- seriously pursued such an approach, the litigation would be immediate, and there’s no reason to assume courts would approve of the gambit.

And third, I seem to recall Republicans screaming bloody murder any time the Obama administration tried to use its executive authority to pursue its priorities without Congress. I long ago lost count of how many times GOP leaders condemned the Democratic president as a dictatorial tyrant, running a “lawless presidency,” for even considering policymaking outside the legislative process.

After seeing the letter from Cruz & Co., it appears many Republicans are applying a different standard now.

Postscript: If GOP leaders are suddenly concerned about inflation indexes, can we have a related conversation about the minimum wage?

 

[fraurosena]

Lindsey Graham had a veritable red-faced hissy-fit , whining like a little sissy in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and broke the committees' rules in order to do what he wants. Even though he knows the bill has no chance of even reaching the House floor. Because the Dems pulled one over on him. What a wanker.

Graham moves controversial asylum bill through panel; Democrats charge he's broken the rules

Quote

[video of the exchange embedded in the article]

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill to overhaul U.S. asylum laws on Thursday, waiving committee rules to force the legislation through over Democrat objections. 

The Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 to send the bill, spearheaded by Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), to the full Senate, where it's not expected to get the 60 votes needed to ultimately pass. 

The decision by Graham to force his bill through the committee sparked outrage from Democrats on the panel, who accused him of busting up the rules on how legislation gets taken up in order to push through a partisan bill. 

As Graham asked for a vote to formally schedule a time to pass his bill, Democrats protested and argued that Republicans were breaking the rules. Graham ignored them.  

"You're breaking the rules of the committee," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said as Graham directed committee staff to ignore Democratic attempts to speak ahead of the vote. 

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) interrupted the roll call vote, questioning what rule Graham was using "that allows you to do this." When a committee staffer asked Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) how he was voting, he replied, "I decline to vote on the grounds that this is an illegitimate process." 

The flashpoint on the committee comes after all Democrats except Feinstein skipped a business meeting last Thursday when Graham's bill was on the agenda. Under committee rules two members of the minority party have to be present to take up legislation or to hold it over until the next meeting. 

Because Graham wasn't able to hold over his bill, Republicans had to vote to "deem" it as held over, letting it bypass the panel's rules making it eligible for a vote on Thursday. 

Graham defended his decision saying he wasn't "changing the rules. I am making a motion in response to what you did last week." 

"Last week you choose not show up … What am I supposed to do?" Graham asked. "The committee can't be a place where nothing happens because the House may not pass it." 

Graham specified to The Hill on Wednesday that the decision to waive the committee's rules would only apply to his asylum bill, not any future legislation that's taken up by the committee. 

He countered on Thursday that a provision in the panel's rules allows a majority to change how legislation is handled. When Durbin challenged him, Republicans on the panel voted to uphold Graham's decision. 

But that did little to assuage Democrats, who fumed during the hour-long committee hearing. 

"I am sick at heart of what we have done," Whitehouse said after the committee approved Graham's bill along party lines. "I hate what has just happened."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a former chairman and current member of the panel, physically ripped up a copy of the committee's rules as he lectured Republicans. 

"If the majority is willing to break any rule in order to report this bill today, there are no rules. …This committee is nothing but a conveyer belt of ultra-partisan ideas. It's under the thumb and control of Donald Trump," Leahy said. "This is supposed to be the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not the Donald Trump committee." 

Graham appeared visibly angry and red-faced as he responded to Leahy, saying Democrats were effectively trying to strip him of his chairmanship. 

"What you're telling me is that I should ignore what you did to me last week? I will not. …You're not going to take my job away for me. I take this very personally," Graham said. "You may not like what we do over here, you can vote no. But this committee is not going to be the dead end committee." 

Graham’s bill touches on the detentions of families who cross the border, as well as their possible separations, one of the most sensitive issues in politics right now.

It would increase the number of days a family can be held together from 20 days to 100 days, preventing family separations but lengthening the period children could be held in custody with their parents. 

It would also require asylum claims be filed in Mexico or a home country instead of the United States, provide funding for 500 new immigration judges and allow unaccompanied minors from Central America to be sent back to their home countries, similar to unaccompanied minors from Canada or Mexico

Feinstein said the bill "has no chance of becoming law" and that she had confirmed with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that it would not get a vote. 

"The committee will be breaking and violating its own rules. Why even have rules?" Feinstein asked. "It should also be noted by moving forward today, the majority will be breaking the rules of the Senate." 

She added "we're not the House. This is not a body intended to run on power alone, and majority will." 

Graham acknowledged that his bill was unlikely to get Democratic support if it is brought up for a vote on the Senate floor but he didn't want the panel to "become irrelevant." 

"I don't want bills like this to go directly to the floor … but I am not going to stop the process," he said. "It is now time for us to move forward and get this bill out of committee." 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[Howl]

On 7/29/2019 at 7:07 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

"A colonel accused a four-star general of sexual assault. A Senate panel will decide what happens next."

This so chaps my ass.  I truly believe that this general is a sexual predator.  To rise to the rank of colonel, you have to be good at what you do and know how to swim with sharks. Women (and everyone really)  in the military are aware of a superior's ability to completely torpedo their career and may stay quiet about egregious offenses against them.  In my opinion, the things she describes to too specific to be fabricated.  In addition, most women who make false accusations of rape or sexual molestation have a history of emotional instability and problems and this woman woman has not exhibited any of those tendencies. 

And yeah, I'm certain he'll be approved. 

[fraurosena]

Move over @DevinNunesCow, you're not the only one being frivolously sued by Devin Nunes.

Rep. Devin Nunes Heads To Court Again To Sue Group That Called Him A ‘Fake Farmer’

Quote

The campaign of Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) is going after more critics of the congressman in court — this time suing a group that has called the congressman a “fake farmer.” 

Nunes is claiming that the group and others — including The Fresno Bee’s parent company McClatchy, which routinely covers Nunes — conspired with progressive “dark money” organizations to hurt his 2018 campaign, and it is seeking damages.

Nunes is described as a farmer in his California ballot listing. But Esquire magazine reported last year that the Nunes family farm is a dairy (which has received federal subsidies) in Iowa, thousands of miles from the congressman’s California home. It moved there in 2006. When a group petitioned to change Nunes’ ballot label description last year, a judge ruled that Nunes could continue to call himself a farmer.

Nunes filed suit Thursday against the petitioners in Tulare County Superior Court. Four defendants are named in the suit, including retired organic fruit tree farmer Paul Buxman of Nunes’ home Tulare County and a Los Angeles member of the political group Southern California Americans for Democratic Action.

The court action risks bringing Nunes more bad publicity instead of helping his nest campaign as the media covers the case.

Nunes has launched a string of lawsuits this year, including against Twitter for defamation, against McClatchy, and against a parody Twitter account mocking the congressman, @DevinNunesCow. Another account, @DevinNunesMom, was named in the Twitter suit, and was suspended for a time. Twitter has since been flooded with other Nunes parody accounts.

[tweets by @DevinNunes Alt-Mom and @DevinNunes Mom]

Media coverage of Nunes’ earlier lawsuits led to the number of readers following Devin Nunes’ Cow skyrocketing to more than 600,000, resulting in far more followers than the number of people tracking Nunes’ own tweets.

Retired farmer Buxman told the Bee in a story Friday that he petitioned to have Nunes’ ballot changed to make it “honest.” He did not seek any monetary damage or award. He said he has no idea what “dark money” is. When he heard about the suit, he said, he prayed for Nunes. Leaders like the congressman, he explained, “need us to help them be the best they can be, for their own sake and for ours.”

 

[Howl]

OK, it's happened.  A Republican senator, Senator McCollister, has renounced white supremacy in the Republican party.  Unlike Justin Amash,  he has not renounced his party, but he is pissed off and was clear and unambiguous on Twitter. Here's his first tweet and the the full unroll can be read here. 

 

[Audrey2]

9 minutes ago, Howl said:

OK, it's happened.  A Republican senator, Senator McCollister, has renounced white supremacy in the Republican party.  Unlike Justin Amash,  he has not renounced his party, but he is pissed off and was clear and unambiguous on Twitter. Here's his first tweet and the the full unroll can be read here. 

 

You mean there's actually a Republican senator with balls (even if they are small)? I thought McConnell and Trump neutered all elected Republicans, or capped them for mind control, like in the John Christopher Tripods books.

[Howl]

Yup, one called it out.  Now to sit back and see how he votes or further clarifies his position. 

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

Yup, one called it out.  Now to sit back and see how he votes or further clarifies his position. 

This could potentially be explosive. If one sheep is over the dam, there will be more who follow, as the Dutch saying goes. He could be the first of many dissenters finally plucking up the courage to speak out. 

But I agree, we’ll have to wait and see what happens. 

[Audrey2]

It could also be like "thoughts and prayers". Express outrage, but still do nothing.

[fraurosena]

It's more than 'thoughts and prayers' if the party's reaction is anything to go by.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I so hope #LeningradLindsey is booted out of his senate seat: "Lindsey Graham promises Obamacare repeal if Trump wins and GOP takes back the House"

Spoiler

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of President Trump’s closest allies on Capitol Hill, vowed that Republicans will repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2021 if they win back the House and keep the White House.

Graham, who is up for reelection next year, told a conservative South Carolina radio show earlier this week that given the chance, Republicans will repeal the 2010 health-care law and replace it with something better. Earlier efforts by Republicans, including in the first two years of Trump’s presidency when they held the House and the Senate, were unsuccessful.

Echoing Trump’s critique of why they failed, Graham noted that “we were one vote short in the Senate” — an apparent reference to his late best friend and fellow Republican senator, John McCain. Trump continues to disparage McCain (Ariz.) for his thumbs-down vote on a skinny-repeal bill in 2017 that killed momentum for Republicans trying to do away with the Obama legacy law as they had been promising to do for seven years.

“We’ve got to remind people that we’re not for Obamacare,” Graham said in the radio interview.

“If we can get the House back and keep our majority in the Senate, and President Trump wins reelection, I can promise you not only are we going to repeal Obamacare, we're going to do it in a smart way where South Carolina will be the biggest winner,” Graham said.

Democrats credit health care with their electoral successes in 2018. They ran on the GOP’s desire to dismantle the ACA, specifically the lack of a plan to protect coverage for people with preexisting conditions. The issue remains relevant going into the 2020 elections, as a lawsuit to overturn the entire law makes its way through the courts with support from the Trump administration.

“Republicans are STILL trying to take away protections for people with pre-existing conditions and kick tens of millions off their health coverage,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) tweeted in response to Graham’s comments.

A few hours later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also reacted.

“The Affordable Care Act remains the law because Democrats have fought back Republican attack and sabotage,” Pelosi tweeted.

Graham wrote his own version of an ACA repeal bill in 2017 that would have shifted decision-making on coverage plans to states, notably by allowing them to decide not to cover any of the essential benefits, which the ACA requires, such as mental health care and addiction treatment.

Trump and other Republicans, in the wake of the two mass shootings in Texas and Ohio over the weekend, have spoken about their desire to do something on mental health, but GOP policies on health care have run counter to that.

In the radio interview, Graham also seemed to slip up when he credited the strong economy to President Barack Obama instead of Trump.

“It’s no accident that under President Obama the economy is humming; there‘s more jobs and more money in your paycheck,” Graham said.

In the background, someone can be heard saying, “What?”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I despise Cruz. He's a nasty piece of work.

 

[fraurosena]

This is potentially explosive.

Apparently the DNI is withholding from Congress "a whistleblower complaint that the Intelligence Community Inspector General's (IC IG) determined to be credible and a matter of "urgent concern" [...] "

Schiff accuses top intel official of illegally withholding 'urgent' whistleblower complaint

Quote

The nation's top intelligence official is illegally withholding a whistleblower complaint, possibly to protect President Donald Trump or senior White House officials, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff alleged Friday.

Schiff issued a subpoena for the complaint, accusing acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire of taking extraordinary steps to withhold the complaint from Congress, even after the intel community's inspector general characterized the complaint as credible and of "urgent concern."

“A Director of National Intelligence has never prevented a properly submitted whistleblower complaint that the [inspector general] determined to be credible and urgent from being provided to the congressional intelligence committees. Never," Schiff said in a statement. "This raises serious concerns about whether White House, Department of Justice or other executive branch officials are trying to prevent a legitimate whistleblower complaint from reaching its intended recipient, the Congress, in order to cover up serious misconduct."

Schiff indicated that he learned the matter involved "potentially privileged communications by persons outside the Intelligence Community," raising the specter that it is "being withheld to protect the President or other Administration officials." In addition, Schiff slammed Maguire for consulting the Justice Department about the whistleblower complaint "even though the statute does not provide you discretion to review, appeal, reverse, or countermand in any way the [inspector general's] independent determination, let alone to involve another entity within the Executive Branch."

"The Committee can only conclude, based on this remarkable confluence of factors, that the serious misconduct at issue involves the President of the United States and/or other senior White House or Administration officials," Schiff wrote in a letter to Maguire on Friday.

The initial whistleblower complaint was filed last month, and Schiff indicated that it was required by law to be shared with Congress nearly two weeks ago. His subpoena requires the information to be turned over by Sept. 17 or else he intends to compel Maguire to appear before Congress in a public hearing on Sept. 19.

Schiff said Maguire declined to confirm or deny whether the whistleblower's complaint relates to anything the Intelligence Committee is currently investigating or whether White House lawyers were involved in the decision-making about the complaint.

Officials in Maguire’s office acknowledged Schiff’s subpoena late Friday.

“We received the HPSCI's subpoena this evening. We are reviewing the request and will respond appropriately,” said a senior intelligence official. “The ODNI and Acting DNI Maguire are committed to fully complying with the law and upholding whistleblower protections and have done so here.”