U.S. Politics

[Chindie]

Trump's reaction conference is fun. It's a petulant rant.

Just throwing Democrats under the bus and saying they'll just let Obamacare die 'as it definitely will' but remember its a Democrat policy...

In before they surreptitiously undermine the act and point across the aisle until they get what they want. Obamacare isn't perfect but the thing they put up was legitimately evil.

[LondonLax]

7 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

It'll be the interfering menace of big government and how the will of the people is being denied by political structure.

Koch playbook 101.

 

Interestingly the Koch bothers set up a fund to support Republicans who were willing to vote against Trumpcare (although I believe it was because they had thought Trumpcare was too generous to the poor...).

 

[villakram]

Well the previous repub congress put a full repeal only bill on Obama's desk at least once. That they are unwilling to do that now is quite interesting.

[LondonLax]

4 hours ago, villakram said:

Well the previous repub congress put a full repeal only bill on Obama's desk at least once. That they are unwilling to do that now is quite interesting.

Recently I think they have been a bit chastened by the passion shown for the legislation by ordinary voters who would be dead without it.

[Xann]

 

[StefanAVFC]

The last week involving Nunes has been a total joke. He's a rat.

Timeline:

Monday: Comey and Rogers speak in front of the intelligence committee

Tuesday: Nunes leaves his staff in the car and gets in an Uber to go to the White House, claims he did not enter the main White House; to view classified Intel he must have entered one of the buildings, likely the OEOB.

Wednesday: Nunes announces he's received information indicating the Trump team was incidentally monitored by the FBI, rushes to the White House to tell Trump, does not tell the intelligence committee or the press until afterwards

Thursday: Schiff clarifies that Nunes hasn't shown the committee any documents, says there is more than circumstantial evidence indicating Trump/Russian collusion

Friday: Nunes apologizes and says he should have told the committee but that he felt Trump should know since Trump has been treated unfairly by the media; Nunes cancels the upcoming open committee hearing for Sally Yates and James Clapper; changes upcoming Comey/Rogers hearing to a closed hearing

Monday: Comey and Rogers both cancel their second hearing due to scheduling conflicts, Schiff calls on Nunes to step down, Nunes rejects that call.

Tuesday: We find out the White House were trying to block Sally Yates from testifying, which looks suspicious combined with Nunes cancelling her open hearing. She played a key part in the Flynn investigation.

Innocent. People. Do. Not. Behave. Like. This.

[villakram]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The last week involving Nunes has been a total joke. He's a rat.

Timeline:

Monday: Comey and Rogers speak in front of the intelligence committee

Tuesday: Nunes leaves his staff in the car and gets in an Uber to go to the White House, claims he did not enter the main White House; to view classified Intel he must have entered one of the buildings, likely the OEOB.

Wednesday: Nunes announces he's received information indicating the Trump team was incidentally monitored by the FBI, rushes to the White House to tell Trump, does not tell the intelligence committee or the press until afterwards

Thursday: Schiff clarifies that Nunes hasn't shown the committee any documents, says there is more than circumstantial evidence indicating Trump/Russian collusion

Friday: Nunes apologizes and says he should have told the committee but that he felt Trump should know since Trump has been treated unfairly by the media; Nunes cancels the upcoming open committee hearing for Sally Yates and James Clapper; changes upcoming Comey/Rogers hearing to a closed hearing

Monday: Comey and Rogers both cancel their second hearing due to scheduling conflicts, Schiff calls on Nunes to step down, Nunes rejects that call.

Tuesday: We find out the White House were trying to block Sally Yates from testifying, which looks suspicious combined with Nunes cancelling her open hearing. She played a key part in the Flynn investigation.

Innocent. People. Do. Not. Behave. Like. This.

So now we know how innocent people behave?

Cardinal Richelieu comes to mind, and I'm being nice. You are devolving to full anti-tea party. 

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, villakram said:

So now we know how innocent people behave?

Cardinal Richelieu comes to mind, and I'm being nice. You are devolving to full anti-tea party. 

Really? What a load of cobblers. Really poor false-equivalence. We're at a point where an independent commission is needed, so that all partisanship from both sides is removed. Nunes cannot be trusted to lead an unbiased investigation, due to his role on the Trump transition team. Never mind the 5 of 6 ridiculously suspicious actions up above. It is amusing how the GOP keep turning this down though. It's almost as some people have something to hide. 

Quote

So now we know how innocent people behave?

....is a disingenuous statement, if I'm being kind. It's not exactly far-fetched to put together a string of suspicious actions and conclude, "this guy is not acting like an innocent person." Amusing how that makes you 'full anti-tea party'. I want an independent investigation away from both the Dems and GOP. But sure, continue to throw nonsense accusations at me.

Trump could shut down all this Russia stuff down right now. Instead, with bizarre incompetency, him and his lackies continue to fuel it with suspicious actions and finger pointing elsewhere.

[StefanAVFC]

Here's the full article on Nunes/WH/Yates if you're done slinging nonsense insults at me.

Quote

The Trump administration sought to block former acting attorney general Sally Yates from testifying to Congress in the House investigation of links between Russian officials and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, The Washington Post has learned, a position that is likely to further anger Democrats who have accused Republicans of trying to damage the inquiry.

According to letters The Post reviewed, the Justice Department notified Yates earlier this month that the administration considers a great deal of her possible testimony to be barred from discussion in a congressional hearing because the topics are covered by the presidential communication privilege.

Yates and other former intelligence officials had been asked to testify before the House Intelligence Committee this week, a hearing that was abruptly canceled by the panel’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). Yates was the deputy attorney general in the final years of the Obama administration, and served as the acting attorney general in the first days of the Trump administration.

President Trump fired Yates in January after she ordered Justice Department lawyers not to defend his first immigration order temporarily banning entry to United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world.

As acting attorney general, Yates played a key part in the investigation surrounding Michael T. Flynn, a Trump campaign aide who became national security adviser before revelations that he had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador to the United States in late December led to his ouster.

Yates and another witness at the planned hearing, former CIA director John Brennan, had made clear to government officials by Thursday that their testimony to the committee probably would contradict some statements that White House officials had made, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The following day, when Yates’s lawyer sent a letter to the White House indicating that she still wanted to testify, the hearing was canceled.

The White House and the Justice Department had no immediate comment.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said the panel was aware that Yates “sought permission to testify from the White House. Whether the White House’s desire to avoid a public claim of executive privilege to keep her from providing the full truth on what happened contributed to the decision to cancel today’s hearing, we do not know. But we would urge that the open hearing be rescheduled without delay and that Ms. Yates be permitted to testify freely and openly.’’

In January, Yates warned White House counsel Donald McGahn that statements White House officials made about Flynn’s contact with the ambassador were incorrect, and could therefore expose the national security adviser to future blackmail by the Russians.

In a March 23 letter to Acting Assistant Attorney General Samuel Ramer, Yates’s attorney David O’Neil described the government’s position. O’Neil, who declined to comment, noted in the letter that Yates is willing to testify, and that she will avoid discussing classified information and details that could compromise investigations. The correspondence was later shared with the Intelligence Committee.

“The Department of Justice has advised that it believes there are further constraints on the testimony Ms. Yates may provide at the [Intelligence Committee] hearing. Generally, we understand that the department takes the position that all information Ms. Yates received or actions she took in her capacity as Deputy Attorney General and acting Attorney General are client confidences that she may not disclose absent written consent of the department,’’ the lawyer wrote.

“We believe that the department’s position in this regard is overbroad, incorrect, and inconsistent with the department’s historical approach to the congressional testimony of current and former officials,’’ the letter continues. “In particular, we believe that Ms. Yates should not be obligated to refuse to provide non-classified facts about the department’s notification to the White House of concerns about the conduct of a senior official. Requiring Ms. Yates to refuse to provide such information is particularly untenable given that multiple senior administration officials have publicly described the same events.’’

Scott Schools, another Justice Department official, replied in a letter the following day, saying the conversations with the White House “are likely covered by the presidential communications privilege and possibly the deliberative process privilege. The president owns those privileges. Therefore, to the extent Ms. Yates needs consent to disclose the details of those communications to [the intelligence panel], she needs to consult with the White House. She need not obtain separate consent from the department.’’

Yates’s attorney then sent a letter Friday to McGahn, the White House lawyer, saying that any claim of privilege “has been waived as a result of the multiple public comments of current senior White House officials describing the January 2017 communications. Nevertheless, I am advising the White House of Ms. Yates’ intention to provide information.’’

That same day, Nunes, the panel’s chairman, said he would not go forward with the public hearing that was to feature Yates’s testimony.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-block-sally-yates-from-testifying-to-congress-on-russia/2017/03/28/82b73e18-13b4-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?utm_term=.25b957882ec7?tid=a_breakingnews&hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar

And....

Talking Heads doing a better job than me.

Damn those Anti-Tea Party zealots.

This sums it up.

 

What the hell is Nunes doing? 

Edited March 28, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[blandy]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

What the hell is Nunes doing? 

Protecting Trump. It couldn't be more obvious, could it?

[HanoiVillan]

24 minutes ago, blandy said:

Protecting Trump. It couldn't be more obvious, could it?

He's not doing a very good job is he. Surely the purpose of his role is to try to deflect attention away from the situation, rather than ostentatiously acting suspiciously. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

He's not doing a very good job is he

No , neither of them are. Did anyone think they would?  I must admit I thought Trump would try and act more presidentially, and I think he did it one time, but then got sucked back into the mire of his own making. If the Republican Party had a higher quotient of normals and fewer not-rights in it, he'd probably be toast already.

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

No , neither of them are. Did anyone think they would?  I must admit I thought Trump would try and act more presidentially, and I think he did it one time, 

The one time he had a speech written for him?

[TheAuthority]

9 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

The one time he had a speech written for him?

I even found that whole "longest applause" for the wife of the dead Seal absolutely nauseating. Commentators who claimed he appeared 'Presidential' that night really went down in my opinion. 

I found the whole stunt event, cheap, tawdry and completely undignified. 

[OutByEaster?]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39415631

"With today's executive action I am taking historic steps to lift the restrictions on American energy, to reverse government intrusion and to cancel job-killing regulations."

From his speech removing Obama's environmental laws in order to help profit the US coal industry. Now, ignoring for a moment the immense stupidity of backtracking on environmentalism and the idea that those solar panels and windmills build and fit themselves by magic, the key line there is the middle one.

"to reverse government intrusion"

Which tells us absolutely everything there is about Trump's Presidency - the US corporate structure which he serves now considers the concept of political structure imposing any sort of restriction on it as "an intrusion". The US corporate structure considers Democracy and the will of the people as an imposition and has used its media and its backing to put in place a candidate who is running government on an anti-government platform.

"Trump is a spy", "Trump is a sexist", "Trump is an oaf", "Trump is corrupt"? All good news - because it means Government is bad, Government is corrupt, Government can't be trusted - so democracy can be encouraged to hand more and more of its power over to the market and corporate sector - because as every American will tell you - the Government is out to get you.

Trump does two things, firstly, he puts in place budgets that kill any sort of publicly funded non-profitable programme - medicine, social security, roads, education anything that doesn't benefit the private sector goes and is replaced by more tax dollars funnelled through to the private sector and secondly he represents the idea of bad government to the point where the American electorate turn against the only defence they have against corporate greed.

For me, the role of Government should be intrusion, that's its purpose in a modern world, to stand as a barrier representing the will of people - to say actually, although this is profitable today, it's not healthy for the societies we want to create or the the world we want to live in, so we're going to restrict it - to protect people from markets and insist on a modicum of common sense - to intrude upon the business of making profit for shareholders at the expense of everything else there is.

We're heading in exactly the opposite direction and this power is so entrenched that it's now not even considered a dirty enough secret to merit hiding.

 

[Chindie]

Republicans disliking 'government intrusion' is as old as the hills. 'Big government' has been the Republican boogeyman for decades. Every Republican candidate is anti government.

There's no revelation Trump is binning regulation. None at all.

[StefanAVFC]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Republicans disliking 'government intrusion' is as old as the hills. 'Big government' has been the Republican boogeyman for decades. Every Republican candidate is anti government.

They hate big government unless big government is telling you abortion is bad and weed is bad.

[Straggler]

I don't think it has anything to do with politics at all anymore.  The posturing around abortion and drugs is not a belief held by the current White House, it is a bone thrown to the rabid tea party nutters to keep them quiet whilst the real business of making money goes on.  Government is now there almost exclusively to represent the interests of business.  The legality of allowing donations to senators to help fund campaigns is bribery by any other name and is really very effective.  The huge majority of politicians in the states (and beyond) are more interested in the agenda of their donors than they are representing the people that elected them.  It is one of the few things you can get bipartisan agreement on.

https://tinyurl.com/k7lpjqp

Quote

Previously, there was a limit of $123,200 that any individual could donate to candidates or parties in a two-year election cycle. There was also a limit on how much a person could give to each particular candidate. The cap on donations to a single candidate still stands. But now you can give to as many candidates as you like and up to $3.6m in an election cycle. They could buy up the whole of Congress if they wanted to.

An example of just how effective this sort of bribery can be is the fast tracking of TPP by the Obama administration:

https://tinyurl.com/m8cqxhq

Quote

Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:

Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes.

The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.

The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.

The amounts given rise dramatically when looking at how much each senator running for re-election received.

Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden and seven other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans and handful of Democrats as the votes to sway.

In just 24 hours, Wyden and five of those Democratic holdouts – Michael Bennet of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, and Bill Nelson of Florida – caved and voted for fast-track.

Bennet, Murray, and Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the three of them. Bennet, who comes from the more purple state of Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January and March 2015, according to Channing’s research.

With this sort of thing going on I can see why US voters feel sickened by the whole political process as it very blatantly does not serve them.  At the last election there was a choice between an establishment candidate who would guarantee more of the same or an utter clearing in the woods who promised to change it but was transparently lying and has proven to be a self serving, incompetent, ignorant, childish, petulant, racist, sexist, thin skinned, pathetic excuse for a POTUS.  What a shitshow frankly.

[Keyblade]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

They hate big government unless big government is telling you abortion is bad and weed is bad.

Tomi Lahren had the nerve to say something like this wrt abortion which saw her kicked off hey channel. You're not allowed to be consistent in your disdain for big government in Republicanland.

[Straggler]

17 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Tomi Lahren had the nerve to say something like this wrt abortion which saw her kicked off hey channel. You're not allowed to be consistent in your disdain for big government in Republicanland.

To be fair, Tomi Lahren was not even consistent in her opinion on abortion.  She is in the category of shock jock who will say anything for a reaction.  She has previously likened abortion to murder.  IMO she is a pretty horrific person, who got what she deserved, but in this instance for totally the wrong reasons.  The Blaze makes Fox look like the BBC and Lahren was the perfect fit for them until she stepped out of line with their woman hating editorial position. Glenn Beck, the guy who runs the channel and fired Tomi is a total asshat too.