pacino wrote:

JUburton wrote:have we mentioned the head of the OGE saying trump's plan is wholly inadequate?

the remarks

It’s easy to see that the current plan does not achieve anything like the clean break Rex Tillerson is
making from Exxon. Stepping back from running his business is meaningless from a conflict of interest
perspective. The Presidency is a full-time job and he would’ve had to step back anyway. The idea of setting up
a trust to hold his operating businesses adds nothing to the equation. This is not a blind trust—it’s not even
close.
I think Politico called this a “half-blind” trust, but it’s not even halfway blind. The only thing this has in
common with a blind trust is the label, “trust.” His sons are still running the businesses, and, of course, he
knows what he owns. His own attorney said today that he can’t “un-know” that he owns Trump tower. The
same is true of his other holdings. The idea of limiting direct communication about the business is wholly
inadequate. That’s not how a blind trust works. There’s not supposed to be any information at all.
2
Here too, his attorney said something important today. She said he’ll know about a deal if he reads it in
the paper or sees in on TV. That wouldn’t happen with a blind trust. In addition, the notion that there won’t be
new deals doesn’t solve the problem of all the existing deals and businesses. The enormous stack of documents
on the stage when he spoke shows just how many deals and businesses there are.
I was especially troubled by the statement that the incoming administration is going to demand that OGE
approve a diversified portfolio of assets. No one has ever talked to us about that idea, and there’s no legal
mechanism to do that. Instead, Congress set up OGE’s blind trust program under the Ethics in Government Act.
Under that law anyone who wants a blind trust has to work with OGE from the start, but OGE has been left out
of this process. We would have told them that this arrangement fails to meet the statutory requirements.

The President-elect’s attorney justified the decision not to use a blind trust by saying that you can’t put
operating businesses in a blind trust. She’s right about that. That’s why the decision to set up this strange new
kind of trust is so perplexing. The attorney also said she feared the public might question the legitimacy of the
sale price if he divested his assets. I wish she had spoken with those of us in the government who do this for a
living. We would have reassured her that Presidential nominees in every administration agree to sell illiquid
assets all the time. Unlike the President, they have to run the gauntlet of a rigorous Senate confirmation process
where the legitimacy of their divestiture plans can be closely scrutinized. These individuals get through the
nomination process by carefully ensuring that the valuation of their companies is done according to accepted
industry standards. There’s nothing unusual about th

it's only 4 pages, and worth reading.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the head of the House Oversight Committee, criticized the director of the federal Office of Government Ethics on Thursday over his criticism of Donald Trump’s plan to address conflicts of interest. And he threatened to subpoena the official, Walter Shaub, if he refuses to participate in an official interview.

“We need a fair person behind the plate that’s going to call balls and strikes,” Chaffetz said. “What they’re supposed to do is help work with somebody to comply with the ethics requirements. But when you talk publicly about private conversations, that’s not ethical. And when you refuse to come in and talk to the committee when you’re doing reauthorization, when you start tweeting and issuing press statements on things you never looked at, that shouldn’t be the case at all.”

JUburton wrote:How are the ban on denying pre-existing conditions and keeping people on their parents private plans until 27 in danger under reconciliation? Those don't seem budgetary and wouldn't they need a repeal/replace bill to be affected...and thus subject to the filibuster?

pacino wrote:

JUburton wrote:How are the ban on denying pre-existing conditions and keeping people on their parents private plans until 27 in danger under reconciliation? Those don't seem budgetary and wouldn't they need a repeal/replace bill to be affected...and thus subject to the filibuster?

it doesn't. those are in the law but this pays for it. repealing ACA comes next. they've removed the mechanism that pays for it. super rich people are getting a taxcut.

JUburton wrote:

pacino wrote:

JUburton wrote:How are the ban on denying pre-existing conditions and keeping people on their parents private plans until 27 in danger under reconciliation? Those don't seem budgetary and wouldn't they need a repeal/replace bill to be affected...and thus subject to the filibuster?

it doesn't. those are in the law but this pays for it. repealing ACA comes next. they've removed the mechanism that pays for it. super rich people are getting a taxcut.

i get that part...the reconciliation portion gets rid of the mandate, medicare expansion, and subsidies thus making the actual ACA completely unsustainable. but any replacement needs some sort of democratic support.

JUburton wrote: i get that part...the reconciliation portion gets rid of the mandate, medicare expansion, and subsidies thus making the actual ACA completely unsustainable. but any replacement needs some sort of democratic support.

pacino wrote:

JUburton wrote:

pacino wrote:

JUburton wrote:How are the ban on denying pre-existing conditions and keeping people on their parents private plans until 27 in danger under reconciliation? Those don't seem budgetary and wouldn't they need a repeal/replace bill to be affected...and thus subject to the filibuster?

it doesn't. those are in the law but this pays for it. repealing ACA comes next. they've removed the mechanism that pays for it. super rich people are getting a taxcut.

i get that part...the reconciliation portion gets rid of the mandate, medicare expansion, and subsidies thus making the actual ACA completely unsustainable. but any replacement needs some sort of democratic support.

the committees will now draft the repeal legislation. that results in a bill that will only need 51 votes and can get rid of it because no amendments passed.

pacino wrote:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the head of the House Oversight Committee, criticized the director of the federal Office of Government Ethics on Thursday over his criticism of Donald Trump’s plan to address conflicts of interest. And he threatened to subpoena the official, Walter Shaub, if he refuses to participate in an official interview.

JUburton wrote:

pacino wrote:

JUburton wrote:

pacino wrote:

JUburton wrote:How are the ban on denying pre-existing conditions and keeping people on their parents private plans until 27 in danger under reconciliation? Those don't seem budgetary and wouldn't they need a repeal/replace bill to be affected...and thus subject to the filibuster?

it doesn't. those are in the law but this pays for it. repealing ACA comes next. they've removed the mechanism that pays for it. super rich people are getting a taxcut.

i get that part...the reconciliation portion gets rid of the mandate, medicare expansion, and subsidies thus making the actual ACA completely unsustainable. but any replacement needs some sort of democratic support.

the committees will now draft the repeal legislation. that results in a bill that will only need 51 votes and can get rid of it because no amendments passed.

this would be for the HCEA that amended PPACA, wouldn't it?

"I was nonjudgmental until the last 15 minutes. I no longer have that confidence in him," Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said as he left the meeting in the Capitol.

"Some of the things that were revealed in this classified briefing — my confidence has been shook."

Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), senior Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, delivered a similar condemnation.

"I'm extremely concerned — extremely," he said.
"I'll just — I'm very angry," echoed Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.).

"I'm disappointed, outraged — many of us are right now," Walz said. "I'll wait to pass full judgment, but the exchange that just happened in the final 15 minutes gives me no reason to have confidence."

Shortly after the meeting, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — a sharp critic of Comey's actions leading up to the elections — spoke broadly about the FBI without weighing in on Comey specifically. She suggested she's waiting for the results of the DOJ's IG report to pass a judgement on the FBI director.

"No, I haven't lost confidence in the agency," she told reporters in the Capitol.

"My concern about the FBI is the timing and their not signing [the broader intelligence document on Russian hacking]. And that was the judgment of Director Comey, unless it goes deeper, and that's what the investigation will find out," she added. "Let's find out how they thought this was a good idea to make the judgments they did, and understanding — weighing full well — that the Russians were actively engaged in disrupting our election."

Michael Flynn, President-elect Donald Trump's choice for national security adviser, held multiple phone conversations with Russia's ambassador to Washington on the day the United States announced retaliation for Moscow's interference in the U.S. presidential election, two people familiar with the issue said.

The conversations appear to raise further questions about contacts between Trump's advisers and Russian officials at a time when U.S. intelligence agencies contend that Moscow waged a multifaceted campaign of hacking and other actions to boost Trump's election chances over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

An 18th-century U.S. law, the Logan Act, bars unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments that are in disputes with the United States.

The phone calls were first reported by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.

A Trump spokesman said on Friday that Flynn took a call from the Russian ambassador last month, and discussed setting up a call between the president-elect and Russian President Vladimir Putin after Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20.

"The call centered around the logistics of setting up a call with the president of Russia and the president-elect after he was sworn in and they exchanged logistical information on how to initiate and schedule that call. That was it, plain and simple," spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters.

Spicer said the call took place on Dec. 28. He said the call followed text message exchanges initiated by Flynn on Christmas Day, in which he wished the ambassador a merry Christmas and said he looked forward to "touching base with you and working with you."

After the Nov. 8 election, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the state-run Interfax news agency that the Russian government was in touch with members of Trump's political team during the U.S. election campaign and knew most of his entourage.

He added that he was unaware that the White House was informed of Flynn's call in advance, and that while the Trump team was briefed on the Russian sanctions, he could not say when it occurred.

The only contact between the White House and the Russian ambassador during that time period was to express condolences over the death of a Russian diplomat in Turkey, Earnest said.

pacino wrote:

"I was nonjudgmental until the last 15 minutes. I no longer have that confidence in him," Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said as he left the meeting in the Capitol.

"Some of the things that were revealed in this classified briefing — my confidence has been shook."

Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), senior Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, delivered a similar condemnation.

"I'm extremely concerned — extremely," he said.
"I'll just — I'm very angry," echoed Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.).

"I'm disappointed, outraged — many of us are right now," Walz said. "I'll wait to pass full judgment, but the exchange that just happened in the final 15 minutes gives me no reason to have confidence."

Shortly after the meeting, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — a sharp critic of Comey's actions leading up to the elections — spoke broadly about the FBI without weighing in on Comey specifically. She suggested she's waiting for the results of the DOJ's IG report to pass a judgement on the FBI director.

"No, I haven't lost confidence in the agency," she told reporters in the Capitol.

"My concern about the FBI is the timing and their not signing [the broader intelligence document on Russian hacking]. And that was the judgment of Director Comey, unless it goes deeper, and that's what the investigation will find out," she added. "Let's find out how they thought this was a good idea to make the judgments they did, and understanding — weighing full well — that the Russians were actively engaged in disrupting our election."