pacino wrote:Did Schumer lie about meeting Putin? If not, how does this matter to what's been discussed regarding Sessions?

td11 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Former reporter for Glenn Greenwald's site. Mr. Trump wins again!

wild

Youseff wrote:

td11 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Former reporter for Glenn Greenwald's site. Mr. Trump wins again!

wild

Greenwald is a Trump enabling POS. Fuck him and his dumbass site. (I like Sam Biddle and that other dude Jeremy Schahill or something that write for them, though).

Diana Denman, the GOP delegate who proposed amending the Ukraine platform to include the "lethal weapons" language, contradicted Gordon's version of events in an interview with Business Insider in January. She said Gordon and another Trump campaign representative asked the cochairmen of the subcommittee to table the amendment after she read it aloud.

"Two men sitting over to the side of the room — I had no idea who they were but later found out they were Trump representatives — jumped up and tore over to get behind the three cochairmen," she said.

Gordon then left the room to make a phone call, Denman said. Equal parts confused and angry over her proposal being scuttled, Denman said she confronted Gordon about whom he was calling.

"I'm calling New York," Gordon replied, according to Denman.

"I work for Mr. Trump, and I have to clear it," she recalled him saying, apparently in reference to the amendment.

The corruption of Alabama politics has broken loose from its handbrake and is now tearing havoc through America's yard.

Last summer, when Alabama completed its Unholy Trinity of political scandals, I wrote a warning to our fellow countrymen: Don't let this happen to you. I meant to sound an alarm against the Alabamification of America (a phrase which Drew Pendergrast at the Harvard Political Review last week took a lot further than I had).

At the time, our governor was under investigation (he still is) for abusing his office while pursuing a love affair. Were he to be impeached, that state House proceeding would have been led by a speaker then under indictment (now convicted and gone) and the trial in the Senate that followed would be led by a Alabama Supreme Court chief justice who was likely to be removed from office, again, by the Court of the Judiciary (he was and is now gone, at least until he runs for Senate).

At the heart of it, the Alabama Problem is a simple one to explain: When the majority party fails to hold its own to the same -- or preferably, higher -- standards it holds the opposite party, corruption and incompetence are inevitable. And when citizens treat their respective parties with the same reverence as college football teams and they excuse away the sins of their politicians like recruiting violations or so many $100 handshakes, they give those officials license to lie, cheat and steal.

For such a long time, the corruption of Alabama politics was something we thought we had under control, or at least, contained. Our graft, buffoonery and ineptitude had become a Dixie Ouroboros, too busy eating itself to hurt anyone else. Or so it seemed. But then the slimy serpent of Alabama corruption unclenched its fangs from its own backside and slithered to more hearty climates in the Washington swamp it now calls home.

Before, Alabamians could feel safe, because no matter what dunderheaded blunder our Goat Hill lawmakers thought up, the federal government would swoop in and set things straight again. Justice Department prosecutors, federal grand juries and United States District Courts are the only reasons this state is still standing.

But that has changed.

Bucky wrote:you're gonna need a bigger icepick

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the co-sponsor of legislation that would replace most of the Affordable Care Act by allowing states to keep portions of it, hears “repeal” differently than some Republicans. In a scrum with reporters this week, Cassidy said that “Obamacare” was not really a synonym for the Affordable Care Act. For many voters, he said, “Obamacare” meant the parts of the law that Republicans would get rid of, and the Affordable Care Act was the provisions, such as continued coverage for people with preexisting conditions, that Republicans intended to keep.

“The Affordable Care Act is, if you will, a different animal, and Obamacare is a different subset of it,” Cassidy said. “Complete repeal is not what President Trump ran on. President Trump ran on everyone having coverage, caring for those with preexisting conditions without mandates, at a lower cost.”

td11 wrote:

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the co-sponsor of legislation that would replace most of the Affordable Care Act by allowing states to keep portions of it, hears “repeal” differently than some Republicans. In a scrum with reporters this week, Cassidy said that “Obamacare” was not really a synonym for the Affordable Care Act. For many voters, he said, “Obamacare” meant the parts of the law that Republicans would get rid of, and the Affordable Care Act was the provisions, such as continued coverage for people with preexisting conditions, that Republicans intended to keep.

“The Affordable Care Act is, if you will, a different animal, and Obamacare is a different subset of it,” Cassidy said. “Complete repeal is not what President Trump ran on. President Trump ran on everyone having coverage, caring for those with preexisting conditions without mandates, at a lower cost.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... -care-act/

lmaooooooooo