I can't believe they're getting away with this shit

pacino wrote:

thephan wrote:I missed that Rand Paul went a little nuts, marching over to the House side of things and banging on a locked door demanding to see the House Repeal bill. He was told essentially 'nothing to see here' which made him go more bananas. Depending on the reporting, he was at the wrong room. It did not slow him down as he (rightly) demanded transparency.

unlike when Pelosi was misquoted, they will literally have to vote on it in order to see what's in the bill. they won't let anyone see it that wasn't involved in crafting it.

They shouldn't. Any bill is going to contain something that is a 'dealbreaker' with some portion of the House caucus because there's no pretty way to resolve the problem. Write something in private that you think can pass both houses, present it as a finished package, use Trump to stomp the whiny HFC people, and then maybe there's a chance a bill gets passed.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

thephan wrote:I missed that Rand Paul went a little nuts, marching over to the House side of things and banging on a locked door demanding to see the House Repeal bill. He was told essentially 'nothing to see here' which made him go more bananas. Depending on the reporting, he was at the wrong room. It did not slow him down as he (rightly) demanded transparency.

unlike when Pelosi was misquoted, they will literally have to vote on it in order to see what's in the bill. they won't let anyone see it that wasn't involved in crafting it.

They shouldn't. Any bill is going to contain something that is a 'dealbreaker' with some portion of the House caucus because there's no pretty way to resolve the problem. Write something in private that you think can pass both houses, present it as a finished package, use Trump to stomp the whiny HFC people, and then maybe there's a chance a bill gets passed.

personally, i hope this schism continues and we keep pushing the timeline. i understand the politics behind not letting their fellow Rs seeing it, but the optics are terrible, and i usually am not an optics person.

it's just so interesting to see how little faith they had that they'd win; none of this was figured out running up to the election.

jerseyhoya wrote:They shouldn't. Any bill is going to contain something that is a 'dealbreaker' with some portion of the House caucus because there's no pretty way to resolve the problem. Write something in private that you think can pass both houses, present it as a finished package, use Trump to stomp the whiny HFC people, and then maybe there's a chance a bill gets passed.

your bois are fucked on health reform whatever they dream up, or even pass, now. Fucked.

They've handled the thing clumsily to date, and are sure to fuck up papering over all the ways people will be fucked by their "improved", "less expensive", "more coverage" imitation replacement when the bright lights are on them.

Fucked.

banning Muslims 2/Electric Boogaloo, is when?

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

thephan wrote:I missed that Rand Paul went a little nuts, marching over to the House side of things and banging on a locked door demanding to see the House Repeal bill. He was told essentially 'nothing to see here' which made him go more bananas. Depending on the reporting, he was at the wrong room. It did not slow him down as he (rightly) demanded transparency.

unlike when Pelosi was misquoted, they will literally have to vote on it in order to see what's in the bill. they won't let anyone see it that wasn't involved in crafting it.

They shouldn't. Any bill is going to contain something that is a 'dealbreaker' with some portion of the House caucus because there's no pretty way to resolve the problem. Write something in private that you think can pass both houses, present it as a finished package, use Trump to stomp the whiny HFC people, and then maybe there's a chance a bill gets passed.

this isn't serious, is it? representatives are asked to vote on something they can't see???

Bucky wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

thephan wrote:I missed that Rand Paul went a little nuts, marching over to the House side of things and banging on a locked door demanding to see the House Repeal bill. He was told essentially 'nothing to see here' which made him go more bananas. Depending on the reporting, he was at the wrong room. It did not slow him down as he (rightly) demanded transparency.

unlike when Pelosi was misquoted, they will literally have to vote on it in order to see what's in the bill. they won't let anyone see it that wasn't involved in crafting it.

They shouldn't. Any bill is going to contain something that is a 'dealbreaker' with some portion of the House caucus because there's no pretty way to resolve the problem. Write something in private that you think can pass both houses, present it as a finished package, use Trump to stomp the whiny HFC people, and then maybe there's a chance a bill gets passed.

this isn't serious, is it? representatives are asked to vote on something they can't see???

No, the bill is being crafted now and would be introduced to rank and file already finalized; i.e. no input. There'd probably be insufficient time to seriously go through it, as opposed to when the Democrats basically had a framework before Obama was even elected in 2009 and had some tweaks and input from membera to get it passed...like fucking Joe Lieberman killing the public option.

For some reason Sessions continues to talk. He went on Tucker Carlson and said that they 'did not discuss the campaign in any significant way'.

So you admitted you talked about the campaign? This guy is the attorney general and apparently has no clue about staying tight-lipped and not allowing people ways to pull new threads.

Now there is something about using campaign funds for meetings he said were Senate business.

Trump probably shouldn't have called the intelligence community nazis

Also, public records work. Real journalism is still done!

The first rule of being a corporate exec: Never lie on your expense account. It's the way they'll get you first.

CalvinBall wrote:Now there is something about using campaign funds for meetings he said were Senate business.

Jeff Sessions paid for his trip to the RNC with his campaign money rather than with federal tax dollars. My Twitter feed is going crazy. I cannot begin to fathom how this is a story.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Now there is something about using campaign funds for meetings he said were Senate business.

Jeff Sessions paid for his trip to the RNC with his campaign money rather than with federal tax dollars. My Twitter feed is going crazy. I cannot begin to fathom how this is a story.

Probably breaks some campaign finance rule.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Now there is something about using campaign funds for meetings he said were Senate business.

Jeff Sessions paid for his trip to the RNC with his campaign money rather than with federal tax dollars. My Twitter feed is going crazy. I cannot begin to fathom how this is a story.

Sounds campaigny

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Now there is something about using campaign funds for meetings he said were Senate business.

Jeff Sessions paid for his trip to the RNC with his campaign money rather than with federal tax dollars. My Twitter feed is going crazy. I cannot begin to fathom how this is a story.

Probably breaks some campaign finance rule.

I mean, it rather plainly doesn't.

Well I mean the point is that he met the Russian dude as a campaign surrogate since he was using the campaign money to get there. Idk.

CalvinBall wrote:Well I mean the point is that he met the Russian dude as a campaign surrogate since he was using the campaign money to get there. Idk.

He was using his campaign's money to be there, not the Trump campaign's money. Not sure how you're making this out to use this as evidence that he met the Russian as a Trump campaign surrogate, since the Trump campaign wasn't paying. RNC is a political event, so his political committee paid for him attending it rather than making you and me pay for it. The general purpose of him being in Cleveland was political, so his campaign was responsible for paying for it. This is pretty straightforward. That doesn't mean he was barred from doing work in his capacity as a senator while there. That also to me seems pretty straightforward.

If I am out drinking on the weekend and run into my boss, and he asks me about some project we have going next week, I'm meeting him in my capacity as an employee not as a drunk. If I'm at the office and my dad calls, it's not a work call even though I'm at the office.

I mean, if this ends up being some building block toward the downfall of Sessions, more power to it. But it won't because it's a completely stupid story.

thephan wrote:I missed that Rand Paul went a little nuts, marching over to the House side of things and banging on a locked door demanding to see the House Repeal bill. He was told essentially 'nothing to see here' which made him go more bananas. Depending on the reporting, he was at the wrong room. It did not slow him down as he (rightly) demanded transparency.

I'm laying odds that he has some uncomfortable russian ties.

Guy has been in distraction mode for the past two weeks.

Sessions is just muddying the water because he knows what things are likely to come out next.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the ... -is-strong

We've all heard the old saw: It's never the crime, it's the cover-up. This is almost never true. Covering scandals for any length of time is enough to tell you that. People are generally able to make judgments about how much trouble they're in. We think the 'cover up' is worse than the crime because it's actually very seldom that the full scope of the actual crime is ever known. The cover up works better than you think. The other reason the cover up is a logical response is that it usually works. You only find out about it when it doesn't. So it's a good bet.

Astronomers can't see black holes directly. They map them by their event horizon and their effect on nearby stars and stellar matter. We can't see yet what's at the center of the Trump/Russia black hole. But we can tell a lot about its magnitude by the scope of the event horizon and the degree of its gravitational pull, which is immense.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Well I mean the point is that he met the Russian dude as a campaign surrogate since he was using the campaign money to get there. Idk.

He was using his campaign's money to be there, not the Trump campaign's money. Not sure how you're making this out to use this as evidence that he met the Russian as a Trump campaign surrogate, since the Trump campaign wasn't paying. RNC is a political event, so his political committee paid for him attending it rather than making you and me pay for it. The general purpose of him being in Cleveland was political, so his campaign was responsible for paying for it. This is pretty straightforward. That doesn't mean he was barred from doing work in his capacity as a senator while there. That also to me seems pretty straightforward.

If I am out drinking on the weekend and run into my boss, and he asks me about some project we have going next week, I'm meeting him in my capacity as an employee not as a drunk. If I'm at the office and my dad calls, it's not a work call even though I'm at the office.

I mean, if this ends up being some building block toward the downfall of Sessions, more power to it. But it won't because it's a completely stupid story.

by my count you've found it necessary to use 198 words to explain the clumsy lying of a clumsy liar. That's a lot of words.

I mean look at all the congresspeople insisting congresspeople meet with "ambassadors all the time". Collectively possibly. 1 on 1 meetings with ambassadors of adversary countries, not really. With the Russian ambassador, not at all "all the time". That's just a bad lie.