The fix is in. HC bill. Kushner, Jr. - Senate gives them want they want.

[Honeycombe8]

The Senate Intel Committee cowtowed totally to Kushner & Jr. No public questioning. Able to give public statement that misstates the facts and purpose of the investigation.

The Senate passes repeal, with McCain flown in to do the deciding vote. (Edit: WHY did McCain say "I can't vote for this bill as it is now," if he then voted for it?)

Trump is continuing to send the country deeper into Russian control, and acting more and more like a dictator.

He's now going to fire Mueller, looks like.

[bettyellen]

1. From what I understand first meetings are usually not public if they think their might be purjury-

They get it in transcripts and invite the people back to rip apart their testimony once hey have more. I don't feel like we know enough to judge.

[Honeycombe8]

2. I see. Thanks. I'm getting so paranoid. I just don't know what to think, anymore. nt

[lapucelle]

3. The Senate did not vote for or against the repeal today.

They voted on whether or not they would advance the repeal bill to the next step, proceeding to debate. Today's vote was on procedure.

McCain voted in favor of moving the bill to the next step. He indicated that if the repeal bill remains in its present form, he will vote against the actual legislation.

[Greywing]

5. I doubt that many people listened to McCain's speech and I hope they will

make the effort to listen to what he said. It was a strong speech. If this bill does come up for a vote in its present form it will be actually be defeated and dead.

[Honeycombe8]

7. I heard part of it. That's what confused me, since I thought he'd voted for it. Good to hear...

that he was firmly against it in its present form, or no replace at all.

[Honeycombe8]

6. +1. nt

[bettyellen]

4. I saw some suspicious posts slamming Pelosi for going along with it....both on a twitter and here...

And surprisingly enough I couldn't find anything but ceaseless criticism of Dems in their posts. So I decided to read up. I get that some people are impatient, but it seems like quite a few have a divisive agenda.

[Honeycombe8]

8. +1. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

9. Public meetings might also end up in pleading the 5th.

That would not be helpful if the objective is to gain serious info.
It might be helpful as pure political device, watching Trump's kid act guilty, but sounds like Feinstein and etc. are looking for serious info.

So the Committee took a smart path, altho I am disappointed on missing the open hearing.
I also suspect a closed hearing was what would have satisfied Grassely and kept his obstructionism to a low level.

[Honeycombe8]

10. It's important that the people HEAR the answers directly, not an interpretation.

That makes all the difference.

They can have a follow-up in private. That is frequently done, as was done with Sessions.

I cry foul on this. "Friendly discussions" with possible colluders with a hostile foreign government? Since when? Since this administration.

The reports I've heard & read on the Kushner "discussion" with the Senate is that he's such a nice guy, he was SO cooperative, he's inexperienced with politics, he was SO forthcoming (not mentioning his false security documents he filed, and amended, and still managed to lie on them). One said, "I understand that some people want a particular outcome, but Kushner isn't going to get them there." As if the point of the investigation is to "get" someone. It's not.

But that seems to be the feeling among Republican Congress people. The Dems insist on these investigations, so we're going to talk the talk, and do some "discussions," and read some documents, until this fizzles out. A win-win for all!