Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
December 10, 2019
12/10/19 8:11am
Sen. Joni Ernst Caught In Dark Money Scheme
Joni Ernst is in violation of campaign finance law, big time.
By Frances Langum
Video @ link~
An AP report this week shows Senator Joni Ernst’s campaign group broke the law in its close overlap with a shady dark money group set up by her top political staff to support her re-election campaign in 2020.
Here are five key facts in the AP’s storysd: ‘Dark money’ ties raise questions for GOP Sen. Ernst of Iowa
more...
https://crooksandliars.com/2019/12/sen-joni-ernst-caught-dark-money-scheme
Sen. Joni Ernst Caught In Dark Money Scheme
12/10/19 8:11am
Sen. Joni Ernst Caught In Dark Money Scheme
Joni Ernst is in violation of campaign finance law, big time.
By Frances Langum
Video @ link~
An AP report this week shows Senator Joni Ernst’s campaign group broke the law in its close overlap with a shady dark money group set up by her top political staff to support her re-election campaign in 2020.
Here are five key facts in the AP’s storysd: ‘Dark money’ ties raise questions for GOP Sen. Ernst of Iowa
Illegal for Candidates to Coordinate with Dark Money Groups. Ernst Did It Anyway.
It’s illegal for dark money groups to work with the candidates they support or make political work their primary purpose — but “documents reviewed by the AP, including emails and a strategy memo, not only make clear that the group’s aim is securing an Ernst win in 2020… they also show Ernst and her campaign worked in close concert with Iowa Values.”
Documents “Offer Proof” Campaign Finance Laws Broken.
Legal experts told AP the documents “offer proof that the effort violates the spirit of campaign finance and tax law.” A nonpartisan campaign finance expert said there is “pretty strong evidence” that a $50,000 request for money was for an “illegal donation” and it’s “clear that the goal of Iowa Values is to reelect Joni Ernst, which may violate its tax-exempt status.”
Dark Money Group Was Founded by Ernst’s “Top Political Aides.”
The dark money group Iowa Values was “founded by top political aides to Sen. Joni Ernst [and] has worked closely with the Iowa Republican to raise money and boost her reelection prospects, a degree of overlap that potentially violates the law.”
Ties Between Campaign, Dark Money Group “Undeniable.”
The close connection between Ernst and the dark money group is “undeniable”: Iowa Values was co-founded in 2017 by Ernst’s longtime political consultant and former campaign manager and deputy chief of staff, Jon Kohan. Ernst’s top fundraiser, Claire Holloway Avella, is “deeply involved with both operations.” A condo owned by another former campaign manager — Derek Flowers, who was recently hired to lead the group — was used as Iowa Values’ address at a time when he worked for Ernst.
Ernst Couldn’t Defend Her Campaign, Faces Mounting Questions.
The Ernst campaign was unable to substantively refute anything about the AP’s troubling report, so instead a spokesperson attacked the story as “the definition of fake news.” There has been no response from Ernst herself.
It’s illegal for dark money groups to work with the candidates they support or make political work their primary purpose — but “documents reviewed by the AP, including emails and a strategy memo, not only make clear that the group’s aim is securing an Ernst win in 2020… they also show Ernst and her campaign worked in close concert with Iowa Values.”
Documents “Offer Proof” Campaign Finance Laws Broken.
Legal experts told AP the documents “offer proof that the effort violates the spirit of campaign finance and tax law.” A nonpartisan campaign finance expert said there is “pretty strong evidence” that a $50,000 request for money was for an “illegal donation” and it’s “clear that the goal of Iowa Values is to reelect Joni Ernst, which may violate its tax-exempt status.”
Dark Money Group Was Founded by Ernst’s “Top Political Aides.”
The dark money group Iowa Values was “founded by top political aides to Sen. Joni Ernst [and] has worked closely with the Iowa Republican to raise money and boost her reelection prospects, a degree of overlap that potentially violates the law.”
Ties Between Campaign, Dark Money Group “Undeniable.”
The close connection between Ernst and the dark money group is “undeniable”: Iowa Values was co-founded in 2017 by Ernst’s longtime political consultant and former campaign manager and deputy chief of staff, Jon Kohan. Ernst’s top fundraiser, Claire Holloway Avella, is “deeply involved with both operations.” A condo owned by another former campaign manager — Derek Flowers, who was recently hired to lead the group — was used as Iowa Values’ address at a time when he worked for Ernst.
Ernst Couldn’t Defend Her Campaign, Faces Mounting Questions.
The Ernst campaign was unable to substantively refute anything about the AP’s troubling report, so instead a spokesperson attacked the story as “the definition of fake news.” There has been no response from Ernst herself.
more...
https://crooksandliars.com/2019/12/sen-joni-ernst-caught-dark-money-scheme
December 10, 2019
Obamacare had an unusually good day at the Supreme Court
As many as six justices appeared bothered by a Republican effort to undercut the Affordable Care Act.
By Ian Millhiser Dec 10, 2019, 1:30pm EST
A trio of Supreme Court cases consolidated under the name Maine Community Health Options v. United States may fairly be described as the first “normal” Obamacare case to reach the Supreme Court.
They do not involve an existential attack on the Affordable Care Act, and they did not arrive on the justices’ doorstep after months of political turmoil over how the courts should resolve these cases. And during arguments Tuesday, a majority of the justices appeared to treat Maine Community as what it is — a difficult dispute about how the government makes promises and whether it is required to keep them, rather than as an opportunity to retreat into partisan camps.
Maine Community involves about $12 billion in payments owed to health insurers under a program known as “risk corridors.” Obamacare’s risk corridors program sought to encourage insurers to enter an uncertain new market by agreeing to reimburse a portion of their losses if the insurance company set premiums too low.
After many insurers agreed to sell plans on the Obamacare marketplace, Congress enacted a provision in an appropriations bill — a provision known as a “rider” — seeking to prevent the government from making most of the payments under the risk corridor program. The question in Maine Community is whether the government is still obligated by the Affordable Care Act’s original promise to make these payments, or whether the rider effectively ended the requirement.
A bipartisan mix of justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Samuel Alito, all had difficult questions for Paul Clement, the lawyer representing the insurers. Ginsburg, in particular, asked whether Obamacare’s language, which provides that the government “shall pay” its obligations under the risk corridor program, also permits the insurance companies to sue the government if the money is not paid.
Yet only Alito appeared to be a certain vote against the insurers. By the end of arguments, six justices — Roberts and Ginsburg, plus Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh — all appeared likely to rule in favor of the insurers. Neither Justice Clarence Thomas nor Justice Neil Gorsuch spoke up during the session.
more...
https://www.vox.com/2019/12/10/21004821/obamacare-supreme-court-risk-corridors-maine-community?fbclid=IwAR1v6dDGVhYf9UIlRMvt4W0hLn1jLLGIczn1BcdYisNv3sbdPh5X3SXibfE
Obamacare had an unusually good day at the Supreme Court
Obamacare had an unusually good day at the Supreme Court
As many as six justices appeared bothered by a Republican effort to undercut the Affordable Care Act.
By Ian Millhiser Dec 10, 2019, 1:30pm EST
A trio of Supreme Court cases consolidated under the name Maine Community Health Options v. United States may fairly be described as the first “normal” Obamacare case to reach the Supreme Court.
They do not involve an existential attack on the Affordable Care Act, and they did not arrive on the justices’ doorstep after months of political turmoil over how the courts should resolve these cases. And during arguments Tuesday, a majority of the justices appeared to treat Maine Community as what it is — a difficult dispute about how the government makes promises and whether it is required to keep them, rather than as an opportunity to retreat into partisan camps.
Maine Community involves about $12 billion in payments owed to health insurers under a program known as “risk corridors.” Obamacare’s risk corridors program sought to encourage insurers to enter an uncertain new market by agreeing to reimburse a portion of their losses if the insurance company set premiums too low.
After many insurers agreed to sell plans on the Obamacare marketplace, Congress enacted a provision in an appropriations bill — a provision known as a “rider” — seeking to prevent the government from making most of the payments under the risk corridor program. The question in Maine Community is whether the government is still obligated by the Affordable Care Act’s original promise to make these payments, or whether the rider effectively ended the requirement.
A bipartisan mix of justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Justice Samuel Alito, all had difficult questions for Paul Clement, the lawyer representing the insurers. Ginsburg, in particular, asked whether Obamacare’s language, which provides that the government “shall pay” its obligations under the risk corridor program, also permits the insurance companies to sue the government if the money is not paid.
Yet only Alito appeared to be a certain vote against the insurers. By the end of arguments, six justices — Roberts and Ginsburg, plus Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh — all appeared likely to rule in favor of the insurers. Neither Justice Clarence Thomas nor Justice Neil Gorsuch spoke up during the session.
more...
https://www.vox.com/2019/12/10/21004821/obamacare-supreme-court-risk-corridors-maine-community?fbclid=IwAR1v6dDGVhYf9UIlRMvt4W0hLn1jLLGIczn1BcdYisNv3sbdPh5X3SXibfE
December 10, 2019
Flashback Quote of the Day
December 10, 2019 at 2:33 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 58 Comments
-- George Orwell, writing in As I Please in 1944
https://politicalwire.com/2019/12/10/flashback-quote-of-the-day-64/Flashback Quote of the Day
December 10, 2019 at 2:33 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 58 Comments
“For quite long periods, at any rate, people can remain undisturbed by obvious lies, either because they simply forget what is said from day to day or because they are under such a constant propaganda bombardment that they become anaesthetized to the whole business.”
— George Orwell, writing in As I Please in 1944.
— George Orwell, writing in As I Please in 1944.
December 10, 2019
December 9, 2019
Inspector General’s Report Shows Trump’s “Spygate” Conspiracy Theory Was the Real Hoax
But this won’t stop the Deep State-truthers from denying Trump’s complicity.
David Corn
snip//
But the new 476-page IG report released on Monday blows up all the conspiracies that Trump and his handmaids have been slinging. It states unequivocally that the FBI investigation of the Russian attack and interactions between Trump associates and Russia was justified and appropriate. Period. The report, based on a review of over 1 million documents and interviews with more than 100 witnesses, states that the FBI had an “authorized purpose” to initiate the probe. The IG noted that the FBI also was fully justified in initiating investigations of four Trump campaign associates: George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Michael Flynn, and Paul Manafort. “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations,” the report says.
There was no funny business, no FBI or Deep State vendetta against Trump. (This was obvious, given that the FBI kept the existence of this investigation a secret during the 2016 campaign.) The official account has been that the FBI kicked off the Russia investigation after it was informed in late July 2016 that Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, had been told by a suspected Russian agent months earlier—before it was public knowledge that Russian cyber-operatives had attacked the Democrats—that Moscow possessed Hillary Clinton’s emails. This, of course, caused the FBI to wonder about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, which was trying to undermine an American election, and the bureau did what it should do: cautiously investigate. Trump’s cult, though, has refused to accept this, with some insisting the Steele dossier triggered the investigation and with Papadopoulos (who is now running for Congress) and others contending that he was somehow set up by shadowy US intelligence operators. No, the IG says, that’s all bunk. The Steele memos, the IG notes, “played no role” in the launching of the investigation, and the FBI officials who opened the investigation “did not become aware of Steele’s election reporting until weeks later.” The report also stated there was no evidence that the FBI had entrapped Papadopoulos.
This is the big picture: Trump and the other conspiracy nutters—which includes Attorney General Bill Barr, who has been looking for evidence to back up the Papadopoulos-was-set-up claim—are flat-out wrong. They have obsessively promoted unfounded allegations about the origin of the Russia investigation and the role of the Steele memos in the inquiry, and they have excessively fixated on technical points regarding a surveillance warrant used by the FBI during the probe to mount a false flag operation. And this underhanded maneuver worked, to a degree, with these garbage talking points shaping the national conversation and media coverage of the Russia scandal. The IG report shows that Trump and his crew perverted and polluted the nation’s consideration of what happened in 2016—and that they have served, wittingly or not, as useful idiots for Russia.
snip//
The IG report should kill and bury all the conspiracy hogwash that Trump and his acolytes have used to poison the political environment and prevent a real and thorough discussion of what occurred in 2016: the Russian attack and Trump’s collaboration with it. But it won’t. As soon as the report was released, Barr started a disinformation campaign with a disingenuous statement: “The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.” That’s the opposite of the report’s findings. And Jordan similarly chimed in: “The Inspector Generals report confirms what many of us feared: James Comey’s FBI ignored guidelines and rules in spying on President Trump’s campaign in 2016. We now know that within one week of the investigation opening, the FBI was surveilling the campaign and four specific individuals associated with it.” Yet the report states these investigations were appropriately triggered.
So the BS won’t stop. Trump, Barr, Jordan and the rest are too invested in it. Now they and their minions will turn to John Durham, the federal prosecutor whom Barr assigned to conduct a separate review of the FBI’s Russia investigation, to carry on their crusade. And Durham, in this hour of need, provided them great comfort. In an unusual move, Durham issued a statement noting that he did not “agree with some of the [IG] report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.” This means Trump and his crew will be able to continue their scorched-earth campaign against the truth they cannot handle: Russia attacked the United States and Trump helped. That full equation can never, ever, ever be acknowledged by Trump and his henchmen. They are fighting this battle as if the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency depends upon it. And in that they are correct.
David Corn: Inspector General's Report Shows Trump's "Spygate" Conspiracy Theory Was the Real Hoax
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/12/inspector-generals-report-shows-trumps-spygate-conspiracy-theory-was-the-real-hoax/December 9, 2019
Inspector General’s Report Shows Trump’s “Spygate” Conspiracy Theory Was the Real Hoax
But this won’t stop the Deep State-truthers from denying Trump’s complicity.
David Corn
snip//
But the new 476-page IG report released on Monday blows up all the conspiracies that Trump and his handmaids have been slinging. It states unequivocally that the FBI investigation of the Russian attack and interactions between Trump associates and Russia was justified and appropriate. Period. The report, based on a review of over 1 million documents and interviews with more than 100 witnesses, states that the FBI had an “authorized purpose” to initiate the probe. The IG noted that the FBI also was fully justified in initiating investigations of four Trump campaign associates: George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Michael Flynn, and Paul Manafort. “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations,” the report says.
There was no funny business, no FBI or Deep State vendetta against Trump. (This was obvious, given that the FBI kept the existence of this investigation a secret during the 2016 campaign.) The official account has been that the FBI kicked off the Russia investigation after it was informed in late July 2016 that Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, had been told by a suspected Russian agent months earlier—before it was public knowledge that Russian cyber-operatives had attacked the Democrats—that Moscow possessed Hillary Clinton’s emails. This, of course, caused the FBI to wonder about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, which was trying to undermine an American election, and the bureau did what it should do: cautiously investigate. Trump’s cult, though, has refused to accept this, with some insisting the Steele dossier triggered the investigation and with Papadopoulos (who is now running for Congress) and others contending that he was somehow set up by shadowy US intelligence operators. No, the IG says, that’s all bunk. The Steele memos, the IG notes, “played no role” in the launching of the investigation, and the FBI officials who opened the investigation “did not become aware of Steele’s election reporting until weeks later.” The report also stated there was no evidence that the FBI had entrapped Papadopoulos.
This is the big picture: Trump and the other conspiracy nutters—which includes Attorney General Bill Barr, who has been looking for evidence to back up the Papadopoulos-was-set-up claim—are flat-out wrong. They have obsessively promoted unfounded allegations about the origin of the Russia investigation and the role of the Steele memos in the inquiry, and they have excessively fixated on technical points regarding a surveillance warrant used by the FBI during the probe to mount a false flag operation. And this underhanded maneuver worked, to a degree, with these garbage talking points shaping the national conversation and media coverage of the Russia scandal. The IG report shows that Trump and his crew perverted and polluted the nation’s consideration of what happened in 2016—and that they have served, wittingly or not, as useful idiots for Russia.
snip//
The IG report should kill and bury all the conspiracy hogwash that Trump and his acolytes have used to poison the political environment and prevent a real and thorough discussion of what occurred in 2016: the Russian attack and Trump’s collaboration with it. But it won’t. As soon as the report was released, Barr started a disinformation campaign with a disingenuous statement: “The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.” That’s the opposite of the report’s findings. And Jordan similarly chimed in: “The Inspector Generals report confirms what many of us feared: James Comey’s FBI ignored guidelines and rules in spying on President Trump’s campaign in 2016. We now know that within one week of the investigation opening, the FBI was surveilling the campaign and four specific individuals associated with it.” Yet the report states these investigations were appropriately triggered.
So the BS won’t stop. Trump, Barr, Jordan and the rest are too invested in it. Now they and their minions will turn to John Durham, the federal prosecutor whom Barr assigned to conduct a separate review of the FBI’s Russia investigation, to carry on their crusade. And Durham, in this hour of need, provided them great comfort. In an unusual move, Durham issued a statement noting that he did not “agree with some of the [IG] report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.” This means Trump and his crew will be able to continue their scorched-earth campaign against the truth they cannot handle: Russia attacked the United States and Trump helped. That full equation can never, ever, ever be acknowledged by Trump and his henchmen. They are fighting this battle as if the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency depends upon it. And in that they are correct.
December 10, 2019
Posted on Mon, Dec 9th, 2019 by Jason Easley
Trump White House Spins Failed IG Report To Blame Obama
Trump’s investigation of the FBI flopped, so the White House is spinning and trying to blame former President Barack Obama.
White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement provided to PoliticusUSA:
This rambling bit of incoherence from the White House that manages to blame President Obama for letting Comey run wild and the Steele Dossier bears no resemblance to the actual IG report. The report found that there was no spying against the Trump campaign. The FBI had no bias against Trump, and that the author of the Steele Dossier had a relationship with Ivanka Trump.
One can always tell when a Republican has failed because they will always come back to blaming Obama for all of their problems.
Trump White House Spins Failed IG Report To Blame Obama
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/12/09/trump-obama-ig-report.htmlPosted on Mon, Dec 9th, 2019 by Jason Easley
Trump White House Spins Failed IG Report To Blame Obama
Trump’s investigation of the FBI flopped, so the White House is spinning and trying to blame former President Barack Obama.
White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement provided to PoliticusUSA:
The shocking report from the DOJ Inspector General shows an out-of-control FBI under President Obama and former Director Jim Comey. The report makes clear that the phony Steele Dossier was “central and essential” for the FBI to secure wiretaps from the FISA Court to spy on the Trump campaign. But the FBI repeatedly lied to the FISA Court to make Steele seem credible and to hide information showing that the Dossier was false. The Dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee – but that fact was hidden from the FISA Court.
Astoundingly, when evidence was repeatedly uncovered showing no wrongdoing by candidate Trump, that also was hidden from the FISA Court. On top of all that, one FBI lawyer altered an email in an effort to continue and extend the wiretapping – and he has been referred for criminal prosecution. All of this shows a repeated effort to mislead the FISA Court long after the FBI was aware the “Dossier” was false, phony and could not be used justify spying on the Trump Campaign.
The American people should be outraged and terrified by this abuse of power. This should never happen to another presidential candidate or any American ever again.
Astoundingly, when evidence was repeatedly uncovered showing no wrongdoing by candidate Trump, that also was hidden from the FISA Court. On top of all that, one FBI lawyer altered an email in an effort to continue and extend the wiretapping – and he has been referred for criminal prosecution. All of this shows a repeated effort to mislead the FISA Court long after the FBI was aware the “Dossier” was false, phony and could not be used justify spying on the Trump Campaign.
The American people should be outraged and terrified by this abuse of power. This should never happen to another presidential candidate or any American ever again.
This rambling bit of incoherence from the White House that manages to blame President Obama for letting Comey run wild and the Steele Dossier bears no resemblance to the actual IG report. The report found that there was no spying against the Trump campaign. The FBI had no bias against Trump, and that the author of the Steele Dossier had a relationship with Ivanka Trump.
One can always tell when a Republican has failed because they will always come back to blaming Obama for all of their problems.
December 10, 2019
Democrats to unveil articles of impeachment Tuesday morning
“Our staff has been working on this for quite a period of time,” said one lawmaker.
By HEATHER CAYGLE and JOHN BRESNAHAN
12/09/2019 08:52 PM EST
Top House Democrats are expected to unveil articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump during a press conference Tuesday morning, according to multiple Democratic sources.
The Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up the articles of impeachment against Trump on Thursday, according to multiple Democratic lawmakers and aides. But several Democrats indicated Monday night the number of articles and specific charges against Trump were still being debated, potentially putting this week’s committee schedule in flux.
“There will be some announcements tomorrow morning,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said as he left a meeting with the other committee chairmen investigating Trump in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office Monday night.
snip//
“Our staff has been working on this for quite a period of time,” Cicilline said. “We’re going to work throughout the night.”
Nadler (D-N.Y.) wouldn’t comment as he left the chairmens’ huddle in Pelosi’s office to join the meeting of Judiciary Democrats in a nearby House office building.
Nadler and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff are expected to lead the press conference, which is scheduled to start at 8:45 a.m., according to multiple Democrats. The other committee chairmen investigating Trump are also expected to attend.
Democrats to unveil articles of impeachment Tuesday morning
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/09/impeachment-trump-democrats-tuesday-079694Democrats to unveil articles of impeachment Tuesday morning
“Our staff has been working on this for quite a period of time,” said one lawmaker.
By HEATHER CAYGLE and JOHN BRESNAHAN
12/09/2019 08:52 PM EST
Top House Democrats are expected to unveil articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump during a press conference Tuesday morning, according to multiple Democratic sources.
The Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up the articles of impeachment against Trump on Thursday, according to multiple Democratic lawmakers and aides. But several Democrats indicated Monday night the number of articles and specific charges against Trump were still being debated, potentially putting this week’s committee schedule in flux.
“There will be some announcements tomorrow morning,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said as he left a meeting with the other committee chairmen investigating Trump in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office Monday night.
snip//
“Our staff has been working on this for quite a period of time,” Cicilline said. “We’re going to work throughout the night.”
Nadler (D-N.Y.) wouldn’t comment as he left the chairmens’ huddle in Pelosi’s office to join the meeting of Judiciary Democrats in a nearby House office building.
Nadler and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff are expected to lead the press conference, which is scheduled to start at 8:45 a.m., according to multiple Democrats. The other committee chairmen investigating Trump are also expected to attend.
December 10, 2019
We’re collapsing ‘into chaos’ because Democrats won’t accept Trump, Tom McClintock says | McClatchy
By David Lightman
December 09, 2019 07:18 PM
First the Democrats wouldn’t accept Abraham Lincoln. And now they won’t accept Donald Trump.
That’s how Rep. Tom McClintock characterized the fast-moving House impeachment process Monday, comparing Trump’s agony to that of Lincoln’s as the Civil War was about to erupt.
McClintock, a California Republican, did not ask a witness a question during the House Judiciary Committee hearing Monday. Instead, he used his five minutes to warn about “flimsy evidence,” “a stunning abuse of power” and a democracy in peril because of the Democrats’ bid to impeach Trump.
“In every election one side wins and the other loses. Democracy only works because the losing side always respects the will of the voters,” the congressman said.
more...
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article238207244.html?fbclid=IwAR0aHOypaM2UlkOObjbdAXHsdInnHVOiGmpVscO9A_SfrOlzl_vx5FOQ7xQ
We're collapsing 'into chaos' because Democrats won't accept Trump, Tom McClintock says
We’re collapsing ‘into chaos’ because Democrats won’t accept Trump, Tom McClintock says | McClatchy
By David Lightman
December 09, 2019 07:18 PM
First the Democrats wouldn’t accept Abraham Lincoln. And now they won’t accept Donald Trump.
That’s how Rep. Tom McClintock characterized the fast-moving House impeachment process Monday, comparing Trump’s agony to that of Lincoln’s as the Civil War was about to erupt.
McClintock, a California Republican, did not ask a witness a question during the House Judiciary Committee hearing Monday. Instead, he used his five minutes to warn about “flimsy evidence,” “a stunning abuse of power” and a democracy in peril because of the Democrats’ bid to impeach Trump.
“In every election one side wins and the other loses. Democracy only works because the losing side always respects the will of the voters,” the congressman said.
more...
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article238207244.html?fbclid=IwAR0aHOypaM2UlkOObjbdAXHsdInnHVOiGmpVscO9A_SfrOlzl_vx5FOQ7xQ
December 9, 2019
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-mccarthy-argues-against-first-term-presidential-impeachments
GOP’s McCarthy argues against first-term presidential impeachments
12/09/19 02:53 PM
By Steve Benen
snip//
In November, the House GOP leader endorsed the Kremlin’s discredited conspiracy theory about Ukraine interfering in U.S. elections, and last week, he misquoted Alexander Hamilton. All of which helped pave the way for today’s latest gem.
I guess the motivation behind rhetoric like this is that if the Democratic impeachment effort can be characterized as unprecedented, then it would be … bad. The trouble is, there’s an important difference between historical curiosities and actual arguments.
Before Trump, there have been three impeachment efforts: Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. Johnson was impeached in his first (and only) term; Nixon resigned before being impeached; and Clinton was impeached in his second term.
For Kevin McCarthy, this is significant because, well, I actually haven’t the foggiest idea why. What matters to the process is the seriousness of presidential misdeeds, not what year in a president’s tenure they occurred.
There’s never been an impeachment process involving a president with a one-syllable name, either, but that’s not exactly a point that advances the conversation in a constructive way.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) joked in response to McCarthy’s comments, “Foiled. How did we forget about the ‘Presidential Right to First-Term Crime Spree’ clause of the Constitution?”
GOP's McCarthy argues against first-term presidential impeachments
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gops-mccarthy-argues-against-first-term-presidential-impeachments
GOP’s McCarthy argues against first-term presidential impeachments
12/09/19 02:53 PM
By Steve Benen
snip//
In November, the House GOP leader endorsed the Kremlin’s discredited conspiracy theory about Ukraine interfering in U.S. elections, and last week, he misquoted Alexander Hamilton. All of which helped pave the way for today’s latest gem.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) doesn’t quite have his impeachment facts straight.
“In modern history, we’ve never gone after impeaching a president in the first term,” McCarthy said in a Monday appearance on Fox News ahead of the House Judiciary Committee’s second public impeachment hearing.
“In modern history, we’ve never gone after impeaching a president in the first term,” McCarthy said in a Monday appearance on Fox News ahead of the House Judiciary Committee’s second public impeachment hearing.
I guess the motivation behind rhetoric like this is that if the Democratic impeachment effort can be characterized as unprecedented, then it would be … bad. The trouble is, there’s an important difference between historical curiosities and actual arguments.
Before Trump, there have been three impeachment efforts: Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. Johnson was impeached in his first (and only) term; Nixon resigned before being impeached; and Clinton was impeached in his second term.
For Kevin McCarthy, this is significant because, well, I actually haven’t the foggiest idea why. What matters to the process is the seriousness of presidential misdeeds, not what year in a president’s tenure they occurred.
There’s never been an impeachment process involving a president with a one-syllable name, either, but that’s not exactly a point that advances the conversation in a constructive way.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) joked in response to McCarthy’s comments, “Foiled. How did we forget about the ‘Presidential Right to First-Term Crime Spree’ clause of the Constitution?”
December 9, 2019
Posted on Mon, Dec 9th, 2019 by Jason Easley
Rep. Doug Collins Loses It Over Devin Nunes Getting Exposed In Ukraine Plot
Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) threw a fit at the Trump impeachment hearing because Rep. Devin Nunes’s role in the Ukraine plot was exposed.
Doug Collins wants Devin Nunes crimes to remain a secret
Collins said:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1204127296057151496
According to Republicans, like Rep. Collins (R-GA), Adam Schiff is a “fact witness” who must testify, but the phone calls between House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani should have remained anonymous.
Nunes is likely facing an ethics investigation at minimum for his role in Trump’s Ukraine shakedown., but Doug Collins is showing that beneath the Republican impeachment sound and fury is a heart of corruption.
Rep. Doug Collins Loses It Over Devin Nunes Getting Exposed In Ukraine Plot
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/12/09/doug-collins-devin-nunes-crimes.htmlPosted on Mon, Dec 9th, 2019 by Jason Easley
Rep. Doug Collins Loses It Over Devin Nunes Getting Exposed In Ukraine Plot
Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) threw a fit at the Trump impeachment hearing because Rep. Devin Nunes’s role in the Ukraine plot was exposed.
Doug Collins wants Devin Nunes crimes to remain a secret
Collins said:
What the problem I have herein is this, is if Rudy, Nunes were the only phone records returned from the subpoena, what why are these released? Here’s the problem. You took the committee and this is why I want to know who ordered it, the committee made a choice, Chairman Schiff, I’m assuming he’s not here or you who did get to come, thank you for showing up, made a conscious choice to put these records into the report. It was a drive-by. It was a gratuitous drive-by you wanted to smear the ranking member Orr these others because they were in those numbers that were connected to that. I’m not saying you knew the content or anything else.
In fact, you just admitted a second ago it was simply they were contacting these people. The problem I have with that is, you could have just as easily put if you’re wanting to do a professional non-smear report said congressperson one or congressperson two. Reporter one, reporter two. If they did not contribute to your report it is nothing but a drive-by. That’s the problem I have here.
In fact, you just admitted a second ago it was simply they were contacting these people. The problem I have with that is, you could have just as easily put if you’re wanting to do a professional non-smear report said congressperson one or congressperson two. Reporter one, reporter two. If they did not contribute to your report it is nothing but a drive-by. That’s the problem I have here.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1204127296057151496
According to Republicans, like Rep. Collins (R-GA), Adam Schiff is a “fact witness” who must testify, but the phone calls between House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani should have remained anonymous.
Nunes is likely facing an ethics investigation at minimum for his role in Trump’s Ukraine shakedown., but Doug Collins is showing that beneath the Republican impeachment sound and fury is a heart of corruption.
December 9, 2019
GOP House Intel counsel argues Democrats failed to enforce impeachment subpoenas
Seriously? 
https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment-hearing-enforce-subpoenas-5877f824-792a-4475-80b4-125a5a41901b.html
Axios
1 hour ago
GOP House Intel counsel argues Democrats failed to enforce impeachment subpoenas
Steve Castor, the counsel representing Republicans from the House Intelligence Committee, argued during Monday's impeachment hearing that House Democrats failed to properly obtain and enforce subpoenas for Trump administration staffers to garner additional testimony in their impeachment inquiry.
Yes, but: For the last two months, the White House has blasted the impeachment inquiry as "constitutionally illegitimate" and refused to take part at all. Democrats chose to move forward without said testimony — especially from some key staffers, like former national security adviser John Bolton — because a court battle to enforce any subpoenas could take months.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,104
