Tag: Congress

Could Not Happen to a More Deserving Rat-F%$#

No Comments

Senator Rand Paul, who voted against Covid-19 relief, is the first Senator to test positive for the virus.

I am intensely amused by this. Does this make me a bad person?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has tested positive for the coronavirus, his office announced on Twitter Sunday.

 Why it matters: He’s the first U.S. senator to test positive. According to his office, Paul is asymptomatic and was not aware of making direct contact with an infected person.

  • Paul, a licensed physician and notorious deficit hawk, was the only senator to vote against a bipartisan $8 billion deal to provide emergency coronavirus funding earlier this month.

  • He sought to introduce an amendment that would take the funding from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, but it was voted down 80-16.

It’s the little things that make life good.

This is one of them.

Some Good Electoral News Out of Illinois

No Comments

The most contemptible Democrat in Congress, Dan Lipinski, has lost the Democratic Party primary to Marie Newman in IL-3.

Dan Lipinski literally inherited his seat from his dad, and has voted consistently against Democratic priorities.

The DCCC went all in for Lipinski, and considering the fact that the 3rd districtis solidly Democratic, I would hope that Newman eschews DCCC help, and refuses to pay DCCC dues.

In other Illinois election news, reformer Cook County DA Kim Foxx was renominated, defeating Bill Conway, despite the machinations of the police unions and the millions that his billionaire father donated to his campaign.

Police departments all over the nation are trying to sabotage DAs who are trying to reign in police and prosecutorial excesses, and Foxx was one of the first of the trend or reformers.

It’s good that the cops and the rich pampered son lost.

Thanks, Nancy

No Comments
So, the Democrats have Trump over a barrel, but because Nancy Pelosi’s big donors are the rich pond scum who do not want to pay for sick leave, the Speaker emasculated the leave provisions of the corona virus bill.

Way to abandon core party principles and giving lots of voters a reason to stay at home.

For the first time ever, California’s jungle primary has led to an election in which Pelosi is facing another Democrat in the general.

Here is hoping that Shahid Buttar (Act Blue page) beats her like a rented mule in the general:

The Democratic-led House scaled back a paid-leave program that the chamber had tried to enact days earlier, following pressure from businesses worried about financial burdens from the sweeping bill in response to the coronavirus crisis.

In revised legislation that Democratic leaders billed as a technical correction, but represented a significant rewrite, the House modified a program aimed at providing paid leave to people affected by the coronavirus. The new measure would still provide two weeks of sick leave to a wide swath of workers affected by the pandemic, including those who are in quarantine, caring for family members with Covid-19, and those who have children whose schools or day-care centers have closed.

But for the next 10 weeks, paid leave would be limited only to workers caring for a child whose school or day care had been shut. Workers who had been in quarantine or caring for a family member affected by the virus wouldn’t be eligible for the additional 10 weeks of leave. Health-care providers and emergency responders aren’t guaranteed the additional 10 weeks of paid leave, with the decision up to the Labor secretary, given that the government might face a shortage of such workers.

In the original version, all the workers who received paid sick time would be eligible for another 10 weeks of paid leave at two-thirds pay, in what would have represented a major expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the 1993 law that provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave to workers at larger companies.

Democratic aides were alarmed by the changes, which were passed with no objections because House lawmakers are away from Washington. The changes weren’t shown to most lawmakers before the vote.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) appeared to address the criticism in a statement Tuesday in which she said she would continue to push for expanded leave, including for healthcare workers and those who need longer leave because they get sick.

“During negotiations, the Democratic House will continue to make clear to the Administration that any emergency response package must put Families First before any aid to corporate America is considered,” she said in a statement.

The bill passed Saturday morning allowed businesses with fewer than 50 workers to win exemptions under rules to be developed by the Labor Department. Many businesses had expressed concerns about cash flow and had also worried that they might suffer additional disruptions during a crisis by losing workers on whom they relied.

 Seriously, I am sick and tired Democrats pre-capitulating.

That’s what got us Trump.

fuck

No Comments

The Republicans have voted down the calling of witnesses at the impeachment.

What these folks may not realize is that they have literally written their obituaries.

By this I do not mean that their political careers have ended, but rather than, when they die, this vote will be in the first paragraph of their obituaries:

The Senate brought President Trump to the brink of acquittal on Friday of charges that he abused his power and obstructed Congress, as Republicans voted to block consideration of new witnesses and documents in his impeachment trial and shut down a final push by Democrats to bolster their case for the president’s removal.

 In a nearly party-line vote after a bitter debate, Democrats failed to win support from the four Republicans they needed. With Mr. Trump’s acquittal virtually certain, the president’s allies rallied to his defense, though some conceded he was guilty of the central allegations against him.

 The Democrats’ push for more witnesses and documents failed 49 to 51, with only two Republicans, Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine, joining Democrats in favor. A vote on the verdict is planned for Wednesday.

On the bright side, the timing will be awfully inconvenient for Trump:

Senators recessed the trial for the weekend and will return Monday for closing arguments, with a vote on the verdict on Wednesday.

The timetable will rob Mr. Trump of the opportunity to use his State of the Union address scheduled for Tuesday night to boast about his acquittal, a prospect he has relished for several weeks. Instead, he will become the second president to deliver the speech during his own impeachment trial.

Here is hoping that Trump completely loses his sh%$ at the speech.

Normally, I’d Advise Against Breaking the Bull Durham Rule, but in This Case………

No Comments

Out Standing!

For those of you who have not seen the baseball movie, see it.

There is a mement were we are shown how it is never acceptable to call the umpire, “C^%$-sucker.”

Today, Elizabeth Warren gave a written question to Chief Justice John Roberts that had him literally questioning his own legitimacy:

During President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) submitted a question about the legitimacy of the Chief Justice—which the Chief Justice had to read.

Chief Justice John Roberts read the note card submitted by the presidential candidate: “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”

Roberts pursed his lips as he waited for lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff to respond.

(Emphasis mine)

What can I say to the distinguished gentlewoman from the great commonwealth of Massachusetts but, “Well played.”

This is particularly effective because it touches on what is a conceit of Supreme Court justices in general, and John Roberts in particular: Attacks on their legitimacy.

Yes, She is a Distant Relative (Facepalm)

No Comments
My second cousin once removed,* Dianne Feinstein, in an attempt to generate some bipartisan cred, made an incredibly inartful statement about having an open mind on impeachment to an LA Times reporter, which was interpreted as a statement that she was leaning against impeachment.

Feinstein and the Times seem to be on the same page about this, the paper has issued an update correcting the story, but I blame Feinstein for her eagerness to preen and play the bipartisanship game for this sh%$ storm to have blown up in the first place, and this likely makes it easier for someone like Joe Manchin to allow their cowardice to overrule their constitutional duties:

The fate of key votes in President Trump’s impeachment trial remained uncertain Tuesday as his defense lawyers concluded their arguments and Republicans led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell struggled to muster the votes to bring the trial to a speedy close without calling witnesses.

But even as McConnell struggled to corral Republicans, Sen. Dianne Feinstein seemed to signal fissures in the unity of Senate Democrats. Feinstein suggested that while she had serious concerns about Trump’s character, she is still weighing her ultimate vote on whether to acquit him.

………

Feinstein’s comments came initially in remarks to reporters outside the Senate chamber in which she said she had leaned against impeachment at the outset.

“Nine months left to go [before the election], the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” she said.

She then added: “That was my view and it still is my view.”

Still, she indicated that arguments in the trial about Trump’s character and fitness for office had shifted her thinking. “What changed my opinion as this went on,” she said, is a realization that “impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves.”

In a later written statement, in which she said she had initially been “misunderstood,” Feinstein said “it’s clear the president’s actions were wrong.”

There are 39½ million people in California, and something north of 20 million registered voters, and this boneheaded play to civility will not change a single vote.

It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.

*Full disclosure, my great grandfather, Harry Goldman, and her grandfather, Sam Goldman were brothers, though we have never met, either in person or electronically.

And the Balloon Goes Up

No Comments

The House of Representatives has selected managers and transmitted the impeachment to the U.S. Senate:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tapped two trusted committee chairmen to lead the team that will make the case in the Senate for President Trump’s removal from office, supported by a relatively small cast of additional impeachment “managers.”

Confirming widespread speculation that swirled for weeks as she held back the articles of impeachment, Pelosi (D-Calif.) turned to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) to lead the House team. She made the announcement at a Wednesday news conference after keeping the cast of managers under tight wraps for weeks.

Joining Schiff and Nadler are Reps. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), Val Demings (D-Fla.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Tex.), Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.).

The seven-member team is smaller than the 13-member squad that presented articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton to the Senate in 1999, reflecting a more tightly controlled approach to the investigation.

I still think that they should have held on so they could incorporate the Parnas documents get testimony from John Bolton, et al.

Here’s hoping that Schiff is taking lead, because Nadler has been less than impressive.

F%$# Their Butt-Hurt

2 Comments
I give quite a bit to fellow Dems – we’ve fundraised over $300,000 for others (more than my “dues”), w/ over 50% going to swing seats.

DCCC made clear that they will blacklist any org that helps progressive candidates like me. I can choose not to fund that kind of exclusion. https://t.co/qqwdwPAqek

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) January 10, 2020

The powers that be in the Washington, DC Democratic Party have bleating piteously over Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) refusing to raise money for the DCCC, because the DCCC has decided to go on a Jihad against progressive Democrats.

Of course the DCCC has always been an enemy of the progressive wing of the party, but Nancy Pelosi put the hapless Cheri Bustos in charge of the organization this time around, who made it official, so AOC’s action is reasonable, particularly when juxtaposed with her prodigious fundraising for Democrats in swing districts:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) announced she had formed a political action committee on Saturday to help raise funds for progressive primary candidates.

The congresswoman has been a vocal opponent of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s policy to “blacklist” vendors and firms that work with candidates mounting primary challenges against Democratic incumbents. Ocasio-Cortez was one such candidate, having run a successful primary campaign against Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) in 2018.

Democratic leadership sees the rule as necessary to protect seats and win elections, but critics like Ocasio-Cortez and fellow 2018 upset victor Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) say it prevents fresh voices from reaching Congress and could encumber efforts to increase diversity in the halls of the Capitol.

Ocasio-Cortez has also not paid her dues to the DCCC during this campaign cycle and said she did not plan to pay. The funds are traditionally provided to the DCCC by House members to redistribute among other important races.

Fox News reported that nearly 100 members had yet to pay their dues as of October.

Considering the fact that the DCCC is blacklisting people and organizations for people who are supporting challengers to right wing sellouts like Henry Cuellar and Dan Lipinski, who are in reliably Democratic districts, her actions are not only justified, but obligory.

I’m Not Sure That This Is Good News

No Comments
A lot of people have been making hosannas over John Bolton’s announcement that he would testify if he were subpoenaed by the Senate for the impeachment trial.

I’m a pessimist about this.

Given that John Bolton is probably still sporting an erection from our recent assassination of an Iranian general*, and the former National Security Advisor has been aggressively called for war with Iran for decades, I do not think that he will do ANYTHING that would make it difficult for Trump to launch a war against Iran:

Awfully mustachioed of you, John. It was nice visiting your website, too.

I don’t trust this guy as far as the car threw me. He’s going to be the shot that brings down the elephant now that we’re just inches away from the war for which he’s been slavering his entire adult life? Please. At the very least, this is a bag job to give cover to whatever Mitch McConnell’s plan to chloroform the impeachment trial is. They can refuse to call him, and he’s covered. He can show up and refuse to answer—executive privilege, state of war, in these perilous times, y’know? But the idea that Bolton’s going to cooperate in any meaningful way, and that his testimony will advance the case against the president* in any meaningful way, requires a suspension of disbelief that rivals that of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Even if Bolton is a vindictive SOB, and he is, and even if he is probably VERY angry that Trump fired him, he will never, ever, do anything that might lead to peace with Iran.

Bolton really wants to send poor young Americans overseas to fight and die.

*Really sorry about that mental image.†
†No really, I am SINCERELY sorry about that mental image.‡
‡You were aware that in the late 1970s, he was frequently seen at the infamous sex club Plato’s Retreat, so I figure that there are WAY too many people who have seen his erection.

Unfortunately, Ajit Pai Will Police This Law

No Comments
Part of the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress is the The Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019, which forbids a whole host of cable company rat-f%$#ery:

For a decade we’ve talked about how the broadband and cable industry has perfected the use of utterly bogus fees to jack up subscriber bills — a dash of financial creativity it adopted from the banking and airline industries. Countless cable and broadband companies tack on a myriad of completely bogus fees below the line, letting them advertise one rate — then sock you with a higher rate once your bill actually arrives. These companies will then brag repeatedly about how they haven’t raised rates yet this year, when that’s almost never actually the case.

………

But something quietly shifted just before the holidays. After a longstanding campaign by Consumer Reports, The Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 passed the House and the Senate last week buried inside a giant appropriations bill that now awaits President Trump’s signature.

The bill bans ISPs from charging you extra to rent hardware you already own (something ISPs like Frontier have been doing without penalty for a few years). It also forces cable TV providers to send an itemized list of any fees and other surcharges to new customers within 24 hours of signing up for service, and allows users shocked by the higher price to cancel service without penalty.

The bill’s not perfect. Because of the act itself it largely only applies to cable TV, not broadband service where the problem is just as bad. And cable TV providers can still falsely advertise a lower rate, thanks to what appears to be some last minute lobbying magic on the part of the cable TV sector:

………

The trick now will be enforcement by a government and FCC that has routinely shown it’s entirely cool with industry repeatedly ripping consumers off with bullsh%$ fees to the tune of around $28 billion annually:

Unfortunately, under current FCC management, I expect that the resulting regulation will render this meaningless.

I honestly that Pai may be the most venal and corrupt member of the Trump administration, though that concept truly buggers the mind.

Deep Thought

No Comments

Trump’s fundraising for Senators who are jurors in his impeachment trial may qualify for bribery under federal statutes.

While Pelosi is waiting for the impeachment rules from McConnell, maybe she should start investigating that, and demand that the Senators in question recuse themselves.

(On Edit)

Actually, instead  of calling on the Senators to recuse themselves, they, and their staff, should be called by the House as witnesses.

About Those Anti-Impeachment “Democrats”

No Comments
Jeff Van Drew (“D”-NJ) is looking to become a Republican, because, even in New Jersey, the state Democratic Party establishment finds him too cynical and too hypocritical to support.

To refresh your memory, he was one of 2 Democrats in the House to vote against initiating the impeachment investigation in the first place, and he was the “Democrat” most likely to vote against impeachment.

Since that time, his support has cratered, so he’s looking to switch party to save his ass.

This is actually a good thing, because it illuminates to other wavering “Democrats” the consequences of voting no.

The problem here is not one of values, it is one of integrity and guts, because, as the example that Jeff Van Drew shows, there is NO political upside for a Democrat to oppose impeachment:

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, the conservative South Jersey Democrat who has vocally opposed impeaching President Donald Trump, is expected to switch parties in the coming days, according to three New Jersey Democratic sources, leaving a party he has represented for more than 20 years.

Van Drew didn’t just oppose the impeachment effort. He repeatedly touted his position on Fox News, winning direct praise from Trump on Twitter. “Thank you,” the president wrote in one tweet in September.

In turn, Democrats saw his support implode in polling and party leaders began distancing themselves from the congressman. This week the Democratic chairman of Atlantic County warned in a public letter that Van Drew would infuriate Democratic voters and could cost the party down ballot next year if he opposed impeachment. State Senate President Steve Sweeney (D., Gloucester), a longtime Van Drew ally, pointedly refused to endorse the congressman.

“Jeff stabbed us in the back, certainly,” said a seething Michael Suleiman, the Atlantic County chairman. “It’s disgusting. It’s a disgrace. Good riddance.”

He added, “Maybe he’ll be the new ambassador to Ukraine.” 

Oh ……… Burn.

………

Gov. Phil Murphy said in a statement Saturday that he and other top Democrats had made it clear to Van Drew that his impeachment stand meant he would no longer have Democratic support. “Despite knowing full well that the president has abused the powers of his office,” Murphy said, “Congressman Van Drew is now willing to enable Donald Trump just to try to salvage his own election.”

Van Drew in recent days asked party chairs to sign a pledge to support him, and they refused, according to Sulemain. Van Drew’s team also tried to persuade national Democratic staffers detailed to his race to continue to support him despite his switch to the GOP. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee staff balked and alerted South Jersey Democratic officials, according to two people familiar with the conversations.

(Emphasis mine)

So, not only is he switching parties, he attempted to poach DCCC staffers for his campaign as a Republican.

The technical term for this is Chutzpah.

………

Indeed, Van Drew voted with Trump only about 7% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight, a data-focused news site. But the impeachment vote was a breaking point. Van Drew was one of two House Democrats to break ranks on opening the inquiry, and he has said he plans to vote against formal articles of impeachment against Trump next week.

These numbers does not matter.

There is a difference between a conservative Democrat and a disloyal Democrat, and Jeff Van Drew is clearly the latter.

Pelosi Backs Down

No Comments

After ignoring progressive concerns over her drug price bill Pelosi has cut a deal with the Progressive Caucus to strengthen the bill.

I still do not think that the bill is strong enough, but it’s good that progressives in Congress were sufficiently disciplined force the Speaker to do the right thing:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reached a deal with progressive leaders on Tuesday night to avert a showdown over her signature bill to lower drug prices.

The deal with Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, will include two changes that progressives have been pushing for over the course of weeks.

Those changes are to increase the minimum number of drugs subject to negotiation under the bill from 35 to 50 and to restore the implementation of Jayapal’s amendment, which would extend protections against drug price spikes to people on employer-sponsored health insurance plans, not just those on Medicare.

The deal prevents a showdown on Thursday when the bill will come to the floor for a vote. Progressive leaders had been contemplating a rare full-scale rebellion against Pelosi, thinking of blocking a vote on the drug pricing bill by trying to vote down a procedural motion.

Oh Snap

No Comments

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and most of the House Progressive Caucus are trying to replace Nancy Pelosi’s phony baloney prescription drug price bill with something useful.

There is no downside to this effort, except that Nancy Pelosi might lose some street cred with her lobbyist buddies.

Mitch McConnell won’t allow a vote on any version of this bill in the Senate:

Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have taken the side of the Congressional Progressive Caucus against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a dramatic fight over the details of a drug pricing bill that has been a source of intra-caucus sparring all year.

Pelosi is hoping to move quickly to a floor vote to satisfy a major 2018 campaign pledge that Democrats would work to lower drug prices. Progressives, led by Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan, who are advocating for changes to the legislation, are pushing back, arguing the bill is far too modest and would do little if enacted—which, given the makeup of the Senate, it won’t be.

………

 The Warren-Sanders effort has already gained one new ally: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), whose spokesperson Corbin Trent ripped the bill put together by Pelosi and her staff. “They stripped out everything that looked like progress,” Corbin said.

The bill, HR 3, the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, will not become law, whether Pelosi’s version passes or whether the stronger elements preferred by the Progressive Caucus are included. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will bury it with the other 400-odd pieces of legislation in his graveyard. But the importance of this House Democratic squabble goes well beyond a single bill. It will indicate whether the 98-member Progressive Caucus, which grew in size this year, is willing and able to fight for policies it believes in. How hard progressives push back against Pelosi will determine whether she will continue to ignore progressives as she pursues her policy framework, or whether she’ll have to respect and include them.

………

 The Rules Committee is expected to vote on the bill Tuesday afternoon, which would then allow it to move to the House floor for a vote. The Progressive Caucus has been surveying members the past several days, encouraging them to vote against the rule for the bill, which would block it from coming to the floor and send it back to the legislative drawing board. A source involved with the whip operation said that so far “the count is excellent,” expressing confidence that enough members of the caucus would stick together. (Before the House votes on a bill, it first votes to approve or reject the “rule” under which it would be considered. Taking down the rule is a way to block the underlying bill from a vote.)

………

 The relative weakness of the bill coming to the House floor makes a mockery of the health care debate unfolding on the presidential campaign trail. While 2020 Democratic hopefuls debate a sweeping, comprehensive reform of the healthcare system, Democrats in the House are having trouble giving authority to the government to negotiate lower prices for more than a mere 25 drugs. The gap between the two debates could hardly be greater, even though Democrats in the House have a free hand policy-wise: After all, the bill has little chance of passing the Senate and becoming law, so it’s largely a messaging exercise.

………

 AS THE PROSPECT documented last Friday, Pelosi and her staff, led by top health policy aide Wendell Primus, have frozen out progressives from deliberations over the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, exercising extreme control over the process. They bypassed legislation written by Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), which, thanks to progressive organizing, had the support of a majority of the caucus. Instead, Pelosi and Primus sought to find a compromise with the Trump White House, only to see Trump savage the bill on Twitter, indicating that it didn’t have his support. Despite that reversal, all the provisions weakened or watered down to gain Trump’s support remain in the bill, leaving open large gaps in who will benefit from the effects.

………

 In addition, the uninsured will not see any benefits from the price negotiations, and will be forced to pay whatever price drug companies can command. Nicole Smith-Holt, the mother of a diabetic who died because he had to go off her insurance at age 26 and could no longer afford insulin, explained to the Prospect last week that “People like my son Alec wouldn’t have benefited. It wouldn’t have saved his life. And a lot of other lives would be at risk too.”

………

After being shut out of a high-priority legislative action—drug prices were one of the top issues in the 2018 midterms—and having the improvements they did get in whittled down to nothing, the Progressive Caucus, co-chaired by Jayapal and Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI), decided to rebel. On Friday afternoon, they began whipping Progressive Caucus member offices on whether they would be willing to vote against the rule for the Lower Drug Costs Now Act.

A Democratic source confirmed that “a substantial number of progressives” would vote against the rule if certain priorities—restoring the Jayapal amendment, increasing the minimum drugs negotiated, striking the non-interference clause, and making sure the uninsured benefit—were not included in the final text.

Pelosi’s team seemed unmoved by this threat, with an aide telling The Hill, “Representatives Pocan and Jayapal are gravely misreading the situation if they try to stand in the way of the overwhelming hunger for HR3 within the House Democratic Caucus and among progressive Members … The Lower Drug Costs Now Act will pass next week.”

………

 Pelosi appears to be banking on progressives’ past failures to follow through on their threats and defy leadership. But with Sanders and Warren siding with Jayapal and the CPC over the weekend, the progressive caucus may finally have the impetus to block the bill in its current form. The senators’ statements also mean that Pelosi now must contend not only with the left-wing elements of her caucus, but the two presidential candidates commanding a substantial chunk of the primary electorate. On the other hand, passing a messaging bill on drug pricing is a high priority for Democrats up for reelection in tight races, no matter the details, and progressive will be under intense pressure to go along on their behalf.


XTC Snowman

Once again, we see that Nancy Pelosi sees Republicans as the opposition, and progressives as the enemy.

Until and unless Pelosi gets handed a loss, she will continue to ignore progressive priorities, because, to quote XTC, “People will always be tempted to wipe their feet, On anything with ‘welcome’ written on it.”

Leaving Congress to Spend More Time with His Parole Officer

No Comments
I am referring, of course, to Duncan Hunter, Jr., who will plead guilty to embezzling campaign funds and resign from Congress.

Given that his district is pretty safely Republican, I believe that the Douglas Adams rule applies, and that he will be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable:

After years of denials and claims that he was the target of a political witch hunt, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Alpine) is scheduled to appear in federal court Tuesday morning to plead guilty in a sweeping campaign finance investigation.

The announcement was posted on the U.S. District Court docket Monday morning, then KUSI aired an interview with Hunter in which he said he would plead guilty to one of the 60 criminal charges against him. He suggested that he is likely to spend time in custody.

“The plea I accepted is misuse of my own campaign funds, of which I pled guilty to only one count,” Hunter told the station. “I think it’s important that people know that I did make mistakes. I did not properly monitor or account for my campaign money. I justify my plea with the understanding that I am responsible for my own campaign and my own campaign money.”

The reversal comes nearly six months after Hunter’s wife and former campaign manager, Margaret Hunter, admitted to her role in a widespread scheme that saw the couple allegedly spend more than $200,000 in campaign donations on family expenses like vacations, gas, groceries, school lunches and oral surgery. Such spending is prohibited to prevent undue influence by contributors.

No analysis here, I’m just gloating.

Oh, Snap!

No Comments
It appears that Congressman Devin “Moo” Nunes just got caught soliciting foreign support for Trump’s 2020 campaign.

Likely ethics investigation to follow:

The top Democrat on the House armed services committee said Saturday that Republican Rep. Devin Nunes is likely to face an ethics investigation over allegations he met with an ex-Ukrainian prosecutor at the center of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

“Quite likely, without question,” House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash) said when asked by MSNBC’s Joy Reid whether Nunes (R-Calif.), the House Intelligence Committee’s top Republican and a longtime Trump ally, could be investigated.

CNN reported late Friday that an associate of Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, has information on meetings Nunes allegedly had with former Ukrainian prosecutor general Victor Shokin.

The CNN report says that Lev Parnas, according to his attorney, put Nunes in touch with Shokin to help him gather damaging information on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter’s dealings with Ukraine.

I do not expect any serious consequences for this, because it’s OK if You are a Republican. (IOKIYAR)

About F%$#ing Time

No Comments
I have offered some criticism over the impeachment investigations because I find them too narrowly focused.

In addition to being mobbed up and egregious self dealing, it’s also clear that Donald Trump obstructed justice in his attempts to sabotage the Mueller investigation.

Well, now investigators for the House of Representatives have told a judge that they are investigating possible obstruction of justice in addition to rat-f%$#ery in the Ukraine:

House investigators are examining whether President Trump lied to former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, the House general counsel told a federal appeals court Monday in Washington.

The statement came during arguments over Congress’s demand for the urgent release of secret grand jury evidence from Mueller’s probe of Russia’s 2016 election interference, with House lawyers detailing fresh concerns about Trump’s truthfulness that could become part of the impeachment inquiry.

The hearing followed Friday’s conviction of longtime Trump friend Roger Stone for lying to Congress. Testimony and evidence at his trial appeared to cast doubt on Trump’s written answers to Mueller’s questions, specifically about whether the president was aware of his campaign’s attempts to learn about the release of hacked Democratic emails by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.

“Did the president lie? Was the president not truthful in his responses to the Mueller investigation?” General Counsel Douglas N. Letter said in court.

“The House is now trying to determine whether the current president should remain in office,” Letter added. “This is something that is unbelievably serious and it’s happening right now, very fast.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is reviewing a lower court’s ruling that orders the Justice Department to disclose evidence the House says it needs as it holds public hearings about Trump’s alleged effort to pressure his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate a potential 2020 political rival, former vice president Joe Biden, and his son Hunter Biden.

Last month, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell for the District of Columbia found that the House was legally engaged in a judicial process that exempts Congress from the secrecy rules that shield grand jury materials.

I understand that Nancy Pelosi wants the impeachment investigation narrowly focused and quick.
She is wrong.
Impeachment is an inherently political process, and showing that the criminality is pervasive, and flows directly from the Oval Office is a necessary part of the process.