Trump's America, March 2017: Using His Inside VOICE

What was the case?

@DougHenwood
Dear Dems: what is the endgame of the Russia stuff?

― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, March 22, 2017 8:47 PM (forty-eight minutes ago)

what was the "endgame" of watergate? sheesh.

isn't "collaborate" usually followed by "on," and then an object? plz, i wanna know the specifics. a nice Trump hotel in the Ukraine?

Schooling? A right to a good education, complete with expectation of improvement, for children with disabilities?

xpost?

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1 (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf). Gorsuch apparently ruled that, in order to properly comply with IDEA when educating disabled students, school districts had to provide "merely more than de minimus." John Roberts wrote today's opinion, which basically says, "Merely above de minimus is effectively the same as nothing, they have to actually try to educate the students."

Yeah that would help, wouldn't it.

http://time.com/4709234/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-hearing-supreme-court-decision/

"We were bound by circuit precedent, a case called Urban v Jefferson County School District [from] 1996, which said the appropriate standard was de minimis," Gorsuch told Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin. "That’s the law of my circuit, Senator. And I’ve been asked an awful lot about whether I abide by precedent and whether I always like the results I reach. Here’s a case for you... If anyone is suggesting that I like a result where an autistic child happens to lose, it's a heartbreaking accusation. Heartbreaking."

In a further heated exchange when Durbin continued to press Gorsuch on his legal reasoning in Luke P., Gorsuch fired back, "To suggest that I have some animus against children, Senator, would be a mistake."

"Judge, please. I am not suggesting that," Durbin responded.

Supposedly Schiff has added he's seen "more than circumstantial" evidence of Russian collusion. Hm.

Here, 47 seconds in:

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/844669163717246976

that's alarming

how do independent commissions get set up? Don't the republicans have the power to block one from forming in this case?

I'm quite unsure. Guess we'll see.

Apparently even Nunes has Russian ties, as part owner of a winery or something.

McCain McCaining:

https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/844672832923668481

McCain on MSNBC: Congress doesn't have the credibility to handle the Russia investigation alone

McCain on MSNBC: Congress doesn't have the credibility to handle the Russia investigation alone

Further chatter that the votes aren't there for AHCA, guesses happening that there's simply no vote tomorrow.

Meanwhile, other fun!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/business/trump-organization-scion-hotel-deal.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0

I mean, this guy:

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/03/23/business/23SCION1/00SCION1-master768.jpg

Mukemmel Sarimsakci, a real estate executive who goes by Mike, or “Turkish Trump."

"...but please, call me Pitbull."

y no parre la fiesta

how do independent commissions get set up?

the Attorney General can appoint a Special Prosecutor. The House to appoint a special joint committee w specific powers to investigate a specific issue. Neither is going to happen in this case, for obvious reasons.

er should read the "House can vote to" there

Yeah but if Sessions is recused, CAN he appoint one and/or refuse to?

So anyway if true:

https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/844673670060630017

What the White House is now considering on Obamacare is elements of what Meadows, Cruz and other conservatives have been pushing for weeks.

Which is so much word salad, but seems to be something that would result in a hot potato being passed to the Senate and the likes of Murkowski, Portman et al going "LOL no."

Yeah but if Sessions is recused, CAN he appoint one and/or refuse to?

responsibility falls to the acting Attorney General (which is Dana Boente, at the moment, since the Deputy Attorney General hasn't been confirmed/sworn in yet)

Swan is referring to gutting the requirements for plan coverage (ie, making it acceptable to sell plans w out maternity care, or mental health coverage etc.) per here: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/white-house-health-care-bill-tweaks-236385?lo=ap_a1

Seems possible that it will swing enough of the Freedom Caucus. Whether it loses enough votes on the moderate side who knows. Ryan could still eke out a win here, just to see it die in the Senate, which seems like the most likely scenario to me. But who knows. We're down to the nut cutting here, as LBJ would say.

Then there's this:

https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/844681983301181440

Referring I presume to this:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2618154

tbf Mike Lee is a moron so grain of salt

Ted Cruz's best friend a moron? Who knew!

I'm not sure if it's accurate, but there's an article in Slate today explaining that they can't gut requirements for plan coverage because when it gets to the Senate it won't be able to pass by reconciliation, since it's a regulatory change instead of a budget change

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/03/a_secret_cynical_reason_paul_ryan_can_t_give_conservatives_what_they_want.html

yeah well Mike Lee says otherwise and he would know because he's a smartypants

XPS Ted Cruz has friends!?!?!

He has leeches, perhaps.

Ted Cruz has *a* friend

A fiend.

Ted Cruz has friends in the way that the people that comprise a Human Centipede are chums

if it's only two people can you really call it a human centipede

The Human Arachnid

Does whatever an arachnid can

bloodsucking def involved

now I'm just picturing Mike Lee and Ted Cruz at the annual shunting a la Society thx guys

To the window to the walls

stop it you

looks like eliminating this minimum menu requirement has been added to the bill, this will probably win enough of the Freedom Caucus guys over. Someone in the Senate should be pushing back about the bill being DOA though, and people need to lean on any "moderates" that might swing their votes to no

i love that it just wasn't quite shitty enough for these guys, and that's why they were opposed. now it has been sufficiently enshittened.

This meeting happened...

President Trump met with leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday, pulling reporters into the room to hear him praise African Americans.

“They’ve lifted up the conscience of our nation in the march toward civil rights, enriched the soul of America in their faith and courage, and they’ve advanced our country in the fields of science, arts and medicine,” the president said.

As he spoke, the CBC’s six-member executive board was sitting on the other side of a table — out of the TV cameras’ shot. That was no accident. The CBC, many members of which boycotted Trump’s inauguration, agreed to meet with the president only if the meeting was substantive.

“The Congressional Black Caucus is not going to be a potted plant or a photo opportunity,” said Rep. Donald A. McEachin (D-Va.), a CBC member who did not attend the meeting. “He did a photo op with the presidents of historically black colleges, and they got nothing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congressional-black-caucus-leaders-meet-with-trump-push-for-policy-proposals-not-photo-ops/2017/03/22/6cb0e6e6-0f40-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.3c985e7a5791

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/us-officials-info-suggests-trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/index.html

Just came here to post that. A couple of weeks ago, I would have assumed that was fake, but now...

lots of qualifiers in the first sentence

"The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with *suspected* Russian operatives to *possibly* coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign".

you can almost see the reporters doing air quotes as they type

you can almost see the lawyers emailing their revisions back in a red font