All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[Tami]

House Intel GOP Withholds Rohrabacher and Wasserman Schultz’s Russia Probe Transcripts

House Intelligence Committee Republicans voted on Friday against releasing interview transcripts of one of their House GOP colleagues that Democrats consider significant for the panel’s now-shuttered Russia probe.

Two sources told The Daily Beast on Friday morning that Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee wanted their GOP colleagues to disclose an account given to the panel by Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who is considered the Republican legislator closest to the Kremlin.

“The Republicans are trying to conceal from the voters their colleague Dana Rohrabacher’s Russia investigation testimony,” said a committee source familiar with the issue. “There were highly concerning contacts between Rohrabacher and Russians during the campaign that the public should hear about.”

As well, two sources said the Republicans denied release of an interview given to them by Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who chaired the Democratic National Committee in 2016 when Russian military intelligence infiltrated the organization’s servers and exfiltrated for publication a large trove of internal communications.

“She has no objection to it being released,” said Wasserman Schultz spokesperson David Damron.

The Republicans also voted against releasing interviews from the Russia probe with several pivotal former intelligence officials. They include James Comey, the FBI director President Trump fired; John Brennan, the ex-CIA director whose security clearance Trump stripped; and Michael Rogers, who this year stepped down as the head of the National Security Agency. The three men presided over the January 2017 intelligence assessment that stated Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

[Iron Maiden]

Caught most of Michael Avenatti's appearance on A.M. Joy this morning and he says if the FBI doesn't meet with his client, expect them to go public with everything. Interesting to note that during Bill Maher's interview with Steve Bannon (yeah, that Steve Bannon), he thinks that Avenatti could go toe to toe with Trump in 2020. "He's got a fearlessness and he's fighter"

You can watch the whole Bill Maher interview here (without commercials)

[aja_christopher]

"Democrats planning to examine Trump’s tax returns after the midterms"

"The years-old mystery of what’s in President Donald Trump’s tax returns will likely quickly unravel if Democrats win control of at least one chamber of Congress. Democrats, especially in the House, are quietly planning on using an obscure law that will enable them to examine the president’s tax filings without his permission.

The nearly 100-year-old statute allows the chairmen of Congress’ tax committees to look at anyone’s returns, and Democrats say they intend to use that power to help answer a long list of questions about Trump’s finances. Many also want to use it to make public confidential information about Trump’s taxes that he’s steadfastly refused to release.

“Probably the approach would be to get all of it, review it and, depending on what that shows, release all or part of it,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, the No. 4 Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee.

That could bring a swift end to the long-running battle over Trump’s returns, while generating loads of fodder for what promises to be an array of investigations into the administration if Democrats win power...

[A] 1924 law stipulates the Treasury Department “shall” turn over “any return or return information” requested by the chairs of the tax committees or the head of Congress’s nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation for them to review privately. The law was passed amid concerns about corruption and conflicts of interest in the executive branch, such as those posed by then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s business interests.

“When this right was first developed, it was developed in an environment not dissimilar to now,” said George Yin, a former JCT chief who now teaches at the University of Virginia’s law school.

The law has been so rarely used by Congress than even Democrats on the Senate’s tax committee said they were unaware Trump’s returns could soon be within their grasp.

“Wow,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democratic tax writer. “The Finance committee can do that?”

“I didn’t know that, but that’s interesting.”

Members of the Ways and Means committee have been feuding with Republicans over the issue for months, with the GOP repeatedly voting down Democrats’ bids to have the panel make use of the power. Asked if they would force the issue if they win the House, Rep. Richard Neal, the panel’s top Democrat, said: “Yeah — that would be consistent with our beliefs.”

“Democrats have voted again and again to release those documents,” he said."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...mocrats-853456

[Iron Maiden]

I would love to see that finally happen. Trump always claims that he's under audit and that may be partially true. We've always read how that Michael Cohen and Trump's C.F.O Allen Weisselberg have been busy hiding Trump's financial dealings in LLCs so it could be difficult to untangle it all. Weisselberg if you recall was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury So Mueller may know a lot about his finances that he's not revealed yet since the investigation is still in progress.

[Dalak]

Is that the point of the investigation?

Nope, the goal is to investigate the potential crimes of Brett and bring the facts to light. The result will be the republicans in office ignoring or downplaying everything while betraying the morals they claim to have, and republican voters who betray the morals THEY claim to have by voting for them yet again.

The fact that you have repeatedly asked to be given a compromise/olive branch to actually vote against the blatant corruption, bigotry, and endless attacks on truth/facts from your party shows that beyond doubt.

[Tami]

California governor candidate John Cox distances himself from President Trump, says he's his own man

CHINO, Calif. (KABC) --
Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox may have aligned himself with the president during the primary, but he wants to emphasize to voters - he's his own man.

Eyewitness News reporter Josh Haskell sat down with Cox for a one-on-one interview on Thursday and talked to the candidate about how he plans to lead the state.

"I think most people in this state are having a tough go of it," Cox said. "They really are and I care about that. I just hate talking to people and hearing them tell me how they have to drive two hours to get to work and pay four dollars a gallon of gasoline and at the end of the month."

The successful San Diego businessman trails Democrat Gavin Newsom by 24 points in a poll released Wednesday night by the Public Policy Institute of California.

"The polls, I don't care about," Cox said. "I care about what real people think. I'm going to make it around the state and talk to real people. Believe me, people are looking for solutions. They're looking for a better life."

Newsom's campaign has not shied away from comparing Cox with President Donald Trump, who has endorsed him. Cox says Californians don't know him the way they know Newsom, and he believes that's why the the lieutenant.governor is ahead in the polls.

"President Trump isn't on the ballot. Mr. Newsom is using that like a lot of other issues to distract people. I'm running for governor as a business man to fix this state," Cox said.

Cox aligned himself with the president during the primary, but he wants voters to know he's his own man.

"I've never met (Trump)," Cox said. "I've never talked to him. I didn't even vote for him. I like what he's done in many ways, cutting regulations and taxes."

[PaulBullion]

I have to say the last 40 years of the Trump presidency have been the most riveting yet.

[zinderel]

I call it pretext because I have people openly saying it's important to block anyone Trump nominates in the context of a discussion about how to deal wtih sexual assault allegations.

I get that it's not entirely an either/ or situation, that many think Kavanaugh is uniquely unfit due to character problems suggested in the allegations and his response, while also believing it's important that the court doesn't become more conservative. But they're taking advantage of one argument to try to get the second goal.

Here is the thing - at this point, Kavanaugh is tainted. Even if he is found 100% percent, unimpeachably innocent of all charges, which is highly unlikely, given what we know both of his specific past and mindset, and the general ongoing history of 'conservative' men being caught literally with their pants down because laws only apply to the poor, he BOTCHED his job interview, perjured himself both before this hearing, and at this hearing. Lost all sense of decorum (while his accuser calmly, but emotionally, remained on topic and answered questions clearly, honestly, and without bluster under the hateful glares of a BUNCH of old white men who make no bones about the fact that they think she's a lying whore in the employ of the Clintons - and probably space Jews, if any of them are Alex Jones fans... - trying to get in the way of their Great Work...), and acted EXACTLY like a guilty man would, going through the stages of anger, rage, denial, blubbering, denial, deflection, stubborn refusal to answer questions, and conspiracy theorizing. He's burnt.

If Republicans want a conservative on the court, so be it. I don't care, if they nominate an actual conservative. They could at least do the bare minimum to pick a qualified candidate who doesn't have bugaboos like 'attempted rape and possible forced gang bangs and roofie cocktails' in his closet. But they won't, because a genuine conservative won't rabidly, blindly defend wannabe God Emperor Trump against impeachment. Nor will he be a guaranteed vote against Roe. Those are the reasons your party were pushing so hard for Kavanaugh, and we ALL know it, including you. Not to 'get a conservative on the court', not to get the most qualified candidate to fill the seat (they proved they don't care about qualifications with their 400 day obstruction of Merrick Garland), but to show their base how they 'stick it to liberal cucks', and deny 'sluts who won't keep their knees together' access to birth control and bodily autonomy, and prevent God's Chosen One from facing prosecution for his actions during the campaign and during his presidency so far. All because us bloodthirsty lie-berals didn't stop the Clintons from killing Frank Rich while they ran a child sex ring out of a pizza joint basement and plotted to install a Kenyan Muslim as the Antichrist and working with Obama Bin Obama to plot Benghazi and 9/11, probably....

News flash: 'sticking it to liberals', stripping rights away from people, perjuring yourself in a hearing about accusations as heinous as those we've heard and ranting about conspiracy theories so insane even Glenn Beck is like, 'woah, come on, guys...' are not conservative traits, by any measure. They are extremist, and reactionary, and vile, sure, but...not conservative.

[wjowski]

"Democrats planning to examine Trump’s tax returns after the midterms"

"The years-old mystery of what’s in President Donald Trump’s tax returns will likely quickly unravel if Democrats win control of at least one chamber of Congress. Democrats, especially in the House, are quietly planning on using an obscure law that will enable them to examine the president’s tax filings without his permission.

The nearly 100-year-old statute allows the chairmen of Congress’ tax committees to look at anyone’s returns, and Democrats say they intend to use that power to help answer a long list of questions about Trump’s finances. Many also want to use it to make public confidential information about Trump’s taxes that he’s steadfastly refused to release.

“Probably the approach would be to get all of it, review it and, depending on what that shows, release all or part of it,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, the No. 4 Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee.

That could bring a swift end to the long-running battle over Trump’s returns, while generating loads of fodder for what promises to be an array of investigations into the administration if Democrats win power...

[A] 1924 law stipulates the Treasury Department “shall” turn over “any return or return information” requested by the chairs of the tax committees or the head of Congress’s nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation for them to review privately. The law was passed amid concerns about corruption and conflicts of interest in the executive branch, such as those posed by then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s business interests.

“When this right was first developed, it was developed in an environment not dissimilar to now,” said George Yin, a former JCT chief who now teaches at the University of Virginia’s law school.

The law has been so rarely used by Congress than even Democrats on the Senate’s tax committee said they were unaware Trump’s returns could soon be within their grasp.

“Wow,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democratic tax writer. “The Finance committee can do that?”

“I didn’t know that, but that’s interesting.”

Members of the Ways and Means committee have been feuding with Republicans over the issue for months, with the GOP repeatedly voting down Democrats’ bids to have the panel make use of the power. Asked if they would force the issue if they win the House, Rep. Richard Neal, the panel’s top Democrat, said: “Yeah — that would be consistent with our beliefs.”

“Democrats have voted again and again to release those documents,” he said."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...mocrats-853456

Why don't they let Mueller focus on that and worry about fixing healthcare now that the GOP's shat all over it again?

Assuming they don't sit on their own balls during the midterms like they've been doing since 2010.

[Dalak]

Why don't they let Mueller focus on that and worry about fixing healthcare now that the GOP's shat all over it again?

Assuming they don't sit on their own balls during the midterms like they've been doing since 2010.

Are you actually assuming they can seriously do something without a veto-proof super-majority until Trump's gone?

[worstblogever]

Does anyone think that he's wrong to suggest "pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election" or "revenge on behalf of the Clintons. and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups" have anything to do with how the Democrats handled the allegations?

Yes. Kavanaugh is completely full of s*** about that. Because Dr. Ford didn't start telling people about her assault YEARS ago as part of any sort of "revenge scheme" about what happened YEARS after she started seeking counseling about it.

It's even more stupid to claim "left-wing opposition groups" are spending millions of dollars to slander him. Do you know how many times I've seen anti-Kavanaugh ads? ZERO. Do you know how many ads I've seen attacking Ford, defending Kavanaugh, and calling for him to be confirmed? Dozens. How many Supreme Court nominees went on Fox News during their process to get to misrepresent themselves in an interview and to only contradict their testimony in the Senate days later? But it's the LEFT doing all the conspiracy stuff, eh, Mets?

The Mets Apologism Tour continues.

You can almost hear a flushing noise to signify the last vestiges of credibility going down the toilet.

[zinderel]

Does anyone think that he's wrong to suggest "pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election" or "revenge on behalf of the Clintons. and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups" have anything to do with how the Democrats handled the allegations?

Yes. The only people who think that asking for a full investigation into allegations of rape made by credible claimants and witnesses is a result of "pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election" or "revenge on behalf of the Clintons. and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups" are right wing conspiracists.

Literally no one who isn't in that bubble, or it's orbit, thinks those are reasonable theories. I mean...'revenge on behalf of the Clintons'...why do you people always seem to think we regard the Clintons - who are, in these fantasies, almost always and without any proof, portrayed as being some Game of Thrones style manipulative masterminds of Lannisterian proportions - with the same reverence and your party holds Trump? The left hold our people accountable when they fuck up. The right does not. Your party openly plots and schemes to change rules and break them if necessary, to get what they want, no matter who gets hurt.

[Iron Maiden]

Yes. The only people who think that asking for a full investigation into allegations of rape made by credible claimants and witnesses is a result of "pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election" or "revenge on behalf of the Clintons. and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups" are right wing conspiracists.

Literally no one who isn't in that bubble, or it's orbit, thinks those are reasonable theories. I mean...'revenge on behalf of the Clintons'...why do you people always seem to think we regard the Clintons - who are, in these fantasies, almost always and without any proof, portrayed as being some Game of Thrones style manipulative masterminds of Lannisterian proportions - with the same reverence and your party holds Trump? The left hold our people accountable when they fuck up. The right does not. Your party openly plots and schemes to change rules and break them if necessary, to get what they want, no matter who gets hurt.

QFT. Al Franken felt compelled to resign because he knew the party wasn't backing him. Elliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner are pariahs also. The GOP makes excuses for Trump or turns a blind eye. This is a party that supported Roy Moore, a man who was even banned from a mall for stalking/annoying young girls.

BK's meltdown alone should prove he doesn't have the temperment for higher office. Heck, they should impeach now and remove him as a federal judge. He's obviously in the Fox News bubble, talking only to their reporter for that interview and piping up with the stupid idea about the Vengeance of The Clintons. And as others have mentioned, there's been a barrage of pro-Kavanaugh spots and their updated with the latest news. Who is financing those????

There's a lot of Dark Money invested in those ads

The biggest contributer is the Judicial Crisis Network and they've been at it going back to putting $7 million dollars money into blocking Merrick Garland from getting on the Supreme Court. The JCN has ties to the Federalist Society but it's hard to know specifically who funds this. Now we as voters don't directly appoint anyone to the Supreme Court so why do they need to run these commercials? Is it a reminder to these Senators as to who is behind the dark money from these groups and that they better stay in line if they want to have money for their re-elections?

[worstblogever]

In more of the "Republicans have issues with women" news, Sarah Palin's oldest son, Track Palin, has yet again been arrested for domestic violence.

[Jack Dracula]

GOP Congressman Shares Vile Meme About Christine Blasey Ford

Rep. Steve King’s Facebook page shared a meme disparaging the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Oh, yes, let's make fun of a rape victim speaking out against a vulgar shitstain masquerading as a judge. Real classy, Steve.

Once again, Steve King demonstrates that there is no depth too low for him to sink.