Deranged Rhino Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 Rice answered Grassley and Graham's letter... https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/12/obama-russia-trump-transition-405823 When I get a moment, I'll write more on this... but it's essentially evasive blather sprinkled in with MSM talking points for the narrative engineers to run with for the weekend cycle. She also changes her story (omits that Biden was in the meeting, despite noting it in the email). She then denies knowing anything about the FISA memo until 2017 - despite being in the room with Comey and Yates who signed off on that very FISA, for the very investigation they were briefing Obama and Rice on. It's a pointless exercise on her part, Grassley knew the answers to the questions before he asked. She just dug her hole a little deeper.
row_33 Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 You should always know the answer to the question you are going to ask.
njbuff Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Rice answered Grassley and Graham's letter... https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/12/obama-russia-trump-transition-405823 When I get a moment, I'll write more on this... but it's essentially evasive blather sprinkled in with MSM talking points for the narrative engineers to run with for the weekend cycle. She also changes her story (omits that Biden was in the meeting, despite noting it in the email). She then denies knowing anything about the FISA memo until 2017 - despite being in the room with Comey and Yates who signed off on that very FISA, for the very investigation they were briefing Obama and Rice on. It's a pointless exercise on her part, Grassley knew the answers to the questions before he asked. She just dug her hole a little deeper. Sessions needs to grow some balls and take Rice down. i hated her the first time I ever saw that face. Just my opinion, but I think she is one crooked criminal who totally abused her power while in office. i hope Rice gets hers.
ALF Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) New indictment accuses Manafort of paying European politicians The new indictment came less than two hours after Gates pleaded guilty to two criminal charges in federal court and pledged to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russia and the 2016 presidential election. In total, Manafort now faces five federal criminal charges in Washington, including money laundering and foreign lobbying violations, and 18 federal charges in Virginia, largely related to alleged bank fraud. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/manafort-mueller/index.html Edited February 24, 2018 by ALF
4merper4mer Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 13 hours ago, GG said: You'd have to go more than an hour ago. Greggy had connected Manafort to Podesta months ago They might be more connected than Siamese Twins but Ghoul Mueller wouldn't go after anyone connected to Clinton if he had film of them handing over cash and copies of the dossier. His job is to protect them.
ALF Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 47 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: They might be more connected than Siamese Twins but Ghoul Mueller wouldn't go after anyone connected to Clinton if he had film of them handing over cash and copies of the dossier. His job is to protect them. Trump appointed the Attorney General and FBI Director , they are welcome to go after Clinton , Obama , Rice anyone they think broke the law. 2
4merper4mer Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 13 minutes ago, ALF said: Trump appointed the Attorney General and FBI Director , they are welcome to go after Clinton , Obama , Rice anyone they think broke the law. LOL
ALF Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 1 hour ago, ALF said: Trump appointed the Attorney General and FBI Director , they are welcome to go after Clinton , Obama , Rice anyone they think broke the law. 53 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: LOL Care to elaborate , honest question
row_33 Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 1 hour ago, ALF said: Trump appointed the Attorney General and FBI Director , they are welcome to go after Clinton , Obama , Rice anyone they think broke the law. The Dems were banking on Hill as Prez for 8 years and everything even more in their pocket starting with the nuclear option best to realize The People give a party two terms and then jump to the other one
ALF Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 33 minutes ago, row_33 said: The Dems were banking on Hill as Prez for 8 years and everything even more in their pocket starting with the nuclear option best to realize The People give a party two terms and then jump to the other one Reality is the Republicans control Congress and the WH . I hate partisan politics , the pendulum going from left to right just canceling each other out. I want bipartisan - statesmen to do what is right for the entire country not special interest groups. That's why I'm a Independent
row_33 Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 Alf, gotta do it yourself and with other people in small local groups that do meaningful things
3rdnlng Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 14 minutes ago, ALF said: Reality is the Republicans control Congress and the WH . I hate partisan politics , the pendulum going from left to right just canceling each other out. I want bipartisan - statesmen to do what is right for the entire country not special interest groups. That's why I'm a Independent Reality is that the Republicans do not control Congress.
row_33 Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: Reality is that the Republicans do not control Congress. The usual muddle and tortoise paced procsedure controls it, like it always should except in real national emergencies
ALF Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Reality is that the Republicans do not control Congress. Elaborate , I know about the deep state, but they do not vote on bills. I'm trying to understand Edited February 24, 2018 by ALF
3rdnlng Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 7 minutes ago, ALF said: Elaborate , I know about the deep state, but they do not vote on bills. Senate rules. 1
Nanker Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, ALF said: Elaborate , I know about the deep state, but they do not vote on bills. I'm trying to understand https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/votes.htm An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn is typically required to invoke cloture. To invoke cloture on a change in Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. The Republicans don't have 60 votes - yet alone 60 seats in the Senate. The Dems did have that "Super Majority" when they rammed through the ACA. So no. The Republicans don't "control the Senate" anymore than I control the PPP board. Capisci? Edited February 24, 2018 by Nanker 1
ALF Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 The nuclear option (or constitutional option) is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a rule – specifically the 60-vote rule to close debate – by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent. This procedure effectively allows the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of existing procedural rules such as Rule XXII which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation, and 67 for amending a Senate rule. The term "nuclear option" is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare. The nuclear option has only been used in practice twice. In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court. In April 2017, Senate Republicans used the nuclear option to eliminate the exception for Supreme Court nominees, after the nomination of Neil Gorsuch failed to meet the requirement of 60 votes for ending the debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
Azalin Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 2 hours ago, ALF said: I want bipartisan - statesmen to do what is right for the entire country not special interest groups. That's why I'm a Independent I'm independent of party affiliation too, but that doesn't or shouldn't mean I support policy based on 50% from column A and 50% from column B. In my opinion, there's nothing to gain by supporting all middle-of-the-road positions. Wisdom is often lacking in both parties, so why look for a compromise between self-serving idiots and corrupt morons? That's the last place I'd look for anyone I could call a real statesman.
Nanker Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 6 minutes ago, ALF said: The nuclear option (or constitutional option) is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a rule – specifically the 60-vote rule to close debate – by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. The option is invoked when the majority leader raises a point of order that only a simple majority is needed to close debate on certain matters. The presiding officer denies the point of order based on Senate rules, but the ruling of the chair is then appealed and overturned by majority vote, establishing new precedent. This procedure effectively allows the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of existing procedural rules such as Rule XXII which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation, and 67 for amending a Senate rule. The term "nuclear option" is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare. The nuclear option has only been used in practice twice. In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments other than those to the Supreme Court. In April 2017, Senate Republicans used the nuclear option to eliminate the exception for Supreme Court nominees, after the nomination of Neil Gorsuch failed to meet the requirement of 60 votes for ending the debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option We know all that Alf... we've been paying attention. So, you're suggesting a complete revocation of the cloture rule in the Senate? You do realize that it should be named "The Reid" option. Harry Reid changed the rule - at the time - for cloture to be eliminated ONLY for Executive Branch nominations and Federal Judicial appointments. McConnell invoked that ONLY for the Supreme Court nomination of Gorsuch. Rules is rules, Alf. 4 minutes ago, Azalin said: I'm independent of party affiliation too, but that doesn't or shouldn't mean I support policy based on 50% from column A and 50% from column B. In my opinion, there's nothing to gain by supporting all middle-of-the-road positions. Wisdom is often lacking in both parties, so why look for a compromise between self-serving idiots and corrupt morons? That's the last place I'd look for anyone I could call a real statesman. Exactly. Because what you end up with on our end are RINOs like Kasich and McCain... and Graham. Professional campaigners trying to stay in power and swaying in the winds with vagary. 1
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2018 Posted February 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, Nanker said: We know all that Alf... we've been paying attention. So, you're suggesting a complete revocation of the cloture rule in the Senate? You do realize that it should be named "The Reid" option. Harry Reid changed the rule - at the time - for cloture to be eliminated ONLY for Executive Branch nominations and Federal Judicial appointments. McConnell invoked that ONLY for the Supreme Court nomination of Gorsuch. Rules is rules, Alf. Exactly. Because what you end up with on our end are RINOs like Kasich and McCain... and Graham. Professional campaigners trying to stay in power and swaying in the winds with vagary. Point of note: Reid didn't just change the rule to make it a simple majority vote to invoke cloture. He changed the timing - cloture rules allow for 30 more hours of debate after its invoked; Reid reduced that to 8, which had the effect of silencing the minority party. That is far more damaging than just the simple majority vote. It makes Senate confirmation that much more of a simple rubber stamp. 2
Recommended Posts