Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[The Romulan Republic]

Breaking on CNN NOW: Trump and Democrats have reached a tentative deal to end the shutdown. Reportedly, the government will be reopened for three weeks and furloughed employees will be paid, while negotiations continue on the wall funding. No money will be given to the Wall upfront. This represents a massive defeat for President Trump. However, he is speaking now, and is expected to say that if no money is given to the Wall after three weeks, he will declare a state of emergency on the border to bypass Congress.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump speaking now: confirms government will open for three weeks.

Some more information on what might have lead up to this point:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/senate- ... -bill.html

Shutdown continues: Senate blocks bills to fund government amid fight over Trump border wall
Dueling bills to reopen the federal government fail in the Senate on the 34th day of a partial government shutdown.
Lawmakers have no clear path to reopening nine unfunded departments as President Donald Trump demands $5.7 billion for his proposed border wall.
Some senators voiced support for a deal to temporarily reopen the government while they find a deal on border security.
Jacob Pramuk | @jacobpramuk
Published 23 Hours Ago Updated 5 Hours Ago
CNBC.com
A placard is placed before Senate Democrats' news conference about government shutdown on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., January 16, 2019. Democratic bill to end shutdown fails in Senate
21 Hours Ago | 00:56
The Senate blocked dueling bills to fund the government on Thursday, leaving no clear path to ending the longest government shutdown ever.

Both a Republican-backed proposal and a measure supported by Democrats did not get the 60 votes needed to pass. The Democratic plan to reopen the government without funding for President Donald Trump's border wall — which Trump has explicitly threatened to veto — earned more votes in the GOP-held chamber.

The failure to find a resolution comes as 800,000 federal workers already stretched for cash start to miss a second paycheck on Friday and some government services suffer. Neither the president nor Democratic leaders have shown any willingness to back down even in the 34th day of the partial shutdown. Some bipartisan senators mounted calls for a bill to fund the government for three weeks while they find a larger immigration agreement.

The government shutdown faces mounting lawsuits, including over 'involuntary servitude' The government shutdown faces mounting lawsuits, including over 'involuntary servitude'
3 Hours Ago | 04:48
In a statement, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said a three-week continuing resolution "would only work if there is a large down payment on the wall." She did not mention a total. Trump later said he would support a Senate deal if it is a "reasonable agreement."

A GOP-backed measure to fund Trump's border wall and offer limited legal protections for some immigrants failed in a 50-47 vote. Three senators — Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republicans Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Mike Lee of Utah — broke with their parties.

A plan supported by Democrats fared better, but still fell short in a 52-44 vote. Six Republican senators supported it: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Susan Collins of Maine, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Joshua Roberts | Reuters
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate have urged Trump to temporarily reopen the government while the White House and Congress negotiate a broader immigration deal. Trump has insisted on securing financing for the wall before he agrees to fund the government.

After the votes failed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asked him to meet in the Republican's office. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he spoke to Trump and told him senators were discussing a three-week continuing resolution to fund the government. Graham believes "we could find a way forward to produce a bill that he would sign that would be good for everybody in the country."

He called Trump's requests "imminently reasonable" and said McConnell and Schumer would be discussing them. A group of bipartisan senators including Murkowski, Collins, Democrats Ben Cardin of Maryland, Mark Warner of Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, also called to temporarily reopen nine departments while the border security debate proceeds.

"It's so important that we're coming together now to offer some glimmer of hope," Murkowski said.

McConnell has repeatedly said he will not back a deal Trump does not support — even though the Senate voted unanimously before the shutdown started to keep the government running without funding for the barrier.

The Democratic-held House has repeatedly voted to fund the closed quarter of the government, or individual departments, without putting money toward the wall. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has urged McConnell to pass the measures.

"Let's have that discussion [about border security] after we open up government," she told reporters Thursday.

The Senate votes Thursday come as the financial pain felt by 800,000 federal employees is about to sharpen. On Friday, those workers will start losing their second paychecks since the partial closure started on Dec. 22.

Thousands of government employees have scrambled to pay for meals and cover their bills. The shutdown has affected various services from airports to FBI investigations and food safety inspections. As hundreds of thousands of workers face furloughs or work without pay, the shutdown is expected to reduce gross domestic product growth for the first quarter.

White House seeks list of programs impacted if shutdown lasts into March White House seeks list of programs impacted if shutdown lasts into March
5:31 PM ET Wed, 23 Jan 2019 | 02:05
Surveys indicate most Americans see the closure as a "crisis" or at least a "problem." They largely put blame for the shutdown on Trump's shoulders. As Americans seek an end to the impasse, more of them believe the president should yield rather than think congressional Democrats should, according to a CBS News poll.

The stalemate more broadly represents gridlock in Washington. On Wednesday, Pelosi said she would stop Trump from giving his State of the Union address in the House chamber until the shutdown ends. The president gave in, saying late Wednesday that he will deliver the speech when the closure is over rather than find a different venue.

The Republican plan that failed would have put $5.7 billion toward building the president's proposed wall. In an attempt to appease Democrats, Trump offered a three-year extension of legal protections for immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children and migrants fleeing crises in certain countries. It would also have put more than $12 billion toward disaster relief, among other provisions.

Democrats eviscerated it, as the limited concessions for "Dreamers" did not go as far as previous proposals offering permanent residency or even a path to citizenship. Schumer on Wednesday called the plan "one-sided, harshly partisan and made in bad faith."

McConnell earlier Thursday described the Democratic-backed proposal as one "that does not have a chance of becoming law and solving the problem," according to The Washington Post. He did not comment to reporters about what the next steps would be if the bills failed.

It is unclear what steps lawmakers and Trump will take next. Earlier Thursday, Pelosi she would "meet with [Trump] any time he wants to meet" as the shutdown continues.

She also denied reports of a brewing Democratic counteroffer to Trump that would include $5.7 billion for technology and other measures for border security, but not a new barrier. Democrats have insisted that the U.S. can secure its borders without a wall as the president describes it.

Trump shot down that notion Thursday. He wrote in a tweet: "Very simply, without a Wall it doesn't work."

He added: "We will not cave!"

Well guess what? He caved.

[Lost Soal]

I think LaGuardia airport shutting down was the final kick in the ass he needed.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think it was probably several things:

1. The fact that the shutdown was causing demonstrable harm to key infrastructure and national security, especially with regard to airports.

2. The fact that it was hurting the economy.

3. The fact that it was a fight he was steadily losing in the polls.

4. The fact that the shutdown was facing multiple court challenges, and if it had continued the courts might have stepped in and ended it for him.

5. The fact that he was going to lose his State of the Union audience over it.

6. The fact that when the opposing bills were voted on in the Senate, the Democratic proposal got more votes, including several Republican defections. Not enough to override a veto, yet, but for how long?

At this point, his options were to declare a state of emergency and provoke a massive constitutional crisis and court challenge, to continue the stalemate until things got fucked up enough that a couple dozen Republicans jumped ship to override his veto (which as I believe FireNexus noted earlier, would give threats of impeachment a lot more credence), or fold and try to spin it as a reasonable compromise. Which isn't going to work well for him, because anyone who's followed this at all knows that the Democrats whipped him and sent him home with his tail between his legs.

Its possible that this will start up again in three weeks and that by conceding now, he'll be better able to cast it as the Democrats being unreasonable next time. But for now, its hard to see this as anything but a resounding defeat.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Late Show Presents: the Greatest Folds in History:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zvrDNDocaM

Pretty much sums it up.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, State of the Union tonight. I will not be watching, because a) illegitimately elected Kremlin stooges have no right to deliver a SotU address, and b) the thought of watching Dickless Donald ramble for an hour or so makes me feel ill. I will, however, try and catch the Democratic rebuttal, which will be delivered by Stacey Abrams (Bernie Sanders will be delivering his own rebuttal as well).

[The Romulan Republic]

Acting Attorney General Whittaker has given an ultimatum to Congress, saying that he will not testify before Congress unless he is given a guarantee that he won't be subpoenaed.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics ... index.html

(CNN)The Justice Department told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday afternoon that acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker would not appear at Friday's closely-watched oversight hearing unless he receives a written assurance he won't be served with a subpoena.

The threat for Whitaker not to testify comes after the House Judiciary Committee voted earlier Thursday to authorize a subpoena for Whitaker ahead of his Friday testimony — which House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said he would use only if Whitaker did not appear or would not answer the committee's questions, including about conversations with the White House involving special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.
But the escalating dispute between Nadler and the Justice Department now raises questions about the likelihood of Whitaker appearing in what could be his only congressional testimony while leading the Justice Department, with William Barr on a path to be confirmed as the permanent attorney general by the Senate next week.
In the letter, the Justice Department criticized Nadler for authorizing the subpoena "even though the Committee had not yet asked him a single question" and suggested Democrats were seeking to "transform the hearing into a public spectacle."
"The committee evidently seeks to ask questions about confidential presidential communications that no attorney general could ever be expected to disclose under the circumstances," Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote in the letter, obtained by CNN.
Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker sits during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington in November 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker sits during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington in November 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
The letter outlined a number of questions that Whitaker is prepared to answer and gave Nadler a 6 p.m. Thursday deadline to provide assurances he would not issue a subpoena before or during Friday's hearing.
"The Acting Attorney General will testify that at no time did the White House ask for, or did the Acting Attorney General provide, any promises or commitments concerning the Special Counsel's investigation," Boyd wrote. "With respect to the Special Counsel investigation, the Department has complied with the Special Counsel regulations, and the Acting Attorney General will make clear that there has been no change in how the Department has worked with the Special Counsel's office."
In a statement, Whitaker said he would be willing to testify with the assurance that the committee wouldn't issue a subpoena and would "engage in good faith negotiations before taking such a step down the road."
A senior Justice Department official told CNN that the bottom line is that the Department is not aware of any precedent for the authorization of a subpoena before questioning.
"This is a breach of the agreement," and a "striking departure from long-standing processes."
Democrats approved giving Nadler the authority to subpoena Whitaker over the objection of Republicans earlier on Thursday, passing the resolution on a party-line vote, 23-13.
Acting AG Whitaker undergoing significant prep ahead of Friday testimony
Acting AG Whitaker undergoing significant prep ahead of Friday testimony
Nadler said that authorizing a subpoena for Whitaker was necessary because Whitaker failed to tell the committee whether the Trump administration would invoke privilege with respect to a series of questions they intend to ask about Whitaker's conversations with the White House about Mueller's probe and his decision not to recuse himself from the matter.
Nadler argued in a letter sent to Whitaker last month that he could not claim the White House reserved the right to claim executive privilege to avoid answering those questions. He asked Whitaker to consult with the White House ahead of the hearing and tell the committee whether he would invoke privilege.
"The subpoena will only be issued if he refuses to answer questions on a speculative basis of privilege," Nadler said. "If he does not show up — though I do expect he will — but if he refuses to answer questions he ought to answer, then we will have the tools we need to ensure that we may adequately meet our own responsibilities."
Republicans slammed Nadler for pre-emptively planning a subpoena for a witness who had voluntarily agreed to testify, saying it was setting a troubling precedent.
"A subpoena should only follow a breakdown of the accommodation process and as a last resort against persons seeking to frustrate legitimate oversight on this committee," said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the committee's top Republican. "There has been no breakdown here."
Whitaker rejected ethics official's advice he should recuse from Russia probe
Whitaker rejected ethics official's advice he should recuse from Russia probe
Republicans proposed an amendment, offered by Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, to add Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein -- a familiar target of the GOP given his past oversight of the Mueller probe -- to Nadler's subpoena, which was rejected by Democrats.
Several Republicans on the committee pushed for former Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, to subpoena Rosenstein in the last Congress, though he ultimately did not appear.
Whitaker has been undertaking significant preparations ahead of the hearing, including conducting briefings with every the Justice Department component and participating in several mock hearings, according to the officials.
This story has been updated with additional developments Thursday.

Yeah, no, it doesn't work that way. The way it works is "Get your ass to Congress before you get subpoenaed, and if you are subpoenaed, get your ass their even faster before they charge you with Contempt of Congress."

I look forward to this whiny, entitled little dip shit being slapped down and reminded (as an AG should really know) that yes, the law does apply to him.

[LaCroix]

Given the current track record of people testifying before congress with variations of "I don't know", "I don't remember", changing the topic or other games, I can see why they were seeking a possible subpoena beforehand to slam them immediately if they are misbehaving, and not only after a performance similar to what we have come to expect from Trump appointee.

[The Romulan Republic]

Agreed. At this point, Trump and anyone who works for him or ever has and has not publicly disavowed him should be treated, to the maximum extent the law permits, as enemy agents or members of organized crime. They should be given no slack, no niceties- only the minimum rights that the law requires. If they don't like it, they can suck it up or get subpoenaed, tried, and convicted for Contempt of Congress.

[The Romulan Republic]

With just five days left to negotiate before another shutdown, Trump is once again ramping up tensions on the borders, including another (legally questionable, in my opinion) deployment of active duty troops:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/politics ... index.html

Eagle Pass, Texas (CNN)Eagle Pass, Texas, is usually a pretty quiet place. But this week, it has turned into an immigration showdown involving hundreds of law enforcement officers and a migrant caravan.

The migrants, about 1,800 of them, are being housed by the Mexican government across the Rio Grande in Piedras Negras.
The Central American immigrants want to come to the United States but US authorities are telling them to stay in Mexico while they wait through the process of seeking asylum.
The migrants began showing up Monday, arriving along the border on more than 50 buses.
In preparation for the migrants' arrivals, the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, sent 500 officers from the department of public safety to Eagle Pass, according to Mayor Ramsey English Cantu.
Members of the US Border Police guard the Rio Bravo, natural border between Eagle Pass, Texas and Piedras Negras, Mexico, on Thursday.
Members of the US Border Police guard the Rio Bravo, natural border between Eagle Pass, Texas and Piedras Negras, Mexico, on Thursday.
A CNN crew there Thursday night saw the Department of Public Safety along with Border Patrol vehicles parked near the banks of the river with their emergency lights on.
"As part of our border security plan, we keep DPS on the border with boats & planes. They work with local & federal authorities to enforce the law," Abbott tweeted.
The Department of Public Safety declined to comment, saying it does not discuss matters related to operational security.
"That said, DPS continues to provide direct support to our local, state and federal partners, including the US Border Patrol, to enhance security along the border and to combat drug and human smuggling into Texas and the nation," it said in a statement.
The US military is also sending 250 active-duty troops to the city, the Pentagon said Wednesday. They will include military police, medical personnel and engineers tasked with putting up razor wire.
The migrants are staying in an old warehouse that has been turned into a shelter.
About 16 to 20 cases can be processed each day, said Paul Del Rincon, port director for the Eagle Pass Port of Entry.
Eagle Pass has about 26,000 residents, according to the US Census.

Its so obvious what he's doing. He's about to run out of negotiating time to get money for his penis extension wall, his intended fall back is to declare a state of emergency (using the military in a blatantly despotic manner to bypass Congressional oversight), so he's fabricating a crisis to give him political cover to do so. Let's just hope he doesn't trigger a shooting incident on the Mexican border in the process.

[The Romulan Republic]

A tentative deal has been reached to avert another shutdown:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/politics ... index.html

(CNN)Congressional negotiators say they have reached an agreement in principle to avert a partial government shutdown at the end of this week.

The four lead bipartisan negotiators, emerging from talks Monday night, declined to get into details on how the agreement was struck or the exact parameters of a deal, but when asked whether it included barrier funding and a resolution to the detention bed issue, Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby said: "We got an agreement on all of it."
Shelby's comments follow those from a Democratic aide involved in the border security funding talks who said earlier Monday negotiators are "very, very close" to an agreement and they are now checking to see if the emerging proposal would get the votes it needs to pass the House.
Budget talks sticking point: How many people ICE can detain
Budget talks sticking point: How many people ICE can detain
Lawmakers are racing the clock in an effort to find the common ground necessary for an agreement on border security that will pass both chambers of Congress and be signed into law by the President before Friday at midnight to prevent another partial government shutdown.
About 25% of funding for the federal government runs out at the end of the week and a group of bipartisan lawmakers have been meeting for weeks to negotiate over border security as part of the budget for the Department of Homeland Security.
In a sign that made it look like a shutdown was increasingly likely, talks broke down over the weekend, but four members of that group -- the top Democrat and Republican from both the House and Senate Appropriations committees -- kept meeting Monday to try and broker a deal.
Asked what was different today than over the weekend, Rep. Kay Granger, the top House Republican on the conference committee, quipped, "Maybe we got sleep."
"That's always sort of helpful in making a decision," she added.
The looming deadline comes on the heels of the longest shutdown in US government history, which began in December and ended in January after President Donald Trump signed legislation to temporarily reopen shuttered parts of the government for a three-week period to allow for border security negotiations.
What the President will be willing to accept has remained a wild card hanging over the negotiations. Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have long signaled that they could reach a deal if left to their own devices, but questions over what the President will accept have continued to inject uncertainty into the process.
Speaking in El Paso, Texas, on Monday night, Trump said he was made aware of the agreement but didn't listen to the details from advisers.
"They say that progress is being made. Just so you know. Just now, just now," he said. "I said wait a minute, I gotta take care of my people from Texas. I got to go. I don't even want to hear about it. I don't want to hear about it."
Back in Washington, White House officials have mulled one additional idea in recent days, depending on what congressional negotiators came up with: taking the deal that the committee comes to -- depending on what's in it -- but also using other federal funds to build additional barriers.
A White House official says they are keeping their options open right now, including Trump using his executive powers to reallocate federal funds from elsewhere for the wall, but are looking at the agreement now.
As acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney noted on NBC Sunday, he has been "combing through the law" and trying to find additional funds. White House officials believe this is an option even if the President signs the deal to avoid another government shutdown.
Just hours ago they were told the talks were stalled, but that wasn't a huge concern to White House officials, who for days have been continuing discussions about declaring a national emergency.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, a top Democratic negotiator, said the goal for the four main participants in the talks was to reach a deal Monday night, then proceed to drafting the final agreement on Tuesday.
"I think we both agree if we can wrap this up tonight, do it tonight, our goal will be to do it tomorrow," said Leahy, of Vermont, regarding his work with Shelby.
Any agreement will need to now hold up in the House and Senate and finally the White House.
The Democratic aide said there is still "a ton of work to do once they have an agreement reached" to ready it for the floor.
A Republican aide involved expressed some caution on the progress given the repeated breakdowns over the past few weeks, but acknowledged negotiators "are clearly moving in the right direction."
Another GOP aide said, "Hearing good things tonight."
The most significant sticking point in the shutdown fight so far had been over the President's request of upwards of $5 billion for a border wall. Democrats have made clear that is a non-starter and have refused to meet the President's demand, an impasse that triggered the initial shutdown.
Another sticking point has also emerged over the issue of detention beds for detained undocumented immigrants. Democrats view detention beds as central to a Trump administration immigration policy that is harsh and needlessly aggressive. Republicans view the detention beds as central to limiting the ability of detained undocumented immigrants from being released into the US as they await hearings.
Democrats entered negotiations pushing to reduce the number of detention beds funded in the measure to 35,520, while the White House and Republicans sought an increase to 52,000.
The full details of the tentative agreement struck on Monday evening have yet to be publicly released. But according to a Democratic source, the agreement in principle at this point would include $1.375 billion for physical barriers and a level of 40,520 for overall ICE beds, short of the 52,000 the administration requested and matching current funding levels.
On a potential cap on ICE detention beds, Trump told the crowd in El Paso, "I will never sign a bill that forces the mass release of violent criminals into our country. And I will never abolish or in any way mistreat our great heroes from ICE and Border Patrol and law enforcement."
Rep. David Price, a North Carolina Democrat on the conference committee, said if an agreement was reached on Monday night, both chambers could likely get something to the President's desk before February 15 government funding deadline.
"I know the goal is to reach it tonight," Price said before the announcement of an agreement was made. "I hope we're back on track now with a serious give and take and good faith negotiations."
This story has been updated with additional developments from Monday.
CNN's Dana Bash, Kristin Wilson and Priscilla Alvarez contributed to this report

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Certainly another shutdown would be costly, potentially catastrophic. And the amount given to "barriers" at the border is much lower than Trump wanted for his wall. I'd rather not have seen a penny given to any sort of barrier on principle, since that fucker took the country hostage for it and the wall is a symbol of white supremacy. But I think I can live with this, as long as the term "wall" is not used in the bill.

More troubling to me is that the Democrats reportedly agreed to authorize funding for 40,000 beds in detention centres- considerably more than they initially wanted. This to my mind arguably makes the Democratic leadership complicit in funding ethnic cleansing to prevent another shutdown.

Of course, Trump has yet to sign off on it, so it may all come to nothing. It is also possible, as noted above, that he will declare a state of emergency anyway to get the remaining amount of funding he wants for the wall.

[TimothyC]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Certainly another shutdown would be costly, potentially catastrophic. And the amount given to "barriers" at the border is much lower than Trump wanted for his wall. I'd rather not have seen a penny given to any sort of barrier on principle, since that fucker took the country hostage for it and the wall is a symbol of white supremacy. But I think I can live with this, as long as the term "wall" is not used in the bill.

.

How the fuck is border infrastructure a "symbol of white supremacy"?

Why shouldn't a nation have the ability to secure its borders against those who don't have a legal claim to be there? Do you deny that a nation has a right to limit who is and who is not allowed in?

More troubling to me is that the Democrats reportedly agreed to authorize funding for 40,000 beds in detention centres- considerably more than they initially wanted. This to my mind arguably makes the Democratic leadership complicit in funding ethnic cleansing to prevent another shutdown.

It's a reduction in the number of beds you unrepentant moron. Hell, it's a reduction of nearly 20%. I hope to hell this simply results in faster processing of criminal aliens rather than catch-and-release. Furthermore, how the fuck is this "ethnic cleansing"? Is it really "ethnic cleansing" to limit the number of new people who can come? Because that's a really shitty and slow method.

[Gandalf]

How the fuck is border infrastructure a "symbol of white supremacy"?

Is "border infrastructure" the term the faux intellectual Republicans are using now so they're not lumped with the Trump people they claim to despise?

Why shouldn't a nation have the ability to secure its borders against those who don't have a legal claim to be there? Do you deny that a nation has a right to limit who is and who is not allowed in?

I thought a key part of American doctrine was that borders are meaningless?

[The Romulan Republic]

How the fuck is border infrastructure a "symbol of white supremacy"?

Because Trump and his fellow Republicans white supremacists have made it one.

Why shouldn't a nation have the ability to secure its borders against those who don't have a legal claim to be there? Do you deny that a nation has a right to limit who is and who is not allowed in?

Let me turn that around. Why should these immigrants be kept out? No one denies the legal right of a nation to control its borders, or to construct physical barriers to do so (unless, of course, said nation had previously signed a law or treaty contravening such actions). But having the legal right to do something does not automatically make it the practically or morally right thing to do. Its not enough, if you want to justify the Wall, for you to huff and puff about how America has the "right" to keep foreigners out. You need to explain why you feel it is the right course of action on which to spend our nation's wealth and reputation.

Don't hide behind the law. That's a dodge. If all you care about is that people follow the law, then you could support making it easier to immigrate lawfully, rather than focussing on punishing desperate people who tried to come illegally because its virtually impossible to do so legally.

It's a reduction in the number of beds you unrepentant moron. Hell, it's a reduction of nearly 20%. I hope to hell this simply results in faster processing of criminal aliens rather than catch-and-release. Furthermore, how the fuck is this "ethnic cleansing"? Is it really "ethnic cleansing" to limit the number of new people who can come? Because that's a really shitty and slow method.

Not enough of a reduction, and not as much as the Democrats were pushing for.

Your description of desperate human beings as "criminal aliens" (language designed to cast them all as dangerous criminals, and to dehumanize them) makes it clear where your true sympathies lie. You can attack me, and you can self-righteously huff and puff about America's "legal rights", but what it comes down to is that for all your protestations of being anti-Trump, you are completely on board with him when it comes down to locking up people (including children) for the "crime" of being foreign.

And I call it ethnic cleansing because it is part of a systematic effort to make it harder for Latinos to immigrate, legally or illegally (many of those being detained or turned away are lawful asylum seekers), to do so using terror tactics such as punishing and destroying families as a "deterrent" (in the words of John Kelly), to send them without due process back to situations where many of them will die (and which should qualify them for asylum), and to characterize an entire ethnicity as "rapists and drug dealers" and murderers, with the ultimate goal of making sure that America remains a white majority nation.

[The Romulan Republic]

In other news, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Richard Burr, came out with a statement that the committee had found no evidence of collusion. The head Democrat on the committee, Mark Warner, then sharply dissented from that claim.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/12/politics ... index.html

(CNN)Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, rejected Republican Chairman Richard Burr's recent statements that the committee has not found evidence of collusion, saying the investigation is still ongoing and the committee still had to interview key witnesses.

"Respectfully, I disagree," Warner said Tuesday. "I'm not going to get into any conclusions I've reached because my basis of this has been that I'm not going to reach any conclusion until we finish the investigation. And we still have a number of the key witnesses to come back."
Warner's comments represented a rare public split for the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has been the only congressional panel that has kept its investigation into Russia's 2016 election meddling on a bipartisan track.
Burr and Warner have managed to conduct a bipartisan investigation for more than two years, as their staffs have quietly interviewed more than 200 witnesses and reviewed more than 300,000 pages of documents as part of the probe. But they have put off making conclusions about the collusion question, and the split is a signal that they could struggle to stay on the same page as the committee attempts to write its report on 2016 election meddling.
Last week, Burr told CBS News that the committee did not have facts indicating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," Burr said.
A Democratic aide acknowledged that the committee has not uncovered direct evidence of collusion. But the aide argued that the number of episodes that have been discovered — among them the Trump Tower meeting with an offer for "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos being told by a London professor of "dirt," Roger Stone's connections to WikiLeaks and the Trump Tower Moscow discussions extending into the 2016 campaign — point to plenty of circumstantial evidence of collusion.
"None of those facts are in dispute," the aide said. "Only what they mean."
President Donald Trump has seized upon Burr's statements to claim the committee has found no collusion, though Burr hedged his statement to CBS — and similar previous comments about finding evidence of collusion — by saying the investigation is not yet wrapped.
"The only thing I've addressed is whether we had facts that suggest there was (collusion). We don't have any," Burr told reporters on Tuesday. Asked whether the committee's investigation exonerated Trump, Burr said: "Just saying what factually we've found to date. We haven't finished our investigation."
In the CBS interview, Burr suggested that the committee would focus on getting agreement on the facts, and let people make their own conclusions.
Warner noted that the committee is getting close to the end of its investigation, but there were still key witnesses to speak to, including Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen, whose scheduled Tuesday interview was postponed.
"What we do know, and it's part of the public record, there's never been a campaign in American history that during the campaign and its aftermath that the campaign folks affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did," Warner said. "You get far down a thread and then it is interesting there are a number of the same people that ends up at the end of those threads, and many of those are the people we need to have come back and talk to us."
Cohen was one of a number of witnesses, including Michael Flynn, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates, that the committee wants to interview but has not yet since they were charged by the special counsel, the aide said, so the panel didn't interfere with Mueller's probe,
Warner told CNN last month the accidental disclosure from Manafort's court filing that he was accused of sharing polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik — whom the special counsel has accused of having ties to Russian intelligence — was the "closest we've seen" to collusion.
CNN's Michael Warren contributed to this report.

Meanwhile, Cohen is dragging his feet on testifying to the Senate:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/richard ... aring.html

'Any good will ... is now gone': Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr blasts ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen for missing hearing
The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence blasts President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen for missing a planned appearance before that committee, less than a month before he is due to go to prison.
Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., says he heard that Cohen went out Monday night with his wife despite claiming he needed to postpone Tuesday's scheduled hearing because he is still recovering from shoulder surgery.
Cohen is sentenced to three years in prison after pleading guilty last year to lying to Congress, financial crimes, and campaign finance violations related to hush-money payments to women who claim to have had affairs with Trump.
Dan Mangan | Kevin Breuninger
Published 3 Hours Ago Updated 1 Hour Ago
CNBC.com
Senate Intel Chair Richard Burr: 'Any good will' with Michael Cohen 'is now gone' Senate Intel Chair Richard Burr: 'Any good will' with Michael Cohen 'is now gone'
2 Hours Ago | 01:35
The Republican chairman and ranking Democrat of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Tuesday blasted President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen for missing a planned appearance before that committee due to purported medical issues, less than a month before he is due to begin serving a three-year prison sentence.

Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., said any "good will" that committee had toward Cohen is gone after reports that Cohen has been out in New York at night socializing despite claiming he needed to postpone Tuesday's scheduled hearing because he is still recovering from shoulder surgery.

The Intelligence Committee, which last month issued a subpoena to Cohen compelling his testimony Tuesday in a closed session, had granted that requested delay, Cohen's lawyer Lanny Davis had said Monday.

LIVE, NEWS-MAKING DISCUSSIONS
UNIQUE, IN-PERSON EXPERIENCES
LEARN MORE + JOIN US

Davis said the committee would announce a "future date" for testimony from Cohen, who pleaded guilty last year to lying to Congress, financial crimes, and campaign finance violations related to hush-money payments to two women who claim to have had affairs with Trump. The president denies having sex with either woman.

"According to the press we still have Michael Cohen to interview one more time, but I can assure you that any good will that might have existed in the committee with Michael Cohen is now gone," Burr fumed to reporters Tuesday.

Asked if there was a chance the committee will not get to interview Cohen before he begins serving a three-year prison term on March 6, Burr said, "I don't know, you'd have to ask him about it."

President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen exits Federal Court after entering a guilty plea in Manhattan, New York City, November 29, 2018
Andrew Kelly | Reuters
President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen exits Federal Court after entering a guilty plea in Manhattan, New York City, November 29, 2018
"He's had a letter for six months asking for his return" to appear before the committee, Burr said.

"He's already stiffed us on being in Washington today because of an illness," Burr said. "You have, um — on Twitter, a reporter reported he was having a wild night Saturday night eating out in New York with five buddies. Didn't seem to have any physical limitations. And he was out with his wife last night."

Asked if he would issue another subpoena to Cohen, Burr said, "I've never gotten into who we have subpoenaed and haven't subpoenaed."

"But I think he clearly rises to one of the people that I would go to every length I could to make sure that we got his testimony," Burr said.

"I would prefer to get him before he goes to prison ... but, you know, the way he's positioning himself [by] not coming to the committee, we may help him go to prison," Burr quipped.

The Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, said, "I share the frustration" of Burr.

"You would think that someone — we've been trying to work with Mr. Cohen — and somebody whose veracity is in somewhat question, you'd think he would want to not do things that further diminish his ability for people to have faith in him," Warner said.

Cohen's lawyer Davis, when contacted by CNBC, declined to comment on the criticism from Burr and Warner.

Cohen so far has had three planned appearances before a congressional committee postponed.

He originally was expected to testify publicly last Friday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

But in late January, Cohen postponed that appearance indefinitely because of concerns about his family's safety, Davis said. Davis accused Trump and his current lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, of making "threats," specifically by suggesting Cohen's father-in-law was engaged in wrongdoing.

Trump later said of Cohen, "I would say he's been threatened by the truth."

Cohen is currently scheduled to testify Feb. 28 before the House Intelligence Committee in a session closed to the public. That appearance originally was set for last Friday as well, but was postponed by committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for what Schiff said was "the interests of the investigation."

[The Romulan Republic]

Surprise surprise, Tiny doesn't like the border deal, and won't commit to signing it:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-dis ... -1.5016034

U.S. President Donald Trump said Tuesday he's "unhappy" with a hard-won agreement to prevent a new government shutdown and finance construction of more barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, but he didn't say he wouldn't sign the measure.

Republican congressional leaders lined up behind the proposed deal, however, selling it as a necessary compromise.

Trump said he doesn't believe there will be a shutdown, which could have hit hundreds of thousands of federal workers again this weekend. "Everything" is on the table, he said at the White House, but "we certainly don't want to see a shutdown."

He said he needs to look further at the agreement, which would grant far less than the $5.7 billion US he wants for a long wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Tentative deal reached to avoid 2nd U.S. government shutdown
"I can't say I'm happy. I can't say I'm thrilled," he said. But one way or another, he said, "the wall's getting built."

Top Republicans claimed victory with the deal, crowing about Democratic concessions on new border barriers and a late-stage battle over the ability of federal authorities to arrest and detain immigrants living illegally in the U.S.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said he spoke to Trump on Tuesday and urged him to sign the bill, which he described as "a pretty good deal."

House minority leader Kevin McCarthy told CNBC: "You've got to remember where Nancy Pelosi was. She has said, 'No money for a wall.' That's not the case. The Democrats have now agreed to more than 55 miles of new barrier."

Same deal, just 2 months late?

However, negotiators said it's pretty much the deal that Trump could have gotten in December. Aides revealed details under condition of anonymity because the agreement is tentative.

Republicans and the White House were desperate to avoid another bruising shutdown. They tentatively agreed Monday night to far less money for Trump's border wall than the White House's $5.7 billion wish list, settling for a figure of nearly $1.4 billion, according to congressional aides.

The huge funding measure, which combines seven spending bills into one, runs through the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.


High-ranking Republicans, such as Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, are backing the agreement struck Monday night with Democrats. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)
Details might not be released until Wednesday, but the pact came in time to alleviate any threat of a second partial government shutdown this weekend.

At the White House on Tuesday, spokesperson Hogan Gidley was noncommittal: "We want to focus on what's actually in the document. Until we see that, it's going to be very difficult to have a conversation about what we will and won't accept.

The agreement means 88 kilometres of new fencing — constructed through existing designs such as metal slats instead of a concrete wall — but far less than the 345 kilometres the White House demanded in December. The fencing would be built in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. It closely mirrors Trump's original budget request from last winter.

California to pull National Guard troops from Mexican border
The split-the-differences compromise contains plenty to anger lawmakers on the right and left — more border fencing than many Democrats would like and too little for conservative Republicans — but its authors praised it as a genuine compromise that would keep the government open and allow everyone to move on.

"With the government being shut down, the spectre of another shutdown this close, what brought us back together I thought tonight was we didn't want that to happen" again, said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican.

"Our staffs are just working out the details," said House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, a Democrat from New York.

Another partial U.S. government shutdown looms this week
The pact also includes increases for new technologies such as advanced screening at border entry points, humanitarian aid sought by Democrats and additional customs officers.

This weekend, Shelby pulled the plug on the talks over Democratic demands to limit immigrant detentions by federal authorities, frustrating some of his fellow negotiators, but Democrats yielded ground on that issue in a fresh round of talks on Monday.

Asked if Trump would back the deal, Shelby said: "We believe from our dealings with them and the latitude they've given us, they will support it. We certainly hope so."


Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama on Tuesday hailed the deal as a genuine compromise between the parties that will keep the government open. (REUTERS)
Trump travelled to El Paso, Texas, for a campaign-style rally Monday night focused on immigration and border issues. He has been adamant that Congress approve money for a wall along the Mexican border, though he no longer repeats his 2016 mantra that Mexico will pay for it, and he took to the stage as lawmakers back in Washington were announcing their breakthrough.

"They said that progress is being made with this committee," Trump told his audience, referring to the congressional bargainers. "Just so you know, we're building the wall anyway."

Trump aides are discussing using executive action to access other pots of money to build the wall without Congress, even if Trump backs the compromise.

Avoiding a 2nd shutdown

Democrats carried more leverage into the talks after besting Trump on the 35-day shutdown but showed flexibility in hopes of winning Trump's signature. After yielding on border barriers, Democrats focused on reducing funding for detention beds to curb what they see as unnecessarily harsh enforcement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

The agreement yielded curbed funding, overall, for ICE detention beds, which Democrats promised would mean the agency would hold fewer detainees than the roughly 49,000 detainees held on Feb. 10, the most recent date for which figures were available. Democrats said the number of beds would be trimmed to 40,520 by year's end.

Imperial Oil CEO surprised Trump administration hasn't launched trade attack against Alberta
But a proposal to cap at 16,500 the number of detainees caught in areas away from the border — a limit Democrats say was aimed at preventing overreach by the agency — ran into its own Republican wall.

Democrats dropped the demand in the Monday round of talks, and the mood in the Capitol improved markedly.

The recent shutdown left more than 800,000 government workers without paycheques, forced postponement of the state of the union address and sent Trump's poll numbers tumbling. As support in his own party began to splinter, Trump surrendered after the shutdown hit 35 days, agreeing to the current temporary reopening without getting money for the wall.

Edit: If he refuses this deal after the Democrats offered him substantial concessions, it'll simply underline the pointlessness of trying to negotiate with him, and it'll be hard to spin any future shutdown as the Democrats' fault. Hopefully, if he does do that, it will prompt the Democrats to return to the "not one cent" position. He'll only have brought it on himself.

[The Romulan Republic]

While the budget bill and impending state of emergency declaration are understandably dominating the news today, another notable event is the confirmation of William Barr as the next Attorney General:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/barr-sena ... -1.5019020

Surprisingly, it was not a straight party-line vote- three Democrats (Joe "Quisling" Manchin, Doug Jones, and Kirsten Sinema) voted for him, while Republican Rand Paul voted against him.

All things considered, I don't think Barr is the worst choice by any means- in fact he's probably about as good as we could have gotten under this administration and this Senate. At least he is qualified for his post in terms of his professional credentials and experience, which is more than can be said for a lot of Trump's appointees. He's also been at least somewhat supportive of protecting the Mueller probe (and is reportedly a personal friend of Mueller's, though that should not affect his professional judgement), though he hasn't given as strong assurances as I would have liked, and time will tell how honest he was.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also recently breaking- former Deputy Director (and briefly Acting Director) of the FBI Andrew McCabe confirmed that discussions were held in the Justice Department following Comey's firing of trying to recruit Cabinet members to invoke the 25th. Amendment and remove Trump from office. McCabe also confirms that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein discussed wearing a wire to record conversations with Trump. McCabe also says that he opened an Obstruction of Justice investigation of Trump (which has since been subsumed into the Mueller probe) to protect the investigation into Russian interference.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics ... index.html

Washington (CNN)Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe is confirming for the first time publicly that there were high-level discussions at the Justice Department about recruiting Cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump from office in the aftermath of former FBI Director James Comey's firing.

The discussions also included speculation about which Cabinet members could be on board with the idea, McCabe said in an interview with CBS's Scott Pelley. According to Pelley on "CBS This Morning" Thursday, McCabe confirmed the discussion among Justice Department officials. This segment of the interview, which was taped for "60 Minutes," was not aired Thursday morning.
McCabe, who was fired from the FBI last March, also said he ordered an investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice as a way to preserve ongoing inquiries into Russian election meddling in case there was an effort to terminate them.
The comments resurface the extraordinary tension between Trump and the nation's top law enforcement officials, though a number of the ones who worked with McCabe in the early days of the administration have since been dismissed or resigned.
In September, citing sources familiar with memos authored by McCabe, CNN reported that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed wearing a "wire" to record conversations with Trump and recruiting Cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. Also in September, an anonymous "senior official in the Trump administration" claimed in a New York Times op-ed that there had been "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment."
It was not mentioned in the segment that aired Thursday if McCabe or anyone else approached Cabinet members directly to discuss the idea.
Cillizza: How Andrew McCabe's 25th Amendment bombshell tells us everything -- and nothing
Cillizza: How Andrew McCabe's 25th Amendment bombshell tells us everything -- and nothing
"These were the eight days from Comey's firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the President," Pelley said, adding that people involved were "counting noses" and speculating which Cabinet officials may be on board with the idea.
In a statement on Thursday, a Justice Department spokesperson said Rosenstein -- who repeatedly disputed the "wire" revelation back in September -- again denied pursuing or advocating for the use of the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.
"As the Deputy Attorney General previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the President, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment, nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment," the statement read.
Both Trump and the White House on Thursday called McCabe a "disgrace," with the White House saying he had "no credibility" and Trump accusing him of being politically biased during his time at the FBI.
Vice President Mike Pence told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Thursday he has "never heard any discussion of the 25th Amendment by members of this government and I would never expect to." Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham called McCabe's comments "a stunning revelation" and that he would subpoena the former official to testify on Capitol Hill about the matter "if I have to."
McCabe ordered obstruction probe to protect Russia inquiries
In December, CNN reported that following the firing of Comey, McCabe took the extraordinary step of opening an obstruction of justice investigation into Trump before special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed in May 2017. In the interview that aired Thursday, McCabe told Pelley he "wanted to make sure that our case was on solid ground and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it, they would not be able to do that without creating a record of why they made that decision."
McCabe said that the day after Comey's firing and after meeting with Trump in the Oval Office, "I met with the team investigating the Russia cases and I asked the team to go back and conduct an assessment to determine where are we with these efforts and what steps do we need to take going forward."
"I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground in an indelible fashion that, were I removed quickly or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace," said McCabe, who is promoting his forthcoming book, "The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump."
In its statement on Thursday, the White House called McCabe's investigation "completely baseless."
McCabe was fired by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions in March following an inspector general report that concluded he misled investigators about his role in directing other officials at the FBI to speak to The Wall Street Journal about his involvement in a public corruption investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The Justice Department's watchdog has referred his findings on McCabe to the US Attorney's office in Washington for possible criminal charges. The case remains under investigation.
CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to more accurately characterize a statement from a Justice Department spokesperson.
CNN's Manu Raju contributed to this report.

Naturally, Reich-wing media is now accusing McCabe of "treason" for trying to constrain or remove a blatantly criminal President under unprecedented circumstances.

While normally such actions would definitely raise concerns about an out of control Justice Department, under the circumstances, I believe that McCabe was doing no less than his duty, and its a damn shame that he failed- we might have been spared the last two years. If you ask me, Andrew McCabe is a God damn hero who should get the Medal of Freedom for his actions.

[FaxModem1]

Salon

Trump, Mulvaney plan to raid disaster relief funds, cut military housing to fund wall
Mick Mulvaney reportedly cooks up plan to divert disaster relief and military infrastructure funds to the wall

2.3K2.3K
follow us in feedly
IGOR DERYSH
FEBRUARY 13, 2019 10:35PM (UTC)
President Trump's advisers have reportedly hatched a plan that would shift money from disaster relief and housing for military families to fund his proposed border wall, after Congress rebuffed his demands once again.

Trump is expected to sign a spending bill to avert another government shutdown after a bipartisan group of lawmakers reached a deal that would give him $1.375 billion for a border barrier, CNN reported, well below the $5.7 billion he has repeatedly demanded.

Despite saying that he was “unhappy” with the deal, Trump declared on Twitter that he expects the congressional funds to be “hooked up with lots of money from other sources” and predicted he will get “almost $23 billion.”

According to a report from Politico, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and top budget officials have come up with a plan that would allow Trump to go around Congress to funnel money toward the proposed wall.

The plan is to use executive powers to redirect money set aside for two Army Corps of Engineers flood control projects in California, as well as relief funds for that state and for the U.S. commonwealth of Puerto Rico, toward the wall. The plan would also use unspent Defense Department funds intended for constructing housing for military families and military base infrastructure to fund the wall.


00:00
Mulvaney hinted at the plan during an appearance on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” Sunday.

“There are certain sums of money that are available to the president, to any president,” Mulvaney said. “So you comb through the law at the president's request ... And there's pots of money where presidents, all presidents, have access to without a national emergency.”

But even White House aides question the strategy, Politico reported. Though such a move would presumably avert the need to declare a national emergency, advisers have argued that the plan may be even more likely to be challenged and overturned in court.

The plan has also irked some top Republicans. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who chairs the Armed Services Committee, spoke out against Trump using Army Corps of Engineers and military construction funding for the wall.

"These are two bad choices,” Inhofe said Tuesday, while adding that he is more opposed to military construction funds being used.


“Leave military construction alone,” he said.

Republican angst about the plan signals that Trump may encounter problems from certain interests that he did not previously envision, said Jim Dyer, a former staff director for the House Appropriations Committee.

“It will create a firestorm, once you start taking money that congressmen think is in their districts,” Dyer told Politico. “You will cause yourself a problem if that money was directed away from any type of project or activity because I guarantee it has some constituency on Capitol Hill.”

Politico also noted that Trump may have intentionally targeted relief funds for California and Puerto Rico to avoid angering Republicans in Texas by tapping money for Hurricane Harvey relief.

A Republican close to the White House suggested that Trump is so much interested in getting his wall fully funded as in appearing to make progress on his signature campaign promise.

“My guess is the president ends up using executive authority to try to reprogram funds,” the unidentified Republican told Politico. “Then, in the coming months through some form of military funds, they start building parts of the physical barrier. He can start claiming that, despite Democrats’ intransigence, he has done something on the wall.”

This desperation for a political win on the wall was on full display during the president’s rally Monday evening in El Paso, Texas, where Trump corrected supporters chanting “build the wall.”

“You mean finish the wall,” Trump told his fans, once again echoing his repeated false claim that the wall is already being built.

“It’s very simple: We’re building a wall and now I say we’re finishing a wall,” Trump told reporters at the White House Tuesday.

To be clear, not a single new mile of wall has been built since Trump took office, according to the New York Times. Given the White House’s own concerns about Mulvaney’s plan, it’s unclear that Trump’s new gambit will result in anything different.

Not signed yet, but if he thinks cutting military housing benefits is the way to achieve it, he's not doing himself any favors.

[The Romulan Republic]

Contemptible. They're going to inflict suffering on Americans to hurt brown foreigners. But it is no more than I have come to expect from this regime.

[The Romulan Republic]

He's not only taking money from disaster relief- he's taking it specifically from disaster relief for Puerto Rico and California, a state (and an unrepresented colonial territory) with large minority populations which have politically opposed and embarrassed him. He is using executive decrees to override Congressional oversight, and to punish the people of states and territories that are on his enemies list.

This is tyranny, plain and simple. This is dictatorship. And it is a moment of truth for America. If this is allowed to stand, we are no longer a republic, in my opinion.

[Knife]

Seems to be two gates yet to pass. One, the House can vote up a resolution of No; which if passed, automatically triggers a vote in the Senate. McConnel can't hide from this one. If 4 GOPers actually reject this with the Dems, it's over. Seems a long shot but the thought that 2-6 years from now a Democratic POTUS declaring a National Emergency on Guns or Climate or poverty and redirecting billions of dollars from the military to solve those issues has to be kicking in the back of their head. This is a new 'nuclear option' discussion from a few years ago. If the GOP passes this line, others will too. Are they willing to cede power to the Executive over this stupid wall? I would also imagine all the Senators up for reelection in 2020 are sweating bullets on this considering it's not that popular of an issue.

Then, of course, he telegraphed this move for over a month. That gave plenty of lead time for all sorts of lawsuits to be ready. California came out of the gate with a suit, plenty others are ready too.

I'm more and more convinced it is a 'stunt' meant to save face for El'Chetto. He'll let it die, and move on proclaiming victory.

[The Romulan Republic]

Seems to be two gates yet to pass. One, the House can vote up a resolution of No; which if passed, automatically triggers a vote in the Senate. McConnel can't hide from this one. If 4 GOPers actually reject this with the Dems, it's over. Seems a long shot but the thought that 2-6 years from now a Democratic POTUS declaring a National Emergency on Guns or Climate or poverty and redirecting billions of dollars from the military to solve those issues has to be kicking in the back of their head. This is a new 'nuclear option' discussion from a few years ago. If the GOP passes this line, others will too. Are they willing to cede power to the Executive over this stupid wall? I would also imagine all the Senators up for reelection in 2020 are sweating bullets on this considering it's not that popular of an issue.

Then, of course, he telegraphed this move for over a month. That gave plenty of lead time for all sorts of lawsuits to be ready. California came out of the gate with a suit, plenty others are ready too.

I'm more and more convinced it is a 'stunt' meant to save face for El'Chetto. He'll let it die, and move on proclaiming victory.

The ceding of Congressional power is what's most baffling about this to me. I expect Republicans to be corrupt and authoritarian, but I generally also expect them to at least be self-serving. And yet McConnel is trying to cede to the Executive one of the core authorities the Constitution grants Congress. Out of self-interest, at least, his colleagues should be appalled, because he's basically holding them down while Trump politically neuters them.

Ah, well, I guess its just another sign of how thoroughly Trump has cowed the Republican party into subservience to him.

Democrats do need to keep making the point, as clearly as possible, that if Republicans set this precedent then it will be used back at them the moment a Democrat is in office again. Of course, Trump and company don't expect a Democrat to be in office again- I more and more suspect that the end goal is "dictator for life Trump" ruling over a one-party state. But hopefully some Republicans aren't that far gone yet.

They also need to take Joe Manchin aside before any vote and tell him point blank that if he goes Quisling on this one, the party will cut off support to his next reelection campaign.

[The Romulan Republic]

Lindsey Graham calls McCabe and Rosenstein's alleged actions in the aftermath of Comey's firing an attempted coup, and threatens to subpoena them:

https://www.theguaridan.com/us-news/201 ... -over-coup

[bilateralrope]

Lindsey Graham calls McCabe and Rosenstein's alleged actions in the aftermath of Comey's firing an attempted coup, and threatens to subpoena them:

https://www.theguaridan.com/us-news/201 ... -over-coup

Chrome throws up a warning on that link. Also you've got guardian spelt wrong in your URL.