Today the Senate extended the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund through 2090, which I wonder would have happened had Jon Stewart not so thoroughly and publicly shamed them into doing it.
On the other hand, the “administration” has announced it wants to change eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program.
It is the administration’s latest step to clamp down on the food stamps program, which covers 38 million Americans, and other public assistance services. It wants to require more poor people to work for SNAP benefits, and it is looking to change the way the poverty threshold is calculated, a move that could strip many low-income residents of their federal benefits over time.
This change could take benefits away from 3 million people. The “administration” says this is for their own good.
The administration claims the proposal will move participants “towards self-sufficiency,” a common refrain among Republicans when citing reasons for slashing security net benefits.
It always amuses me when people who inherited wealth, or married into it (see Mitch McConnell), or otherwise became financially comfortable without having to work all that hard for it decide the problem with the poor is that they’re lazy. See also Trump’s new food stamp proposal weaponizes government against poor people by Paul Waldman.
Speaking of wastes of protoplasm — the creature invoked Article II again.
President Donald Trump claimed on Tuesday that Article 2 in the Constitution gives him carte blanche to do anything he wants.
Trump was giving a speech at a Turning Point USA conference, where he predictably veered off into a tirade about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and how, as president, Trump could’ve stopped it.
“I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” Trump said. “But I don’t even talk about that because they did a report and there was no obstruction.”
It’s like Article II is his new favorite toy. He’s so happy that there’s a section of the Constitution that explicitly spells out his powers, but he’s too stupid to read it to find out that it barely gives him any.
Tomorrow Robert Mueller is supposed to testify publicly to Congress. Even though I think it’s necessary, I am ambivalent about what it might achieve. On one hand–Greg Sargent thinks Mueller’s testimony really could damage Trump.
He [Trump] and his aides keep robotically repeating that Democrats want a “do over” of the Mueller probe, thus pushing the idea — which Trump just tweeted — that the report didn’t produce any damning revelations.
The obvious game here is to frame the hearings as leaving Democrats with only the last ditch hope of prodding Mueller into revealing new information — and to spin any failure to make that happen as a fizzle for Democrats and a victory for Trump.
In reality, if Democrats can simply bring to life what Mueller did document — and convey that to a national audience — that alone will be a real victory, and an important public service.
What might that look like? Former FBI director James B. Comey has suggested asking direct questions designed to get Mueller to reiterate his findings.
This would create video and new headlines to bring the findings of the report back to public attention, and that alone would be helpful. And I suspect that’s the best we can hope for.
an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, writes that Congress need only ask three simple yes-or-no questions:
Mr. Mueller, the president said your report found, in his words, “no collusion, no obstruction, complete and total exoneration.”
First, did your report find there was no collusion?
Second, did your report find there was no obstruction?
Third, did your report give the president complete and total exoneration?
That’s it. That’s the ballgame. It makes no difference if there are 20 questioners or two when Mr. Mueller appears before two House committees on Wednesday. All of this speculation about whether Mr. Mueller will go beyond the four corners of his report is largely a waste of time, with one asterisk. The report itself is deeply damning to Mr. Trump, elevating him to the rare president who has been credibly documented as committing federal crimes while sitting in office.
But this is Congress we’re talking about. You can’t trust any of them to not blow it.
You’ve probably head that the Justice Department has told Mueller he is not allowed to say anything not already stated in the report. People who know Mueller say he will probably adhere to this. I know that if I were in the same situation I’d be telling the Bill Barr to kiss my ass, but that’s me.
Democrats aren't the only side that might blow it. If (and I said if) the Republicans assume the task of discrediting Mueller as a secret liberal in a conspiracy to commit blasphemy by speaking unpleasant truths about His Highness, they might just piss Mueller off. I don't think that would cause a loss of control but Mueller might go off-script and recount his service to the country and Trump's lack of same.
Agreed, the "win" for Democrats is to get Mueller to read key portions of the report – it won't likely work to demand Mueller's expert opinion on the case or any hypothetical.
In the best of circumstances, Mueller might tell Congress to do their damn job and open impeachment hearings. But I doubt it.
I don't think Mueller's going to say much tomorrow.
I mean, there's always a chance, right?!?!"
Well…
No. He seems to me like some sort of 21st Century American "Cincinnitus."'l
He'll stick to his report, and retire to his farm.
But…
But maybe he'll flip tRUMP & Barr the middle-finger F-U salutes, and just spew all he knows about the collusion and obstruction on tRUMP's part! HA-HA-ha… ha… (ahem…)….
He'll be going back to his farm.
Even if the Democrats could somehow manage to coax Mueller to say that "Trump is a criminal" in plain, unambiguous English, the news media in this country would whittle it down to a sound bite, which would soon be forgotten by Friday.
I remember the gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Watergate hearings, and even had friends back then who taped it (only audio tape back then) and who were actually paying attention to it.
Today, if the public isn't engaged, Trump can do anything and get away with it. Shrug.
I have no idea what tomorrow's hearing is going to bring. But whatever it is I think it would be a wise move for Pelosi to follow it up with an announcement to begin an official impeachment hearing so as to pump some life into the investigation's findings. Trump has hammered away on the narrative that suits his desired outcome to paint him as a victim. To overcome that narrative it's going to take an attention grabbing action to flip the script. The Mueller report by itself doesn't have the dramatic flair needed to capture the public's attention.
But a swift reversal from a position of reluctance by Nancy Pelosi to one where she's been left with no choice but to begin an impeachment inquiry. Seeing how it's become all theatrics with the Trump show, why not create the illusion that information has been revealed from behind closed doors concerning Trump's actions that necessitates a formal impeachment inquiry.
There is a strong possibility all attempts to bring Trump to accountability could die on the vine if no follow through is provided.
Whatever impetus is gained by tomorrow's hearing the Dem's have to make it count in a big way.
I have no idea what tomorrow's hearing is going to bring. But whatever it is I think it would be a wise move for Pelosi to follow it up with an announcement to begin an official impeachment hearing so as to pump some life into the investigation's findings. Trump has hammered away on the narrative that suits his desired outcome to paint him as a victim. To overcome that narrative it's going to take an attention grabbing action to flip the script. The Mueller report by itself doesn't have the dramatic flair needed to capture the public's attention.
But a swift reversal from a position of reluctance by Nancy Pelosi to one where she's been left with no choice but to begin an impeachment inquiry. Seeing how it's become all theatrics with the Trump show, why not create the illusion that information has been revealed from behind closed doors concerning Trump's actions that necessitates a formal impeachment inquiry.
There is a strong possibility all attempts to bring Trump to accountability could die on the vine if no follow through is provided.
Whatever impetus is gained by tomorrow's hearing the Dem's have to make it count in a big way.
I watched a part of the Mueller hearing. I was looking for evidence of elite characteristics of superior competency and insight from the Republican members of the committee. What I saw provided little support to any notion that they displayed even above average skills at social judgement or aptitude for governance. I did observe a general hostility and propensity for disjointed diatribe. Oh, and a propensity for preposterous conspiracy theories for sure.
Gomert seems to be taking all of this to heart. His anger is front and center and he needs to get it under control. He's a prime candidate for a road rage incident.
I guess we all get a little testy when confronted with frustrations, but Gomert's emotions are screaming for a closer look at his mental state. I think he should fire up a big ole blunt, put on some Marty Robbins music, and just chill.