U.S. Politics: The Jeff Sessions: The Killing of a Keebler Elf

[Fragile Bird]

First Trump united folks behind Comey, and now he's actually making people feel sympathy for Sessions.

The man is a miracle worker!

 

 

ps: I wanted to call the thread The Scout's Honor Edition...

[The Anti-Targ]

Quote

"I'm back in the American heartland far away from the Washington swamp,"

Is that an admission that he's incapable or unwilling to drain the swamp?

[Fez]

Looks like the senate health care vote has already gotten too complicated. There was just a vote on a point of order about the current version of the BCRA (the Senate repeal&replace bill as of last week) that required a 60-vote threshold (because of no CBO score), which just went down in flames. It couldn't pass anyway, because of the 60-vote issue, but nine Republicans also voted no: Collins, Cotton, Corker, Graham, Heller, Lee, Moran, Murkowski, and Paul.

From what I understand, the vote wasn't on the BCRA itself, but with point of order vote failed, the BCRA can't be voted on, so it was effectively the BCRA vote. The BCRA is now dead and the next vote, which might not be until tomorrow, will be for a clean repeal bill (with the 2015 already-CBO-scored text) and after that will be the vote-a-rama on all kinds of amendments and then finally on whatever final substitute bill McConnell creates.

The really weird part is seeing who voted yes and who voted no on the point of order; since this was effectively the vote on the BCRA (but technically wasn't the actual bill). Capito, Portman, and Johnson all folded for now, which probably means they'll vote for McConnell's final bill too (assuming their various pet projects/issues also make the final bill). And McCain hilariously also did in fact prove himself a massive hypocrite in under six hours.

Its really interesting to see Cotton, Corker, and Graham as no votes though; Graham's name has come up a few times as being concerned about the bill, but I've never been clear if he opposed the bill from the center or the right and I didn't expect him to actually vote no, and I have no idea what Cotton or Corker are doing. Its no surprise that Collins, Murkowski, Paul, or Lee voted no; but its also interesting that Heller and Moran continued to be no votes.

 

[all swedes are racist]

39 minutes ago, Fez said:

Looks like the senate health care vote has already gotten too complicated. There was just a vote on a point of order about the current version of the BCRA (the Senate repeal&replace bill as of last week) that required a 60-vote threshold (because of no CBO score), which just went down in flames. It couldn't pass anyway, because of the 60-vote issue, but nine Republicans also voted no: Collins, Cotton, Corker, Graham, Heller, Lee, Moran, Murkowski, and Paul.

From what I understand, the vote wasn't on the BCRA itself, but with point of order vote failed, the BCRA can't be voted on, so it was effectively the BCRA vote. The BCRA is now dead and the next vote, which might not be until tomorrow, will be for a clean repeal bill (with the 2015 already-CBO-scored text) and after that will be the vote-a-rama on all kinds of amendments and then finally on whatever final substitute bill McConnell creates.

The really weird part is seeing who voted yes and who voted no on the point of order; since this was effectively the vote on the BCRA (but technically wasn't the actual bill). Capito, Portman, and Johnson all folded for now, which probably means they'll vote for McConnell's final bill too (assuming their various pet projects/issues also make the final bill). And McCain hilariously also did in fact prove himself a massive hypocrite in under six hours.

Its really interesting to see Cotton, Corker, and Graham as no votes though; Graham's name has come up a few times as being concerned about the bill, but I've never been clear if he opposed the bill from the center or the right and I didn't expect him to actually vote no, and I have no idea what Cotton or Corker are doing. Its no surprise that Collins, Murkowski, Paul, or Lee voted no; but its also interesting that Heller and Moran continued to be no votes.

 

thanks for that... just got outta work and wondering what the hell happened today.

so (sorry) just to be clear... an "aye" majority for this 'point of order' just would have meant the bcra could have been debated and ultimately voted on?

[Fez]

16 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

So now that the BCRA is essentially done for, is it even possible for the Senate to pass either repeal-and-delay or the so-called "skinny" repeal under reconciliation? It seems that either one would at the very least produce changes in outlays, which would violate the Byrd rule.

And if McConnell decides to overrule the parliamentarian, doesn't this effectively kill the filibuster going forward?

Yes, still totally possible (just not very likely I think). The motion to proceed earlier today was on the AHCA (the House-passed bill), which is just being used a legislative shell. The BCRA vote tonight was an attempt to replace the entire AHCA text with the BHCA text, it failed (or rather, a required procedural vote failed); however, there can and will be other attempts to replace the AHCA text. First up is the "clean" repeal tomorrow, after that, who knows? There could even be an attempt to vote on the AHCA text itself, but that would also require 60 votes because it violates so many Byrd rules.

If McConnell tried to overrule the parliamentarian, it wouldn't necessarily kill the filibuster (because there are a different type of 60 vote threshold), but it would mean the filibuster would soon be gone as well. However, McConnell can't just overrule the parliarmentarian, he needs 50 votes in favor of doing it as well. And I think he is very far away from having that support or even wanting to do it himself. On top of that, he doesn't have 50 votes in favor of anything yet, so trying to change the rules wouldn't help anything.

The CBO has previously scored the clean repeal bill (since its the same text as from 2015) and a bill that would just repeal the individual mandate and both reduce Federal expenses (and jack up the uninsurance rate, but that's not relevant to senate rules), so both could pass with just 50 votes. 

 

12 minutes ago, commiedore said:

thanks for that... just got outta work and wondering what the hell happened today.

so (sorry) just to be clear... an "aye" majority for this 'point of order' just would have meant the bcra could have been debated and ultimately voted on?

Pretty much. Although, it would've been for the BCRA to be a substitute amendment to the AHCA bill they are currently debating, so if the point of order had passed, there would've been a 10 minute debate and then immediate vote on passage. And if it had passed, there would then be a vote on the AHCA bill (which would no longer have any AHCA text, just the BCRA text) which would've passed, and then the bill would go back to the House.

But that all failed; and everyone knew it would fail anyway because of the 60 vote threshold, the only interest was seeing which Republicans would vote no as well. Also, McConnell could've made some changes (and waited for new CBO scores) to lower that threshold to 50 votes, the fact that he didn't means that he gave up on the BCRA as is a while ago. He may try to introduce something similar again on Friday, but its hard to know what he'll do.

 

Senate rules are fun!

[Jaxom 1974]

The point i heard a couple times tonight was McConnel can wait out his hold outs. Let them have their no votes on the smaller points and such.  But eventually, there will be just the final choice of whatever it is the GOP wants to ram through or the keeping of Obamacare. And that's the choice Mitch will give those GOP senators who don't fall into line.

[all swedes are racist]

sorry, unrelated and unimportant, but just thought I'd share that my brother recently joined twitter and he is a anime nazi maga chud... lol, this is extremely funny,,, too me

[S John]

Re: Sessions, not a fan at all, but I'd like to see him hold his ground.  I think this might be the first issue of the Trump era where I'm starting to see some fracturing in the Trump base.  

It makes Trump look ungrateful to his oldest Washington ally, paranoid about the Meuller investigation, and cowardly in the way he's tried to tweet the AG to death.

Of course there are still many who maintain they are thankful that we finally have a president who 'runs things like a business' (lol) and when you don't do your job at a business you get fired.  Not sure what kind of businesses those folks have been around, but anyway, on social media and elsewhere I've seen quite a few in the Trump camp getting a little squirmy over this one.  

Hope the dumpster fire keeps rolling.  The more conflicts within the administration the less effective they are going to be at inflicting a crappy agenda onto the rest of us.  It's starting to get to the point where enough time has passed that they should be on the verge of getting thier shit together but with Spicer, Tillerson, Sessions all in the news for the wrong reasons in the past week the admin appears to be unraveling instead.  The more disorganized they continue to be, the more likely it is that this whole experience is not going to be a new era, but the going away party for the viability of hard right politics at the national level.  I'm in awe of the extent to which they've bungled this opportunity thus far, and I hope they continue to do so.

[denstorebog]

Meanwhile, away from the glamour and spotlight of the national level, Dems flipped yet another state level seat, this time in NH. It's still one seat out of hundreds needed, but the interesting part is the continued pattern of overperformance as well as crazy canvassing and fundraising, which could have taken a dip after Georgia, but apparently hasn't.

Quote

Preliminary results indicate that Cavanaugh won with 55 percent of the vote, an eleven-point improvement on Clinton’s performance in Senate District 16.

“Tonight’s win also provides another data point in the consistently expanding set of election results demonstrating Democratic over-performance in elections this cycle,” Fiddler continued. “Cavanaugh’s victory brings the number of contested congressional and state legislative races in which Democrats have outperformed Clinton’s numbers last fall to 21 out of 28. Additionally, Democrats have flipped four seats from red to blue since November. Republicans simply can’t afford this kind of poor electoral performance at any level of the ballot if they hope to hold on to state and congressional majorities this cycle.”

[Fez]

7 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

The point i heard a couple times tonight was McConnel can wait out his hold outs. Let them have their no votes on the smaller points and such.  But eventually, there will be just the final choice of whatever it is the GOP wants to ram through or the keeping of Obamacare. And that's the choice Mitch will give those GOP senators who don't fall into line.

That's not totally true though. This wasn't one a smaller point, this was one of three key votes (along with the clean repeal today and whatever he introduces at the end of the vote-a-rama) and he needs one of the three votes to pass. Instead it failed miserably, and he knew in advance it would fail so badly that he didn't even try to lower the vote threshold from 60 to 50. Unless something dramatic changes, his caucus has made clear that they will keep Obamacare instead of ramming something through.

McConnell may be able to craft something narrow enough to pass on Friday, but it wouldn't be truly repealing Obamacare, and likely is something the House would not pass. Leading to further debating, cankicking, and time wasting.

 

5 hours ago, S John said:

Re: Sessions, not a fan at all, but I'd like to see him hold his ground.  I think this might be the first issue of the Trump era where I'm starting to see some fracturing in the Trump base.  

It makes Trump look ungrateful to his oldest Washington ally, paranoid about the Meuller investigation, and cowardly in the way he's tried to tweet the AG to death.

Of course there are still many who maintain they are thankful that we finally have a president who 'runs things like a business' (lol) and when you don't do your job at a business you get fired.  Not sure what kind of businesses those folks have been around, but anyway, on social media and elsewhere I've seen quite a few in the Trump camp getting a little squirmy over this one.  

Hope the dumpster fire keeps rolling.  The more conflicts within the administration the less effective they are going to be at inflicting a crappy agenda onto the rest of us.  It's starting to get to the point where enough time has passed that they should be on the verge of getting thier shit together but with Spicer, Tillerson, Sessions all in the news for the wrong reasons in the past week the admin appears to be unraveling instead.  The more disorganized they continue to be, the more likely it is that this whole experience is not going to be a new era, but the going away party for the viability of hard right politics at the national level.  I'm in awe of the extent to which they've bungled this opportunity thus far, and I hope they continue to do so.

It will be interesting, if this continues, because it will reveal for certain who is with Trump to the end and who is extremely conservative and sees him as a means to an end. Sessions is maybe the one person (maybe Rush Limbaugh is there too) who has such strong bona fides with the hardcore conservative base and supported Trump from well-before it was clear he would the nomination, that he could maybe win a popularity fight against Trump with these people.

[Fez]

Fairly certain this violates a shit ton of laws; both the decision and the method of announcing it.

Also, "my Generals"

[Mexal]

26 minutes ago, Fez said:

Fairly certain this violates a shit ton of laws; both the decision and the method of announcing it.

Also, "my Generals"

Then there is this statement from an administration official. These assholes give zero fucks about actual people. The statement is a direct contradiction of what Trump said since this has nothing to do with military readiness but politics.

And of course the announces this right in the middle of the healthcare vote. 

https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/890202683721863168

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 hours ago, Fez said:

Responding from the last thread, Trump forcing Sessions to quit is functionally the same as firing him. 

It all depends on how he's forced out. If it's even somewhat amicable, there won't be a ton of blow back. If it isn't, well then all bets are off, but until Republicans in the Senate show some spine, I'm of the belief that it won't seriously damage Trump. And I'm also of the belief that Trump thinks the blow back from firing Sessions will be less than letting Mueller conclude his investigation. We don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians, but we can easily guess that he's done a lot of shady, and possibly illegal, business transaction that he never wants to see the light of day, which is why he said investigating his financial history is a red line. 

[Mexal]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It all depends on how he's forced out. If it's even somewhat amicable, there won't be a ton of blow back. If it isn't, well then all bets are off, but until Republicans in the Senate show some spine, I'm of the belief that it won't seriously damage Trump. And I'm also of the belief that Trump thinks the blow back from firing Sessions will be less than letting Mueller conclude his investigation. We don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians, but we can easily guess that he's done a lot of shady, and possibly illegal, business transaction that he never wants to see the light of day, which is why he said investigating his financial history is a red line. 

I really believe Trump is screwed long term. Whether it's Mueller, whoever replaces Mueller or Schneiderman, he's opened the can of worms by becoming President and being a fucking idiot about it with regards to Russia. I have zero doubts he has done illegal shit and I have zero doubts that it will be found, whether it's conspiracy, money laundering, fraud or sex trafficking (Trump Models). He's scared. The minute it was reported Mueller was going after his financials, the whole "Sessions recused himself 6 months ago" became a thing. The mantra "follow the money" will have real meaning here.

[OldGimletEye]

I think there has generally been a tradition that uniformed military officers in active service should remain non-political, at least publicly, if not privately. In fact, if I recall correctly, Eisenhower never voted, until he actually ran for President.

I think that tradition has served the country well. And I think most civilian leaders, at least the astute ones, should see the value in that.

Except, the Orange Swamp Thing:

 

Quote

Trump promised to try to restore higher levels of military funding but also urged the crowd of about 6,500 — many in uniform — to help him push this year’s budget, in which he said he will seek an additional $54 billion in defense spending, through Congress.

“I don’t mind getting a little hand, so call that congressman and call that senator and make sure you get it,” he said, to applause. “And by the way, you can also call those senators to make sure you get health care.”

But Trump’s brief appeal created a potentially awkward tableau at a commissioning event intended to be ceremonial — a commander in chief offering political remarks, and what could even be construed as an order, to the naval officers he commands.

................

More on The Orange Swamp Thing politicking at every event:

 

Quote

The plan seemed mutually beneficial: President Trump would bask in an adulatory slice of Americana, and the Boy Scouts of America would host yet another sitting president at its national jamboree.

But Mr. Trump’s decision to mix a barrage of political remarks into a speech that has traditionally been an uncontroversial stream of upbeat oratory has enraged many parents and former Scouts, thrust the Scouts once again into the middle of the nation’s culture wars and provided yet another example of the unusual and polarizing nature of the Trump presidency.

 

Quote

Although Scouting offices and social media accounts were besieged with messages condemning the president’s appearance, others celebrated Mr. Trump’s speech in West Virginia. “Trump gave a great speech to the Boy Scouts and they chanted back, “We love Trump!,” read a Twitter post in the name of Shaun Hough (“Philosopher, conservative, libertarian”). “I love it!!”

And if any one wonders why I have such a pissy attitude towards so called “libertarians”, here is another reason. If you are really worried about freedom, it seems to me you’d be fighting Trump, not singing his praises.

..............................

Now conservative sorts of people, why bother with what some guy said over 80 years ago? Because that same guy is often held up as an icon by conservative sorts of people. And some conservative sorts of people have often used this guys arguments. These technical and ideological fights, still matter conservative sorts of people.
 

Anyway interesting:

Quote

Despite conceding that there is a meaningful distinction between a primary and secondary deflation that might justify monetary expansion to counteract the latter, Hayek consistently opposed monetary expansion during the 1930s.

 

Quote

It is worth noting that Hayek’s assertion that the intensification of the depression would help to overcome the rigidities is an unfounded and unsupported supposition. Moreover, the notion that increased price flexibility in a depression would actually promote recovery has a flimsy theoretical basis, because, even if an equilibrium does exist in an economy dislocated by severe maladjustments — the premise of Austrian cycle theory — the notion that price adjustments are all that’s required for recovery can’t be proven even under the assumption of Walrasian tatonnement, much less under the assumption of incomplete markets with trading at non-equilibrium prices.

Walrasian tatonnement is bull. Unfortunately, it got too easily accepted, thanks to the RBC theory. It’s true that New Keynesian models kind of try to make a correction with the Calvo Fairy, but the Calvo fairy really doesn’t explain what is going on.

Quote

The intuitively appealing notion that markets self-adjust is an extrapolation from Marshallian partial-equilibrium analysis in which the disequilibrium of a single market is analyzed under the assumption that all other markets remain in equilibrium. The assumption of approximate macroeconomic equilibrium is a necessary precondition for the partial-equilibrium analysis to show that a single (relatively small) market reverts to equilibrium after a disturbance. In the general case in which multiple markets are simultaneously disturbed from an initial equilibrium, it can’t be shown that price adjustments based on excess demands in individual markets lead to the restoration of equilibrium.

This issue still isn’t well analyzed enough. How several markets adjust in historical time, not logical time, towards equilibrium needs to be better and more explicitly modeled.

Walrasian tatonnement occurs in logical time, not historical time. In real economies, the tendency towards equilibrium happens in historical time.

Analyzing several markets at once using one market in partial equilibrium or a belief in Walrasian tatonnment leads conservative sorts of people to make analytical errors, like, "golly let the market correct itself!" shortly after a major disturbance like the financial crises.

By the way, Alfred Marshall knew exactly what Walras was doing. In fact, Marshall was probably the better mathematician between to the two. Marshall, however, just though what Walras was doing was a fantasy.
 

Quote

I don’t accuse Hayek of malevolence, but I do question the judgment that led him to such a conclusion. In Fabricating the Keynesian Revolution, David Laidler described Hayek’s policy stance in the 1930s as extreme pessimism verging on nihilism. But in supporting deflation as a means to accomplish a political end, Hayek clearly seems to have crossed over the line separating pessimism from nihilism.

 

Quote

This harrowing episode seems worth recalling now, as the U.S. Senate is about to make decisions about the future of the highly imperfect American health care system, and many are explicitly advocating taking steps calculated to make the system (or substantial parts of it) implode or enter a “death spiral” for the express purpose of achieving a political/ideological objective. Policy-making and nihilism are a toxic mix, as we learned in the 1930s with such catastrophic results. Do we really need to be taught that lesson again?

I don’t think so. But, you know, some people.

In fairness to Hayek: His policy views were actually a bit more nuanced than some conservative goobers would have you believe. He actually did give some support to the idea that the government could legitimately provision out various forms of social insurance. People like Paul “Numbers Guy” Ryan will of course name drop, forgetting about those more nuanced views.

[Ormond]

8 hours ago, denstorebog said:

Meanwhile, away from the glamour and spotlight of the national level, Dems flipped yet another state level seat, this time in NH. It's still one seat out of hundreds needed, but the interesting part is the continued pattern of overperformance as well as crazy canvassing and fundraising, which could have taken a dip after Georgia, but apparently hasn't.

I think you have this a bit off as the Democrats did not "flip" the NH senate seat because it was won by a Democrat in November 2016. That person died in March, necessitating the special election. However, back in November the Democrats won the seat by 1% and they won the special election by 11%, so it is part of " the continued pattern of overperformance."

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

I really believe Trump is screwed long term. Whether it's Mueller, whoever replaces Mueller or Schneiderman, he's opened the can of worms by becoming President and being a fucking idiot about it with regards to Russia. I have zero doubts he has done illegal shit and I have zero doubts that it will be found, whether it's conspiracy, money laundering, fraud or sex trafficking (Trump Models). He's scared. The minute it was reported Mueller was going after his financials, the whole "Sessions recused himself 6 months ago" became a thing. The mantra "follow the money" will have real meaning here.

I agree that he's scared, and that's a tell that there is a there there, but until Republicans stand up to him in mass, I will remain unconvinced that cutting ties with Sessions will sink him. 

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree that he's scared, and that's a tell that there is a there there, but until Republicans stand up to him in mass, I will remain unconvinced that cutting ties with Sessions will sink him. 

Oh I agree. I don't believe firing Sessions or Mueller will do anything. I think the best case scenario is a wave election in 2018 and then ramp up the investigations in earnest. 

[maarsen]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree that he's scared, and that's a tell that there is a there there, but until Republicans stand up to him in mass, I will remain unconvinced that cutting ties with Sessions will sink him. 

Scared people do crazy, stupid things.  As was said before, you cannot out crazy Trump, but it is hard to out stupid him also. Let the games begin!

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Russia Warns Puppet of Consequences For Signing Off On Sanctions...

 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-26/russia-says-new-u-s-sanctions-killing-chances-for-improved-ties?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark