The Cut, Cut, Cut Act!

[Econoline]

[Burning Petard]

Huh? what is going on? Is this for real? I don't do facebook.

snailgate

[Econoline]

Sorry, SG. They say a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it.

(But the "tax cut" bill is, unfortunately, for real...though I don't think that's what you were asking about ...)

[Econoline]

“There are those who believe that if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.”

— William Jennings Bryan...in 1896

[BoSoxGal]

I've been laughing all day about the 300 billion dollar mistake the GOP wrote into the bill they didn't have time to properly read before voting on.



Stupid fuckers.

[rubato]

I started to laugh until I realized that their "fix" was going to be cutting $300 billions out of benefits for poor and middle class people. Or raising taxes on the same. Or some of each.

[rubato]

“There are those who believe that if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.”

— William Jennings Bryan...in 1896

[BoSoxGal]

I spent the day watching Congressional hearings, first the interrogation of Deputy AG Rosenstein by the crazed GOP and then the farce of the Joint Committee on Taxation's conference on the Cut, Cut, Cut Act.

My new hero is Representative Lloyd Doggett from Texas, he gave the GOP hell every chance he got, calling the process akin to the Duma, etc. He's badass!

The GOP is fucking insane. They're going to let Trump fire Mueller over some text messages and emails between FBI agents who think Trump's an idiot. They're not going to do anything about it when he does. The GOP has gone around the bend, entirely. They are absent any ethical compass anymore.

[Lord Jim]

I spent the day watching Congressional hearings, first the interrogation of Deputy AG Rosenstein by the crazed GOP

I started sounding alarm bells about the make-up of the GOP membership of the House Judiciary Committee a while back...

While the Republican congressional leadership in both Houses remains strongly supportive of Mueller, there's an unusually high concentration of Trumpist waterboys on this mission critical committee, (no matter who controls the House after next year's elections, at least the Chief Waterboy on the committee will be gone...Chairman Bob Goodlatte...he saw the handwriting on the wall after the Virginia legislature elections, and announced he wouldn't seek re-election the next day)

The display at that hearing yesterday by the GOP committee members was pathetic, embarrassing and disgraceful, and should cause deep concern for anyone who cares about the integrity of any potential impeachment inquiry...(which would begin in the House Judiciary Committee)

It's very clear that what they are attempting to do is to lay a predicate for being able to ignore the Mueller investigation's findings, no matter how damning or well documented the evidence...

No one can have any confidence whatsoever that these representatives will do their job properly, and bear faithful allegiance to the oath they took. They have decided to make themselves a tool to advance Trump's efforts to obstruct justice, rather than be what they are supposed to be; the instrument that would hold him accountable for it.

This is completely unacceptable...

I'll repeat what I said several months ago, when they voted unanimously to send that idiotic diversion effort letter to Rosenstein calling for him to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton...

Every single Republican member on this committee needs to be replaced. There are plenty of Republicans in the House who they could be replaced with who could be counted on to act with integrity and weigh the evidence fairly, but not one of these obstruction-enabling clowns is fit to sit in judgement on the most serious and important issue that can ever face a member of the House Judiciary Committee...

[Lord Jim]

I had the HJC hearing on in the background while I was working yesterday. As it turns out I could have changed the channel after the ranking Democratic committee member Jerry Nadler (who I used to refer to as "Jabba The Congressman" but who has in recent years slimmed down to nearly human dimensions; good for him.) had his question time for Rosenstein. Pretty much every relevant, important bit of information came out in those six minutes; the next couple of hours that followed was mostly a bunch of hot air:

Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein: "No Good Cause" To Fire Mueller



Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the man who appointed special counsel Mueller, said there is no good cause to fire him when questioned by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday.

REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY) According to the department, the Office of the Inspector General informed Special Counsel Mueller of the existence of these text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page on July 27th, 2017 -- the texts you sent us last night.

Mr. Mueller immediately concluded the Mr. Strzok could no longer participate in the investigation, and he was removed from the team the same day. Did Mr. Mueller take appropriate action in this case?

ROD ROSENSTEIN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, he did.

NADLER: Thank you. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you said that you would only fire Special Counsel Mueller for good cause, and that you had not seen any yet. Several months have passed since then. Have you seen good cause to fire Special Counsel Mueller?

ROSENSTEIN: No.

NADLER: Thank you. If you were ordered today to fire Mr. Mueller, what would you do?

ROSENSTEIN: As I've explained previously, I would follow the regulation. If there were good cause, I would act. If there were no good cause, I would not.

NADLER: And you see no good cause so far?

ROSENSTEIN: Correct.

Rosenstein also confirmed that there is no ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton in regard to Fusion GPS or former FBI Director James Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation that took place during the 2016 election cycle. Rosenstein acknowledged that there is no predicate for a criminal investigation into Clinton.

NADLER: Thank you.

On Monday, Ranking Member Cummings and I wrote you a letter, sir, about the majority's ongoing investigation into the investigation of Former Secretary Clinton. Without objection, I ask unanimous consent that our letter it be placed into the record.

GOODLATTE: Without objection, it will be made a part of the record.

NADLER: Thank you. For -- the first part of our letter discusses the department's failure to provide the minority with access to the documents you've already provided to the majority. Yes or no, will you commit to ensuring that the minority -- that we receive equal access to any materials you may provide this committee in the future?

ROSENSTEIN: Yes, and I believe we -- my understanding is that that information may have been provided to the...

(CROSSTALK)

NADLER: I'm (ph) not interested in the past at this point. Thank you. That's all I wanted (ph). I have to be -- I have a lot of questions. The majority of this committee, the White House and President Trump's private attorneys have all called for the Department of Justice to appoint a new special counsel to investigate a number of Hillary Clinton-related matters. I think we could benefit from your experience in how the special counsel regulation's work.

The regulations say the attorney general, or, in your case, the acting attorney general, will appoint the special counsel when you determine that, one, criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted, and two, the investigation either presents a conflict of interest to the department or some other strong public interest requires you to appoint this special counsel.

That first part, when he or she determines a criminal investigation of a personal matter is warranted -- is that part of the regulations optional?

ROSENSTEIN: No, that is a part of the regulations.

NADLER: OK, thank you. So a criminal investigation must first be determined to be warranted before you can assign a special counsel to the matter?

ROSENSTEIN: Yes.

NADLER: Thank you. And, at the Department of Justice, a criminal investigation requires an initial assessment and a preliminary review of the evidence?

ROSENSTEIN: Correct.

NADLER: Has that assessment been made with respect to former Director Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation?

ROSENSTEIN: I'm not going to comment on any investigations in the normal course. Before we made a determination, we would conduct an appropriate review.

NADLER: And I assume your answer be the same if I asked you about the FBI's interaction with Fusion GPS?

ROSENSTEIN: It would be the same for anything, yes.

NADLER: OK. Then, presuming for a moment -- presuming for a moment that the department has conducted an initial assessment and found no predicate for criminal investigation -- so, in plain English, there is no ongoing criminal investigation -- under this presumption, could you or the -- Attorney General Sessions simply appoint this special counsel to look into these matters?

ROSENSTEIN: No.

NADLER: As I said earlier, to my knowledge, there's been no credible factual or legal claim that anybody at the department violated any law by deciding not to bring charges or by attempting to meet with Fusion GPS.

If that is true, if there is no underlying criminal investigation because there is insufficient evidence of a crime, in this or any other case, do the regulations permit you to appoint a special counsel?

ROSENSTEIN: No.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... eller.html

So, to summarize:

Mueller has acted exactly correctly, Rosenstein sees no acceptable cause to fire him, and if he is ordered to do so he will refuse.

There has been no basis shown for any criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, and Rosenstein will not appoint Special Counsels willy-nilly just because some partisan gas bag wants one appointed. (whether that gas bag is a member of Congress, or a so called-President)

After that exchange, I could have switched over to the Mama's Family marathon on MeTV and not have missed anything important...

In fairness, there was also at least one Democratic committee member who also engaged in foolish gas baggery:

During Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Democratic Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez went into a lengthy monologue to ask him about the women accusing President Donald Trump of sexual misconduct, Mediaite reported.

"I'd like to ask you about sexual assault by the president of the United States of America," Gutierrez said, and then went into graphic detail about some of the allegations against Trump and asked Rosenstein whether he thinks there are "grounds for a criminal investigation or an ethics investigation against the president."

"Congressman, I am happy to take any questions regarding oversight of the Department of Justice with regard to that matter of any other allegation that you think warrants investigation," Rosenstein said. "I will invite you to submit the evidence and the department will review it if you think there is a federal crime."

Despite being pressed for an answer, Rosenstein said it "wouldn't be appropriate for him to weigh in on this" matter any further.

I certainly don't mean to minimize or be dismissive of the sexual misconduct accusations against Trump, but this simply was not the forum for it...

I'm not an attorney, (and I don't even play one on TV) but you don't have to Perry Mason to know that if any of the allegations against Trump haven't had the statute of limitations run out on them, the odds are overwhelming that any potential charges he might face would be state charges, not federal...

I thought Rosenstein responded with restraint and appropriateness to this bit of irrelevant showboating...

If the Democrats want to portray themselves as the party that approaches investigating Trump in a serious manner their cause is not helped by this sort of diversionary, pinheaded preening...

They need more Nadler and less Gutierrez...

[BoSoxGal]

Ok, so just to keep score: all of the GOP members of this committee are useless idiots, but there are at least a few good Democrats on it? I’d note that there was some very good questioning from Lieu and Swalwell, too; I was busy with some chores and didn’t see all of it but I’m assuming others made good points as well.

It’s a little disconcerting to have my fears about the GOP committee members fully supported by you, by the way.

[Lord Jim]

There was one Democrat, (I didn't catch which one) who I thought made an excellent counter point on the whole political contributions strawman tactic that some of the obstruction-enablers on the committee have been trying to use to discredit the Mueller investigation...

The Congressman ticked off the campaign contributions that some high ranking members of the Justice Department had made to Republicans, (FBI Director Wray, etc.) and then asked Rosenstein if he thought that meant these people were incapable of doing their jobs in a non-partisan professional manner...

Of course Rosenstein said, no, and the point was made...

[ex-khobar Andy]

Yes I thought the same about the Guttierez line of questioning - no matter how much I despise P45's sexual behavior, it's obviously a state issue to pursue it. I think Rosenthal could have clarified that for the congressman.

Unfortunately so much of this is theater with almost no attempt to get at the truth and the target audience is clearly the voters at home, in the same way that Sarah Huckabee Sanders' target audience is sitting in an ovoid office a few feet away. There was an interesting defense of Madam Press Secretary from her dad (Politico) and while I recognize that a father wants to defend his daughter, this one's a lulu.

[Big RR]

Is the vote done? I've been offline a lot of the day so I don't know.

[Burning Petard]

I can only hope there are still a couple of GOP senators who can think beyond their own campaign chest.

I saw on CNN today that the proposal will change the limit on mortgage interest deduction from one mill to $750,000. What kind of definition of 'middle class' includes people who are paying three-quarters of a million dollars in INTEREST in one year on their home mortgage?

snailgate

[Big RR]

Well if they were middle class they'd need to take a mortgage to raise that amount of capital--you wouldn't expect them to have it laying around would you?

[Lord Jim]

The vote has been tentatively set in the Senate for next Monday. (But of course if Mitch doesn't have at least the 50 votes he needs lined up, he'll delay it further)

As Republican tax vote nears, more senators waver

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s drive to win passage of a sweeping Republican tax bill in the U.S. Congress hit potential obstacles on Thursday as two more Republican senators insisted on changes, joining a list of lawmakers whose support is uncertain.

Florida’s Marco Rubio, a former presidential contender, told reporters on Capitol Hill that if the bill’s proposed refundability to taxpayers of the child tax credit is not expanded, “I‘m a no ... It has to be higher than $1,100.”

Rubio and Mike Lee of Utah are in talks with other senators about expanding child tax credit refundability, said Conn Carroll, a Lee spokesman. Lee is now “undecided on the tax bill as currently written,” Carroll said in a telephone interview.

The child tax credit now in the U.S. tax code is meant to lower the tax bills of working families with children.

As the fast-moving Republican tax package has evolved, it has tilted increasingly toward benefiting businesses and wealthy taxpayers, a trend that aides were saying privately is a growing concern for some lawmakers.

Provisions for offsetting the revenue costs of last-minute changes also were becoming worrisomely unclear, they said.

After resisting demands for weeks to cut the top income tax rate for the richest taxpayers, the bill’s authors did agree in recent days to lower it to 37 percent from 39.6 percent.

“My concern is that if you found the money to lower the top rate ... you can’t find a little bit to at least somewhat increase the refundable portion” of the child credit? Rubio said.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the White House will continue to work with Rubio on the child tax credit.

The headline feature of the bill is a deep cut to 21 percent from 35 percent of the corporate income tax rate, a step that corporate tax lobbyists have been pursuing for many years.

Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate tax committee and one of the bill’s chief authors, said the Senate would probably vote on a final Senate-House measure on Monday.

He said he hoped Rubio’s concerns could be addressed. “He’s important to us,” Hatch said. “I don’t know what leadership wants to do on that. It’s a problem, no question.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1E82VH

[rubato]

I can only hope there are still a couple of GOP senators who can think beyond their own campaign chest.

I saw on CNN today that the proposal will change the limit on mortgage interest deduction from one mill to $750,000. What kind of definition of 'middle class' includes people who are paying three-quarters of a million dollars in INTEREST in one year on their home mortgage?

snailgate

It is not $750,000 in interest it is the interest on a mortgage of $750,000. IMO that limit is still too high since it gives a proportionally greater benefit to high-income people.

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

[BoSoxGal]

I want to say , except it’s true.