Two men tell Senate not Kavanaugh but they who assaulted Ford


I say she is a no show. But if she does I am at the ready.

Two men tell Senate that they, not Kavanaugh, assaulted Ford


Two men tell Senate that they, not Kavanaugh, assaulted Ford … Man apologizes for making false allegation against Kavanaugh … men have come forward to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to claim that they are..

Two men have come forward to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to claim that they are the ones who actually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford during a house party in 1982 — and not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Republicans on the committee released a timeline of events late Wednesday, which included details about their interactions with the two men who admitted to the attacks.

Just getting more and more bizarre. Thanks GOP you really done yourself something.


By now we are up to how many accusers against Kavanaugh? By the time this posts I am sure it will be more. No need to be clever here. I have the popcorn at the ready. My blood pressure meds. I am a go. Now for the hearing? Will Ford show? Doubtful at this point.

Of all the creatures who are attacking Kavanaugh, Blumenthal is the most disgusting.

Why we should believe Blumenthal? Let’s nail this fellow.

Blumenthal Repeatedly Says ‘It’s Not About Me’ When Asked to Respond to Trump’s Vietnam Attack

Spartacus Booker and sidekick Harris – Going to be one heck of a rodeo





Vote tally count Spending Bill – So much for the Art of the Deal

So much for the “Art of the Deal.” One can only wonder if Trump isn’t getting worned down with the constant attacks. How else to explain why he seemed to have so little interest in being involved in the process. Why wasn’t he out on the stump arguing for a decent bill?

A real embarrassment for Trump after he was out looking at the wall models last week in California.

Does anyone really think that McConnell and Ryan just showed up and told him that this was the way it was going to be? No Wall? Wait until next September when this whole spending thing starts up gain during the election cycle. The GOPers can kiss the House good-bye and you can be sure a Democrat House will impeach Trump and it will be the shot heard ’round the world.

Update: The big Ryanesque spending bill isn’t as bad as I thought last night. It’s worse. Forbids hiring more ICE agents. Limits detention beds, making “catch & release” more likely. Call 202 456-1111 if you want to urge Trump to veto

This sums it up:

Democratic leaders celebrate budget bill: “We’re able to accomplish more in the minority”

Here are the individual votes:

Lawmakers approved the bill in a 256-167 vote on Thursday, with majorities in each caucus backing the measure. Ninety Republicans and 77 Democrats voted against the bill. A large numbers of conservative Republicans were among those voting no over the measure’s massive price tag and the lack of transparency in the bill-writing process.


Mar 23 63 (65-32) Agreed to On the Motion H.R. 1625

For individual votes and to find out how your Senator voted go


House of Representatives:

For individual votes and to find out how your House Rep voted go to Gov Track


 House Vote #127
 Mar 22, 2018 12:59 p.m.
 Passed 256/167
This was the House vote on the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (preprint text). With this vote, the House replaced the text of H.R. 1625, formerly the TARGET Act, with entirely new provisions related to funding the federal government.

Money in Politics – Donor Information on Congress

Open Secrets has interesting data on the major contributors for all Senate and House members. Influence, earmarks and Lobbying. It is fascinating that the GA 6 special election to be held June 20, 2017 is awash in money. The Dems apparently counting on this election to shore up their losing streak. $8 Mil raised opposed to less than half a Mil for the GOP as of the end of March.

“Here’s the place for head-to-head campaign finance comparisons of candidates in every U.S. House and Senate race since the 1999-2000 election cycle. You can explore the relative size of their contributions, the top industries and interest groups supporting them, where the money came from geographically, and much more”.

View our coverage of special elections held in 2017.

Funding of candidate reports.

See how much incumbents, challengers and those gunning for open seats — including in this year’s special elections — have raised so far. Be sure an chose what year for each candidate to get info.

SEE THE DATA HERE  for all races

Try this one as an example:  Charles Schumer below:

On This Page

FBI Comey pushed back probe origins of ‘Salacious material’ requested by Trump

Interesting isn’t it that the Comey prepared remarks distributed yesterday included statements on the sex act nonsense against Trump. All of which would easily explain why Trump met privately with him at the least. If I were Trump, I would be furious as well as to why Comey didn’t want to go after the origins. Add to his angst that McCain confirms he handed over Trump documents to FBI | 12NEWS … Here goes:

Former FBI Director James B. Comey admitted that he pushed back against a request from President Donald Trump to possibly investigate the origins of “salacious material” that the agency possessed in the course of its investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The detail was included in Comey’s prepared remarks set to be delivered Thursday to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and released ahead of Comey’s appearance.


In Comey’s prepared remarks, the former FBI chief says that following a January 6 Oval Office meeting with Intelligence Community leaders, Comey “remained alone with the President Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.”’

It is clear Comey was referring to the dossier since he writes the “salacious and unverified” material was about to be publically reported by the news media.

He writes:

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.

Four days later, the dossier was published by BuzzFeed. 

Also, in his statement summarizing his conversation with Trump, Comey refers to Russian prostitutes, a key component of the dossier:

He said he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia, and had always assumed he was being recorded when in Russia. 

The document contains wild and unproven claims that the Russians had information on Trump and sordid sexual acts, including the mocked claim that Trump hired prostitutes and had them urinate on a hotel room bed.

Comey writes:

During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on FBI oversight last month, Comey repeatedly refused to answer questions about his agency’s ties to the dossier.

More at Breitbart

Fauxcahontas Warren accuses Trump candidates of lying on applications

Here’s the kicker: Warren lied about being Native American when applying for Professorships at Ivy League Universities. While she berates those who make a few bucks playing the game, it turns out she can play it as well. Fauxcahontas Warren flipped houses, was a GOPer, became a multimillionaire first. The irony cannot be lost that after research, her great-great- great-grandfather was indeed not of Indian origin, but was part of the round-up of the Cherokees. Fauxcahontas Warren ancestor rounded up Cherokees for Trail of Tears. She just might want to think about her own truth before attacking others.



However, Warren, when applying for professorships at Ivy League Universities, told the schools that she had Native American lineage, a claim for which there was no evidence.

The Boston Globe reported in 2012 that Warren had informed university officials she was descended from Native Americans, but it had not played a role in her hiring:

Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren acknowledged for the first time late Wednesday night that she told Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania that she was Native American, but she continued to insist that race played no role in her recruitment.

“At some point after I was hired by them, I . . . provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard,’’ she said in a statement issued by her campaign. “My Native American heritage is part of who I am, I’m proud of it and I have been open about it.’’

Warren’s statement is her first acknowledgment that she identified herself as Native American to the Ivy League schools. While she has said she identified herself as a minority in a legal directory, she has carefully avoided any suggestion during the last month that she took further actions to promote her purported heritage.

When the issue first surfaced last month, Warren said she only learned Harvard was claiming her as a minority when she read it in the Boston Herald.

Warren’s new statement came after the Globe asked her campaign about documents it obtained Wednesday from Harvard’s library showing that the university’s law school began reporting a Native American female professor in federal statistics for the 1992-93 school year, the first year Warren worked at Harvard, as a visiting professor.

Given that Harvard boasted it had a female Native American professor on staff during Warren’s first year on the job, Warren’s claims that she did not lie on her application are dubious at best, but most likely false.


Obama Judicial Nominee Who Accused Reagan of ‘Bigotry’ Faces Confirmation Vote

We won the Senate. Is there any reason we are still filling up Federal Judgeships with these sycophants of Obama? She has been floating around out there since last February, why not stall her out for one more year? Are you telling me the GOP can’t insist that Obama find one that is acceptable and willing not to play the race card?

President Obama’s nominee for a federal judgeship in Minnesota accused the Reagan administration of “bigotry” in her writing for the prestigious UCLA Law Review in 1989.


Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Wilhelmina Wright, who is expected to win Senate confirmation to federal District Court in her state next Tuesday, wrote the accusation shortly before graduating Harvard Law School.

Wright accused Chief Justice William Rehnquist and President Reagan of aiding “white people [who] are running and hiding” from desegregated public schools.

“Their mad scramble is aided by a Chief Justice who owned racially restrictive property and a Presidential administration that believes bigotry, poverty, and poor educational opportunities for most public school students are the unavoidable fruits of a ‘thriving’ free market economy.”

Later in the same law review, but while addressing a different topic, Wright wrote that “the sanctity of property and the belief in the hierarchy of races” undergirds racism in America.

Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, both D-Minn., have shepherded Wright through the Senate process afterrecommending her nomination to President Obama last February.

H/T: and more at Daily Signal

The Senate leaders coup that blocked public debate on Omnibus budget bill UPDATE



Here’s the

There are plenty of blogs out there that will give you the horrendous details that are starting to be revealed in the soon to be passed Ryan budget bill. So let me give you the coup that went down with McConnell at the helm to make sure we will never ever have a recorded vote on any amendments nor hear a word on the Senate floor in debate.That there would be not one Senator available to object. Here we go:. (Just a taste of of it)

ICYMI: In Omnibus, Congress Provides $1.6B to Resettle Illegal Immigrants Arriving at Border Through 2018

With a mere 68 seconds of almost incomprehensible Senate legalese, the two top Republican and Democratic leaders together blocked any budget amendments, televised debate and roll-call votes over the myriad unpopular or popular, effective, dysfunctional or counterproductive measures in the $1.1 trillion 2016 omnibus spending plan.

On Friday morning, likely at 10.00 a.m., $1.1 trillion in spending will be swept through the Senate in only a few minutes, without debate, public observation, record-keeping, cheering and especially without dramatic amendments and unpopular roll-call votes that would be tracked, counted, measured and replayed over and over again in 2016 attack ads.

The leaders’ surprise coup can be seen here, at 1.01 p.m, or 3.02:00 into this C-SPAN video, when Majority Leader Minority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) jointly, quickly and quietly walked onto the Senate floor while a few other Senators were delivering minor speeches sought by their constituents or lobbyists.

“I see that the [GOP] Majority Leader and the Democratic leader are on the Senate floor and I believe it would be appropriate for me to yield to them,” said Maine Republican, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

“I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives a message from the House to accompany H.R. 2029, the Majority Leader be recognized to make a motion to concur on the House amendments, further that if a cloture motion is filed on that motion, that notwithstanding Rule 22, the Senate immediately vote on the motion to invoke cloture, that if cloture is invoked, all post-cloture time be yielded back, the Majority Leader or his Designate be recognized to make a motion to table the first House amendment, that following the disposition of that motion, and if a budget point of order is raised, the Majority Leader is designated to be recognized to make a motion to waive the point of order, and that following disposition of that motion and the Senate the vote on motion to concur on the House amendments with no further motions or amendments in order, unless the motion to table is successful, or the budget point of order is sustained, and with two minutes of debate, equally divided, in the usual form, prior to each vote.”

Is there…” asked the Senator presiding over the event, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE , Republican from Nebraska.

She was trying to ask if any Senator present objected to McConnell’s plan.

The leaders’ “unanimous consent” no-amendment, no-debate plan would fail if even one determined Senator was on the floor, and ready to withhold consent — perhaps Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who had earlier promised to extend a debate —  but the two leaders had timed their coup perfectly, and there was no Senator there ready to object or withhold their consent.

“No objection,” quickly responded Reid, off-camera, before Fischer could even finish her sentence, and before any other Senator rushed through the doors to stop the entire process with a single objection.

“No objection, so ordered,” Fischer said.

That was it.


FISA Judge: ‘If Americans don’t know they are being spied on, no harm’

Last week there was a Senate vote that got zero coverage. An effort to rein in the abuse of spying on America. The GOP had no interest in supporting it. Now we get a bit of insight as to the impartiality of the FISA court.

Vote Tally Count Senate NSA Data Spying restrictions voted down 

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a sweeping overhaul of the once-secret National Security Agency program that collects records of Americans’ phone calls in bulk.

Democrats and a handful of Republicans who supported the measure failed to secure the 60 votes they needed to take up the legislation. The vote was 58 to 42 for consideration.

Now I give you this absurd argumentt.

You can’t have your privacy violated if you don’t know your privacy is violated.”

“Oral arguments presented by Yahoo Counsel (Mark Zwillinger) and the US Solicitor General Gregory Garre” reveal a frightening new govt. argument.

Garre then goes on to explain why the govt. feels it should have warrantless access to US persons’ communications, routed through and stored at US servers.He refers to satellite communications — something in use when FISA was enacted in 1978.

. . .But all of this pales in light of the words of Judge Morris S. Arnold. If they sound familiar, they are. This was the argument made, and roundly ridiculed, by Congressman Mike Rodgers, chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Vladeck: But who would be complaining?

Rogers: Somebody who’s privacy was violated. You can’t have your privacy violated if you don’t know your privacy is violated.”

Read more at Investment watch blog with legal documents and video.

Vote tally count Keystone pipeline Senate vote defeated

Nov 18 280 (59-41) Rejected On Passage of the Bill S. 2280

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113th Congress – 2nd Session

Click on “blue” icons below for individual votes

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.2280 )
Vote Number: 280 Vote Date: November 18, 2014, 05:55 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Bill Defeated
Measure Number: S. 2280
Measure Title: A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Vote Counts: YEAs 59
NAYs 41

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State


Young Bucks vs the Old Bulls as the Senate Committee Chairs line up

I am not a particular fan of Politico, but for those of us who are savoring last week’s GOP win, and are political wonks, this read may be just for you. In this special report, an excellent review of potential Chairs of various Senate Committees is given with the history of the candidates. The ups and downs, the potential battles on various issues are covered as well. It looks like we are going to be in for some interesting hearings. I suggest scanning down the linked article until one gets to the Committees. Here we go:

The Republican Party’s war within just opened a new front: Senate committees.

As the party takes control of the Senate, establishment Republicans like Thad Cochran, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley and John McCain are about to pick up the chairman’s gavel, setting up a classic conflict between governing and campaigning with the party’s White House-aspiring young guns like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

Here, then, is POLITICO’s guide to how it will play out as the Senate’s committees change hands.

Young guns vs. gavels

A guide to the Republican Senate’s new war zones.

The survey looks at the 16 legislative committees, identifying the likely chairmen and interviewing many of them and their top aides. The story that emerges is one of ideological divide and tactical debate, with an inherent tension in the committees — between the gavel holders and the 2016 stars — making hearing rooms worth watching as Republicans try to prove they aren’t just a party of no.

Read more: Politico

%d bloggers like this: