Democrats boycott committee votes on Tom Price and Steve Mnuchin.
Lawmakers felt the two nominees had misled them at various points in the confirmation process and were looking for a leverage point to get additional explanations. On Tuesday morning, the aides said, committee Democrats met in Wyden’s office and agreed to go forward with the plan shortly before the hearing was set to begin.
Orin Hatch:
“I think they ought to stop posturing and acting like idiots,” he added. “Stop holding news conferences and come here and express yourself here and vote one way or the other.”
Sherrod Brown:
Brown said his effort wasn’t part of some broader political tactic to stop Trump but was centered on his problems with these particular nominees. He conceded that Democrats, being in the minority, can’t really hold up the nominees for long. Even though committee rules require at least one Democrat to be there to vote on a nominee, there’s no official punishment for breaking those rules.
“[Hatch] can go ahead and vote,” Brown said. “But do you want to break the committee rules and force out two people who lied to the committee about something as serious as robo-signings and buying and selling health care stocks as a health care congressman?”
Republicans used a parliamentary tactic to change the rules of the committee, allowing allowed them to pass the nominations on to the full Senate without Democrats in attendance.
First post in thread updated with current status of all appointees requiring confirmation.
From NY Times
The Senate on Wednesday confirmed Rex W. Tillerson as secretary of state. His confirmation vote received the most opposition of any secretary of state in the past 50 years.
Betsy DeVos’s confirmation is suddenly on thin ice. Her defeat would be almost unprecedented.
Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, both announced they won’t back DeVos, who featured in a rough confirmation hearing two weeks ago, because of her views on the public education system. That leaves 50 Republican senators who could support her. If every member of the Democratic caucus joined Collins and Murkowski in voting no, Vice President Mike Pence would be forced into a rare tie-breaking vote as president of the Senate.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/01/betsy-devos-confirmation-status/
Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said on the floor of the Senate that they would vote against Ms. DeVos.
“I will not, I cannot vote to confirm her as our nation’s next secretary of education,” Ms. Collins said.
Both senators, who voted to advance her selection out of committee, said they had serious reservations about her lack of familiarity with public schools. “I think that Mrs. DeVos has much to learn about our nation’s public schools,” Ms. Murkowski said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html
[Edited on 2/2/2017 by nebish]
The Democrats worst nightmare, an educated and informed populous, is about to be realized:
The U.S. Senate has confirmed Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education.
This is the part in the movie when the left-wing loons riot and destroy public property because they lose again.
The Democrats worst nightmare, an educated and informed populous
If you are including yourself in that group, you should probably already know that the noun you are referring to is spelled p-o-p-u-l-a-c-e.
The Democrats worst nightmare, an educated and informed populous
If you are including yourself in that group, you should probably already know that the noun you are referring to is spelled p-o-p-u-l-a-c-e.
________________________________________________________________________________________
If you had something more than a Public School education you would know that "populous" is grammatically correct.
Or did they not cover grammar in your basket weaving class?
The Democrats worst nightmare, an educated and informed populous
If you are including yourself in that group, you should probably already know that the noun you are referring to is spelled p-o-p-u-l-a-c-e.
________________________________________________________________________________________
If you had something more than a Public School education you would know that "populous" is grammatically correct.
Or did they not cover grammar in your basket weaving class?
Actually, again you are wrong.
From Merriam-Webster
Definition of populous
1
a : densely populated
b : having a large population
2
a : numerous
b : filled to capacity
Definition of populace
1
: the common people : masses
If you had more than a high school education, you would know that. 😛
The Democrats worst nightmare, an educated and informed populous
If you are including yourself in that group, you should probably already know that the noun you are referring to is spelled p-o-p-u-l-a-c-e.
________________________________________________________________________________________
If you had something more than a Public School education you would know that "populous" is grammatically correct.
Or did they not cover grammar in your basket weaving class?
12 years of private school. A.A. in Language and Literature. Currently finishing B.A. in same.
What's your degree in, being a d!ck to people online?
"Populous" is an adjective, therefore, you cannot refer to it as a group.
ex. New York City is the most populous city in America.
"Populace" is a noun, therefore, you can refer to it as a group.
ex. The Democrats worst nightmare is an educated and informed populace.
By the way, you figure out the difference between Kansas and Missouri yet?
The Democrats worst nightmare, an educated and informed populous
If you are including yourself in that group, you should probably already know that the noun you are referring to is spelled p-o-p-u-l-a-c-e.
________________________________________________________________________________________
If you had something more than a Public School education you would know that "populous" is grammatically correct.
Or did they not cover grammar in your basket weaving class?12 years of private school. A.A. in Language and Literature. Currently finishing B.A. in same.
What's your degree in, being a d!ck to people online?
"Populous" is an adjective, therefore, you cannot refer to it as a group.
ex. New York City is the most populous city in America."Populace" is a noun, therefore, you can refer to it as a group.
ex. The Democrats worst nightmare is an educated and informed populace.By the way, you figure out the difference between Kansas and Missouri yet?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Stay in school son. You have a lot to learn.
Sen. Jeff Sessions is confirmed as Attorney General of the United States.
Next.
By the way, you figure out the difference between Kansas and Missouri yet?
Royals vs Cardinals? Chefs vs no one?
😛 😛 😛 
The Democrats worst nightmare, an educated and informed populous
If you are including yourself in that group, you should probably already know that the noun you are referring to is spelled p-o-p-u-l-a-c-e.
________________________________________________________________________________________
If you had something more than a Public School education you would know that "populous" is grammatically correct.
Or did they not cover grammar in your basket weaving class?12 years of private school. A.A. in Language and Literature. Currently finishing B.A. in same.
What's your degree in, being a d!ck to people online?
"Populous" is an adjective, therefore, you cannot refer to it as a group.
ex. New York City is the most populous city in America."Populace" is a noun, therefore, you can refer to it as a group.
ex. The Democrats worst nightmare is an educated and informed populace.By the way, you figure out the difference between Kansas and Missouri yet?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Stay in school son. You have a lot to learn.
Being that you can't tell the difference between a noun and an adjective, you should probably go back and finish fifth grade.
I love having Muleman around. He makes a huge grammatical error and then tells those who correct him that they need to stay in school, LOL!!!! Keep posting for us Muleman. You are doing our work for us, LOL!!!
Anyway, in all honesty, I don't like how Democrats are simply blocking or opposing everything Trump does. By engaging in that behavior, they are doing the same thing Republicans did to Obama. Dems need to take Obama's advice - take the high road. Let Trump do his thing. Do all the talking in 4 years. By opposing everything he does, they end up opposing nothing. The constant opposition will only make it harder for Dems to win in 2020.
Elizabeth Warren is the perfect example of what not to do. While I support what she stands for, her style is more damaging than helpful. How can Democrats speak out against Trump's bullying if they support Warren bullying people as well? I think her treatment of former Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf was appalling. Stumpf deserved to be forced out of the company, and maybe he should be brought up on charges, but the man deserved more professionalism from her and he certainly deserved a chance to speak, which he didn't get because of her interruptions. Taking the high road is the path to a victory in 2020, not constant opposition as retaliation. That's why I don't want Warren as the nominee in 2020 - she won't win. Obama inspired millions of people to vote who never would've voted before, hence his easy victories. He owned the left, plus added a whole new segment of voters. Warren can't do that.
The Democrats worst nightmare, an educated and informed populous
If you are including yourself in that group, you should probably already know that the noun you are referring to is spelled p-o-p-u-l-a-c-e.
________________________________________________________________________________________
If you had something more than a Public School education you would know that "populous" is grammatically correct.
Or did they not cover grammar in your basket weaving class?12 years of private school. A.A. in Language and Literature. Currently finishing B.A. in same.
What's your degree in, being a d!ck to people online?
"Populous" is an adjective, therefore, you cannot refer to it as a group.
ex. New York City is the most populous city in America."Populace" is a noun, therefore, you can refer to it as a group.
ex. The Democrats worst nightmare is an educated and informed populace.By the way, you figure out the difference between Kansas and Missouri yet?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Stay in school son. You have a lot to learn.
Being that you can't tell the difference between a noun and an adjective, you should probably go back and finish fifth grade.
Bhawk, it is obvious that you went to liberal schools.
The Democrats worst nightmare, an educated and informed populous
If you are including yourself in that group, you should probably already know that the noun you are referring to is spelled p-o-p-u-l-a-c-e.
________________________________________________________________________________________
If you had something more than a Public School education you would know that "populous" is grammatically correct.
Or did they not cover grammar in your basket weaving class?12 years of private school. A.A. in Language and Literature. Currently finishing B.A. in same.
What's your degree in, being a d!ck to people online?
"Populous" is an adjective, therefore, you cannot refer to it as a group.
ex. New York City is the most populous city in America."Populace" is a noun, therefore, you can refer to it as a group.
ex. The Democrats worst nightmare is an educated and informed populace.By the way, you figure out the difference between Kansas and Missouri yet?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Stay in school son. You have a lot to learn.
Being that you can't tell the difference between a noun and an adjective, you should probably go back and finish fifth grade.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
There is a big difference between word types and word usage.
You obviously have not learned that yet.
Stay in school son. You have a lot to learn.
I love having Muleman around. He makes a huge grammatical error and then tells those who correct him that they need to stay in school, LOL!!!! Keep posting for us Muleman. You are doing our work for us, LOL!!!
Anyway, in all honesty, I don't like how Democrats are simply blocking or opposing everything Trump does. By engaging in that behavior, they are doing the same thing Republicans did to Obama. Dems need to take Obama's advice - take the high road. Let Trump do his thing. Do all the talking in 4 years. By opposing everything he does, they end up opposing nothing. The constant opposition will only make it harder for Dems to win in 2020.
Elizabeth Warren is the perfect example of what not to do. While I support what she stands for, her style is more damaging than helpful. How can Democrats speak out against Trump's bullying if they support Warren bullying people as well? I think her treatment of former Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf was appalling. Stumpf deserved to be forced out of the company, and maybe he should be brought up on charges, but the man deserved more professionalism from her and he certainly deserved a chance to speak, which he didn't get because of her interruptions. Taking the high road is the path to a victory in 2020, not constant opposition as retaliation. That's why I don't want Warren as the nominee in 2020 - she won't win. Obama inspired millions of people to vote who never would've voted before, hence his easy victories. He owned the left, plus added a whole new segment of voters. Warren can't do that.
Be as nice to them as you want. They'll still hate you.
The left needs to learn this.
Tom Price confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Next: AMF Obamacare.
Be as nice to them as you want. They'll still hate you.
The left needs to learn this.
That's fine. I don't need them to like me or any other liberal. My only goal is to have Trump lose in 2020, and I think that will be harder to achieve if they continue down this road. We need a moderate liberal with a laid back temperament.
In normal times i think Mike Flynn would be gone. Not for talking to the Russian Ambassador, but for not telling Pence or Trump. But these are not normal times.
Be as nice to them as you want. They'll still hate you.
The left needs to learn this.
That's fine. I don't need them to like me or any other liberal. My only goal is to have Trump lose in 2020, and I think that will be harder to achieve if they continue down this road. We need a moderate liberal with a laid back temperament.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The "moderate liberals" have been shut down by The DNC and party elite.
The Democrats seem to be going hard-left with a take no prisoners attitude.
That, of course, is why the Democratic Party is in such disarray.
Be as nice to them as you want. They'll still hate you.
The left needs to learn this.
That's fine. I don't need them to like me or any other liberal. My only goal is to have Trump lose in 2020, and I think that will be harder to achieve if they continue down this road. We need a moderate liberal with a laid back temperament.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The "moderate liberals" have been shut down by The DNC and party elite.
The Democrats seem to be going hard-left with a take no prisoners attitude.
That, of course, is why the Democratic Party is in such disarray.
You are funny. Not informed at all, but pretty funny.
Labor Secretary appointee Andrew Pudzer has withdrawn himself for consideration. As many as 12 Republicans had been rumored to oppose him along with fierce Democrat opposition.
Susan Collins (R ME) is expected to vote against Scott Pruitt for EPA. Joe Manchin (D WV) is expected to vote for him.
John McCain (R AZ) plans to vote against Mick Mulvaney for Office of Management and Budget.
Just imagine the difficulty if they had to get 60 votes to overcome potential fillibuster on these nominations!
strange times 🙁
The "moderate liberals" have been shut down by The DNC and party elite.
The Democrats seem to be going hard-left with a take no prisoners attitude.
I agree. And it's a mistake for them to go that route.
That, of course, is why the Democratic Party is in such disarray.
You see it as disarray, but a loss in an election does not equal "disarray". They lost. Nothing more, nothing less. This is another example of you letting your pent up emotions create a distorted view of reality. You should really check that out.
Couldn't decide whether to post this here or in the dying Flynn thread.
It's a bit long, but some good insights, in my opinion.
What Does It Mean to Have 'Repeated Contacts' With Russian Intelligence?
A Russian investigative journalist parses a murky concept.
KATHY GILSINAN FEB 15, 2017 GLOBAL
Tuesday evening, The New York Times reported that associates of then-candidate Donald Trump, including within his presidential campaign, had had “repeated” contact with Russian intelligence officials, and that American intelligence and law-enforcement officials had records of intercepted communications to prove it. The news came a day after Michael Flynn resigned as Trump’s national security adviser after having misled the vice president about the substance of his own conversations with the Russian ambassador prior to Trump’s inauguration.
The nature of the contacts the Times disclosed Tuesday were murky; the four current and former officials who described them to the paper declined to specify what, exactly, those contacts entailed; how many people were involved and who all of them were; and what their aims might have been. American intelligence had been investigating the possibility of collusion between Trump aides and Russian intelligence, but the Times report noted that the officials interviewed had “seen no evidence of such cooperation.”
The only individual officials identified by name to the Times as being on the intercepted calls was Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, who denied having “knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers,” maintaining that “it’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’” The Times noted that Manafort has done business in Russia—indeed, reports surrounding his dealings with a pro-Russian party in Ukraine helped lead to his exit from the Trump campaign last August—and that “it is not unusual for American businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society.”
What, then, might it mean to have “repeated contact” with Russian intelligence? I put this and other questions to the Russian investigative journalist Andrei Soldatov, who along with Irina Borogan has written several books on Russian intelligence. What follows is a condensed and edited transcript of our conversation, conducted by phone and email.
Kathy Gilsinan: What is the range of things it could mean to have “repeated contacts with Russian intelligence,” to use The New York Times’s words? What, if anything, can we learn from reports that American intelligence agencies are investigating contacts between Trump campaign aides and Russian intelligence?
Andrei Soldatov: We do not know actually what that does mean. The problem is that you have [intelligence agents] almost everywhere—you have them in the administration of the president, in the parliament, in the ministries, and in big corporations. They are FSB [formerly KGB] and other secret services agents, some of them former, some acting. Sometimes these people are sent openly and officially, and sometimes they are sent undercover.
That was a special thing for [Russian President] Vladimir Putin in the beginning of his very first term: Fill key positions [with] these people, because he believes he can trust only these people, and he gave them this big status. And the problem is that they say to you that they are all former [intelligence officials], but to draw a line between a former and acting officer is impossible in many cases. The Russian secret services have the practice of “attaching” officers under cover—meaning that you have [an intelligence officer] placed in some position, on top of a particular company, or particular bank, or particular ministry, to oversee what’s going on there—and the cover could be the retirement. It’s a state secret to know the actual status.
Gilsinan: Is there even any conception of how big, say, the FSB is? Do we know how many people work for the FSB?
Soldatov: No, it’s also a state secret. Why it’s so different from the U.S. intelligence is because [Russia has] a central apparatus—people based in Moscow—but also we have a huge regional [intelligence] empire. Every region has a so-called regional department of the FSB. And the regional departments have the right to do exactly the same thing. They can send people undercover, they can attach people to local businesses, and it’s a very murky area. There is no way to say how many people they have. So some people say that maybe in the central apparatus it’s about maybe 6,000 people. But [counting the regional departments] it might be about 70,000 people. [And] we are talking only about the FSB, but [Russia has] lots of security services—we can also talk about SVR, the Russian foreign intelligence service. We can talk about the SBP, which is a presidential security service. We can talk about some other people.
And most of them have this practice of having attached officers. Actually it’s a very Soviet practice. The idea was to prevent foreign espionage. But they saved this practice and improved [it] and [for] Putin, it was his personal solution. He decided to send more people than was done in the 1990s. It’s mostly deputy people—deputy chief, deputy minister—but sometimes it’s the first position.
Gilsinan: You wouldn’t necessarily have to be having contact with the government as such to be having contact with Russian intelligence, right?
Soldatov: Right, you might be in contact with some oil company or some gas company, and you might meet plenty of these people.
Gilsinan: So you yourself have had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence.
Soldatov: Well, I’m a journalist, obviously. I’m writing about these people.
Gilsinan: If I’m a random person just going about my business in Moscow, say, am I having contact with Russian intelligence all the time without knowing it?
Soldatov: It could happen, if you are in contact with the Russian high-level bureaucracy. If, say, your business involved contacts with so-called state corporations, oil and gas corporations, or big important things for the Russian Federation, your chances are very high. If your business is something about retail or some small or middle-level companies, well it’s not that high.
Gilsinan: What are “senior” Russian intelligence officials, with whom the Times says Trump aides had contact? How significant is it for them to be “senior”?
Soldatov: Once again, it's a tricky thing. While mid-level officers tend to be attached to small companies, generals, big shots, tend to be attached to big corporations, given high positions in the ministries and so on. So the higher your contacts are, the more chances you meet a “senior” official.
Gilsinan: Have Russian intelligence officials had contacts with U.S. presidential campaigns in the past? How new is Russian interference in U.S. presidential campaigns more broadly?
Soldatov: There was an interesting story recalled by Bob Baer, a former CIA officer, in his book See No Evil. He [recounts how] a contact of his met with Alexander Korzhakov, the chief of the [Russian] President’s Security Service, and Pavel Borodin, chief of the Kremlin’s administration, who offered to help Bill Clinton’s campaign. Baer refused, of course. But the story reflects how the secret services in Russia have been viewing the U.S. election, as something which could be “helped”—a rather simplistic approach.
Gilsinan: What are your biggest lingering questions about the recent reports? What do you think is not known here? What do you think people should be investigating? What do you think is wrong?
Soldatov: Well of course everybody doing business with Russia, and the Kremlin, they know that there are a lot of people from Russian intelligence, and the problem is that these people often act as businessmen. It’s not always about government intelligence. The biggest question is whether Trump and his people [understood] that [Russian intelligence had] an interest in what goes on in the United States and the elections. It’s not enough to say that this guy spoke to some people from the Russian intelligence, or from the foreign intelligence. The thing is to know, does he actually understand this? That no, these people are not just businessmen, not just officials, that they try to get information.
Gilsinan: You think it’s just as plausible that it could’ve been a total accident?
Soldatov: I think it’s still a question. As far as I [can tell] from The New York Times story, there are actually texts of intercepts of conversations [that] might give a lot of help to understand what’s actually happened.
Alexander Acosta is the new Labor Secretary nominee
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/r-alexander-acosta-trump-labor-secretary-pick/
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-trump-labor-acosta-20170216-story.html
Updated.
Deputy Attorney General likely has never had so much interest
Director of National Security Dan Coats finally confirmed 3/15.
Labor and Ag Secretaries Acosta and Perdue approved out of committee 3/30 awaiting full Senate vote.
Trade Rep Lighthizer still awaits committee vote.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein approved out of committee by 12-1 vote awaits full Senate vote.
The only opposition to Rosenstein came from Sen. Richard Blumenthal. The Connecticut Democrat said Rosenstein has an "impressive background," but he opposed him because he has not committed to appoint an outside investigator on Russia.
"I would vote for him if he agreed to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Russian interference in our past election," Blumenthal said.
Rosenstein told the committee last month he would make that decision only after being briefed on the matter.
