true....... but in red state and red territory!
I think even some of your "comrades" are starting to see issues here
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
true....... but in red state and red territory!
I think even some of your "comrades" are starting to see issues here
but who put them there....the right wing candidate....you guys don't have anyone with morale's or America in mind.....the left got out and voted and put the dem there....true lamb is questionable as a real Dem....but you didn't get your trump puppet
BTW I noticed neither of your candidates campaigned on the big tax break??????
Mmmmm yes......but where would that fit in with the last 2 dem's wins? those 2 areas have been red for over 30 years....guess someone forgot to tell them that policy!
nongolfer
Male
I guess there was surprising (for some) news yesterday, so not being very well informed, I quickly turned on CNN (I like to see what the opposition is up to).
Donald J Trump wrongfully fired an American hero, Andrew George McCabe. Trump intervened himself in the middle of the DOJ/FBI matter (matter, not investigation), and unilaterally fired McCabe to stymie the investigation into Trump's criminal activity, of which there is vast evidence. The brave and honest heroes of DOJ/FBI were attached viciously via Twitter, and no brave law enforcement official is equipped for such an attack. Certainly a more ******* attack than being shot at. Not sure how this helps since McCabe will likely now testify against Trump, but this is why I turn on CNN, becuase I need to become informed.
We have not seen anything like this since Richard Milhous Nixon.
This will go down in history as the beginning of the end for one Mr. Donald John Trump.
I know I said a prayer this morning for Andrew George McCabe, his wife (a completely innocent bystander) and family. I am certain history will remember Andrew George McCabe favorably, and Donald John Trump will be led out of the White House shackled and chained.
Donald J Trump wrongfully fired an American hero, Andrew George McCabe. Trump intervened himself in the middle of the DOJ/FBI matter (matter, not investigation), and unilaterally fired McCabe to stymie the investigation into Trump's criminal activity, of which there is vast evidence. The brave and honest heroes of DOJ/FBI were attached viciously via Twitter, and no brave law enforcement official is equipped for such an attack. Certainly a more ******* attack than being shot at. Not sure how this helps since McCabe will likely now testify against Trump, but this is why I turn on CNN, becuase I need to become informed.
We have not seen anything like this since Richard Milhous Nixon.
This will go down in history as the beginning of the end for one Mr. Donald John Trump.
I know I said a prayer this morning for Andrew George McCabe, his wife (a completely innocent bystander) and family. I am certain history will remember Andrew George McCabe favorably, and Donald John Trump will be led out of the White House shackled and chained.
Whaaaat? A loss for words?
usually happens when the facts don't go your way!
usually happens when the facts don't go your way!
the world can only hope!
you MUST BE A REPUBLICAN...you have that "odd" way of putting a slant on the facts!
well would love to.....keep this up????...nah.....anyway I have a yard to mow and turfbuilder to put down
I wouldn't say that...because if trump had anything to do with...half of it would have died from malnutrition and the rest would have just left!
Republicans Got Greedy With Gerrymandering. Now It's Coming Back To Haunt Them.
Sam Levine,HuffPost
When Thomas Hofeller travelled across the country at the beginning of the decade to talk to lawmakers about the redistricting process, he brought a warning: “Don’t get cute.”
Republicans were fresh off a remarkably successful effort to take control of state legislatures so they could control the redistricting process ― a significant victory, because redistricting is normally only done every 10 years. Hofeller, a veteran Republican redistricting consultant and mapmaker, cautioned lawmakers against drawing “stupid irregularities” in boundaries obviously contorted to include voters likely to support them, The Atlantic reported.
But in 2011, Republicans were focused on maximizing every possible advantage they could squeeze out of the redistricting project, and saw an opportunity to entrench their control of at least 20 seats in the U.S. House. They took it.
Republicans have since enjoyed considerable advantage from those maps. According to an estimate by the Brennan Center for Justice, Republican gerrymandering accounts for 16 or 17 GOP seats in the current Congress that the party may not otherwise control.
But now, that gerrymandering greed of Republicans is coming back to haunt them.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in January struck down the congressional map state Republicans drew, saying it was so partisan that it violated the state constitution. That same month, a panel of three federal judges struck down North Carolina’s congressional map. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in a Wisconsin case may set a standard for defining unconstitutional gerrymandering on partisan grounds. (The court also will consider a case challenging a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland at the end of March.)
As these legal contests settle out, it’s worth looking back on how the GOP got here.
The reckoning Republicans are seeing now is one that could have been avoided, lawyers and redistricting experts say, had the GOP not been so ruthless.
Both Democrats and Republicans have gerrymandered in the past to their advantage, but Republicans took it to a new level in 2011. In an amicus brief to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, political science professors Keith Gaddie and Bernard Grofman wrote that there was as much as three times more partisan bias in congressional maps this decade than in ones drawn in 2000. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at the University of Chicago helping challenge a Wisconsin map, said a “dramatic number” of the worst gerrymanders of the last half-century have occurred since 2010.
Until the courts began stepping in, Republican gerrymandering paid off. From 2012 to 2016, the GOP won 13 of Pennsylvania’s 18 congressional seats, even though the party’s candidates only got around half of the vote. In Ohio, the party consistently won 12 of 16 congressional seats, but 50 percent of the statewide vote. In Wisconsin, they won at least 60 of 99 state assembly seats, with about half of the popular vote.
As a lawyer, Stephanopoulos said the clear egregiousness of the Republican redistricting made it easier to show something was amiss. It would have been harder to make a case, he said, if Republicans had only been winning slim majorities.
“In Wisconsin, if Republicans had been winning a narrow majority of the statehouse with roughly a tied election, Democrats would have been upset by that, but it probably wouldn’t have risen to a major constitutional challenge,” Stephanopoulos said.
Republican mapmakers in 2011 may have been emboldened by a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case in which justices declined to strike down Pennsylvania’s congressional plan on partisan grounds.
Republicans could have been cautious. They could have drawn maps that benefitted their party, but at the same time were fairer, compact and contiguous, said Jeffrey Wice, a Washington lawyer who has worked with Democrats on redistricting issues. The Constitution gives state lawmakers the broad responsibility of drawing electoral districts, and the GOP maps would have stood up better against judicial scrutiny had lawmakers offered public justification in their legislatures for the boundaries, Wice added.
“You can draw a plan to benefit a party, but do so in a fair way through a more transparent, objective process that follows criteria,” Wice said. “If politicians weren’t as greedy and secretive, then we wouldn’t be seeing as many challenges to plans for the egregious overreaching in the last round.”
In many cases, Republicans didn’t offer a defensible justification. In North Carolina, a Republican said his party’s lawmakers drew a map that gave Republicans a 10-3 advantage because he didn’t see a way to draw one that was 11-2. In Wisconsin, GOP lawmakers sought to avoid scrutiny by hiring a law firm to draw the maps, hoping the work would be hidden by attorney-client privilege.
Without a public explanation for the redrawn boundaries, it’s easier for those challenging the maps to claim Republicans intended to dilute Democratic votes.
Michael Li, redistricting counsel at the Brennan Center, pointed to the GOP-drawn congressional map in Pennsylvania as a good example of a brazen Republican attempt to maximize control. The districts were clearly contorted into odd-looking shapes, and there was no attempt to explain why ― other than partisan advantage.
“The 2011 map in Pennsylvania resulted in such contorted districts, it was hard to explain away as product of neutral decisions, such as about keeping towns or counties together. It just was so nakedly partisan,” Li said in an email. ”That’s not to say a map that was less contorted couldn’t have been challenged if it also produced durable bias in favor of a party. But at least there would be a colorable defense that a court would have to take seriously.”
Such strong evidence also could make it more palatable for courts to wade into political redistricting ― a topic the judiciary had long avoided.
“The courts are going to police outlier cases, rather than trying to wade into each and every one,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “The same principle’s true in any kind of discrimination: The more blatant, the easier it is to establish, and the more likely the courts are to call it out.”
Even if the Supreme Court does decide Republicans went too far with gerrymandering, its anticipated ruling in the spring would likely come too late to affect this year’s congressional elections, and wouldn’t have an impact on maps until at least 2020. Even if Republicans lose the ability to gerrymander in the future, their ruthlessness will have helped them for nearly an entire decade.
Ed Gillespie, the former Republican National Committee chair who oversaw the party’s effort to target state legislatures, envisioned that kind of success. In 2011 talking points, obtained by journalist David Daley, Gillespie thanked donors who had given to the party’s effort to make gains in state legislatures. He said Republicans hadn’t waste a “drop” of their money on state races, and had made “maximum impact.”
Sam Levine,HuffPost When Thomas Hofeller travelled across the country at the beginning of the decade to talk to lawmakers about the redistricting process, he brought a warning: “Don’t get cute.”
Republicans were fresh off a remarkably successful effort to take control of state legislatures so they could control the redistricting process ― a significant victory, because redistricting is normally only done every 10 years. Hofeller, a veteran Republican redistricting consultant and mapmaker, cautioned lawmakers against drawing “stupid irregularities” in boundaries obviously contorted to include voters likely to support them, The Atlantic reported.
But in 2011, Republicans were focused on maximizing every possible advantage they could squeeze out of the redistricting project, and saw an opportunity to entrench their control of at least 20 seats in the U.S. House. They took it.
Republicans have since enjoyed considerable advantage from those maps. According to an estimate by the Brennan Center for Justice, Republican gerrymandering accounts for 16 or 17 GOP seats in the current Congress that the party may not otherwise control.
But now, that gerrymandering greed of Republicans is coming back to haunt them.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in January struck down the congressional map state Republicans drew, saying it was so partisan that it violated the state constitution. That same month, a panel of three federal judges struck down North Carolina’s congressional map. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in a Wisconsin case may set a standard for defining unconstitutional gerrymandering on partisan grounds. (The court also will consider a case challenging a Democratic gerrymander in Maryland at the end of March.)
As these legal contests settle out, it’s worth looking back on how the GOP got here.
The reckoning Republicans are seeing now is one that could have been avoided, lawyers and redistricting experts say, had the GOP not been so ruthless.
Both Democrats and Republicans have gerrymandered in the past to their advantage, but Republicans took it to a new level in 2011. In an amicus brief to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, political science professors Keith Gaddie and Bernard Grofman wrote that there was as much as three times more partisan bias in congressional maps this decade than in ones drawn in 2000. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at the University of Chicago helping challenge a Wisconsin map, said a “dramatic number” of the worst gerrymanders of the last half-century have occurred since 2010.
Until the courts began stepping in, Republican gerrymandering paid off. From 2012 to 2016, the GOP won 13 of Pennsylvania’s 18 congressional seats, even though the party’s candidates only got around half of the vote. In Ohio, the party consistently won 12 of 16 congressional seats, but 50 percent of the statewide vote. In Wisconsin, they won at least 60 of 99 state assembly seats, with about half of the popular vote.
As a lawyer, Stephanopoulos said the clear egregiousness of the Republican redistricting made it easier to show something was amiss. It would have been harder to make a case, he said, if Republicans had only been winning slim majorities.
“In Wisconsin, if Republicans had been winning a narrow majority of the statehouse with roughly a tied election, Democrats would have been upset by that, but it probably wouldn’t have risen to a major constitutional challenge,” Stephanopoulos said.
Republican mapmakers in 2011 may have been emboldened by a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case in which justices declined to strike down Pennsylvania’s congressional plan on partisan grounds.
Republicans could have been cautious. They could have drawn maps that benefitted their party, but at the same time were fairer, compact and contiguous, said Jeffrey Wice, a Washington lawyer who has worked with Democrats on redistricting issues. The Constitution gives state lawmakers the broad responsibility of drawing electoral districts, and the GOP maps would have stood up better against judicial scrutiny had lawmakers offered public justification in their legislatures for the boundaries, Wice added.
“You can draw a plan to benefit a party, but do so in a fair way through a more transparent, objective process that follows criteria,” Wice said. “If politicians weren’t as greedy and secretive, then we wouldn’t be seeing as many challenges to plans for the egregious overreaching in the last round.”
In many cases, Republicans didn’t offer a defensible justification. In North Carolina, a Republican said his party’s lawmakers drew a map that gave Republicans a 10-3 advantage because he didn’t see a way to draw one that was 11-2. In Wisconsin, GOP lawmakers sought to avoid scrutiny by hiring a law firm to draw the maps, hoping the work would be hidden by attorney-client privilege.
Without a public explanation for the redrawn boundaries, it’s easier for those challenging the maps to claim Republicans intended to dilute Democratic votes.
Michael Li, redistricting counsel at the Brennan Center, pointed to the GOP-drawn congressional map in Pennsylvania as a good example of a brazen Republican attempt to maximize control. The districts were clearly contorted into odd-looking shapes, and there was no attempt to explain why ― other than partisan advantage.
“The 2011 map in Pennsylvania resulted in such contorted districts, it was hard to explain away as product of neutral decisions, such as about keeping towns or counties together. It just was so nakedly partisan,” Li said in an email. ”That’s not to say a map that was less contorted couldn’t have been challenged if it also produced durable bias in favor of a party. But at least there would be a colorable defense that a court would have to take seriously.”
Such strong evidence also could make it more palatable for courts to wade into political redistricting ― a topic the judiciary had long avoided.
“The courts are going to police outlier cases, rather than trying to wade into each and every one,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “The same principle’s true in any kind of discrimination: The more blatant, the easier it is to establish, and the more likely the courts are to call it out.”
Even if the Supreme Court does decide Republicans went too far with gerrymandering, its anticipated ruling in the spring would likely come too late to affect this year’s congressional elections, and wouldn’t have an impact on maps until at least 2020. Even if Republicans lose the ability to gerrymander in the future, their ruthlessness will have helped them for nearly an entire decade.
Ed Gillespie, the former Republican National Committee chair who oversaw the party’s effort to target state legislatures, envisioned that kind of success. In 2011 talking points, obtained by journalist David Daley, Gillespie thanked donors who had given to the party’s effort to make gains in state legislatures. He said Republicans hadn’t waste a “drop” of their money on state races, and had made “maximum impact.”
Naturally!
Republicans Want to Cut Food Stamp Rolls by 20 percent say House Democrats
Nicole Goodkind,Newsweek
House Democrats, still reeling from a historic tax win on the right, say Republicans are working to cut the social safety net by kicking 8 million, about 20 percent of all participants, off of the food stamps program.
Negotiations broke down over the Farm Bill, which is mostly comprised of nutrition programs, after the proposed Republican cuts were leaked. In addition to lowering the rolls, the plan would increase the work requirement age limit from 60 to 65. The approximate $1 billion saved each month from the cuts will go to states to create job training initiatives, say Democrats.
“We have grown increasingly concerned about the nutrition policies being pushed by the Majority. Items you have outlined in your meetings with us and that have been reported in the press are a significant cause of concern,” 19 Democratic House Committee on Agriculture members wrote in a joint letter to ranking member Congressman Collin Peterson Thursday.
The Committee members said they held 23 hearings on the future of food stamps, and no changes as radical as the ones outlined by Peterson were mentioned. They expressed concern about being asked to negotiate on the nuances of the bill without having seen the full text. The group asked Peterson to refrain from further negotiation until Congressman Mike Conaway, Committee Chairman, shared the full text of the bill.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-want-cut-food-stamp-113002221.html
Republican Food Stamp Plan In Disarray
Arthur Delaney,HuffPost
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-food-stamp-plan-disarray-151934157.html
Republicans Want to Cut Food Stamp Rolls by 20 percent say House Democrats
Nicole Goodkind,NewsweekHouse Democrats, still reeling from a historic tax win on the right, say Republicans are working to cut the social safety net by kicking 8 million, about 20 percent of all participants, off of the food stamps program.
Negotiations broke down over the Farm Bill, which is mostly comprised of nutrition programs, after the proposed Republican cuts were leaked. In addition to lowering the rolls, the plan would increase the work requirement age limit from 60 to 65. The approximate $1 billion saved each month from the cuts will go to states to create job training initiatives, say Democrats.
“We have grown increasingly concerned about the nutrition policies being pushed by the Majority. Items you have outlined in your meetings with us and that have been reported in the press are a significant cause of concern,” 19 Democratic House Committee on Agriculture members wrote in a joint letter to ranking member Congressman Collin Peterson Thursday.
The Committee members said they held 23 hearings on the future of food stamps, and no changes as radical as the ones outlined by Peterson were mentioned. They expressed concern about being asked to negotiate on the nuances of the bill without having seen the full text. The group asked Peterson to refrain from further negotiation until Congressman Mike Conaway, Committee Chairman, shared the full text of the bill.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-want-cut-food-stamp-113002221.html
Republican Food Stamp Plan In Disarray
Arthur Delaney,HuffPost https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-food-stamp-plan-disarray-151934157.html
Mueller Has Crossed Trump's 'Red Line.' Now What?
Charles P. Pierce,Esquire
Remember back earlier on Thursday, when the president* got into tough-guy costume and finally got around to implementing the sanctions that Congress had mandated several months ago, and I wrote that, in reaction to that, Robert Mueller nodded wisely and reached for another folder? You thought I was kidding, right? From The New York Times:
From this, it looks like Mueller plans to burn it all down. It looks as though he’s decided that everything with which this president* is involved is so irredeemably corrupt and lousy with dirty money that trying to split the difference between which corruption was involved with the campaign, and what dirty money financed it, is an impossible rat’s nest to untangle. So the easiest thing is to light a match and see what burns in what color flame.
In this context, all those stories about an imminent Cabinet and senior staff shakeup (Scott Pruitt for Attorney General? Pull the other one) take on a more ominous appearance. It would be perfectly in character for this president* to concoct an utter bloodbath tomorrow, firing Jeff Sessions after Sessions fires Ron Rosenstein, putting someone in place to fire Mueller, and sticking crazoid John Bolton in as National Security adviser just for fun. Then, if he can get Mike Pompeo lined up at State and the Empress of the Black Sites installed at CIA, the president* will have in place a team made up of people absolutely disinclined to inconvenience him in his pursuit of all he can grab.
The Congress? Now pull both of them at once.
There is a sense right now of something stirring in the murk. Too many people are acting far too nervously. Something shapeless is rising from the deep and, waiting for it, is Robert Mueller. He plunges implacably forward and, if he ever does look behind him, sees only the rising floodtide of the Rubicon.
Charles P. Pierce,Esquire Remember back earlier on Thursday, when the president* got into tough-guy costume and finally got around to implementing the sanctions that Congress had mandated several months ago, and I wrote that, in reaction to that, Robert Mueller nodded wisely and reached for another folder? You thought I was kidding, right? From The New York Times:
In the subpoena, delivered in recent weeks, Mr. Mueller ordered the Trump Organization to hand over all documents related to Russia and other topics he is investigating, the people said. The subpoena is the latest indication that the investigation, which Mr. Trump’s lawyers once regularly assured him would be completed by now, will drag on for at least several more months. Word of the subpoena comes as Mr. Mueller appears to be broadening his investigation to examine the role foreign money may have played in funding Mr. Trump’s political activities. In recent weeks, Mr. Mueller’s investigators have questioned witnesses, including an adviser to the United Arab Emirates, about the flow of Emirati money into the United States.
From this, it looks like Mueller plans to burn it all down. It looks as though he’s decided that everything with which this president* is involved is so irredeemably corrupt and lousy with dirty money that trying to split the difference between which corruption was involved with the campaign, and what dirty money financed it, is an impossible rat’s nest to untangle. So the easiest thing is to light a match and see what burns in what color flame.
Mr. Mueller could run afoul of a line the president has warned him not to cross. Though it is not clear how much of the subpoena is related to Mr. Trump’s business beyond ties to Russia, Mr. Trump said in an interview with The New York Times in July that the special counsel would be crossing a “red line” if he looked into his family’s finances beyond any relationship with Russia. The president declined to say how he would respond if he concluded that the special counsel had crossed that line.
It’s fairly clear that Mueller has pole-vaulted over that line. Your move, dude.In this context, all those stories about an imminent Cabinet and senior staff shakeup (Scott Pruitt for Attorney General? Pull the other one) take on a more ominous appearance. It would be perfectly in character for this president* to concoct an utter bloodbath tomorrow, firing Jeff Sessions after Sessions fires Ron Rosenstein, putting someone in place to fire Mueller, and sticking crazoid John Bolton in as National Security adviser just for fun. Then, if he can get Mike Pompeo lined up at State and the Empress of the Black Sites installed at CIA, the president* will have in place a team made up of people absolutely disinclined to inconvenience him in his pursuit of all he can grab.
The Congress? Now pull both of them at once.
There is a sense right now of something stirring in the murk. Too many people are acting far too nervously. Something shapeless is rising from the deep and, waiting for it, is Robert Mueller. He plunges implacably forward and, if he ever does look behind him, sees only the rising floodtide of the Rubicon.
Like *******...Like cabinet!
Overly opulent? Trump cabinet under fire for ethics excess
Michael Mathes,AFP
Washington (AFP) - President Donald Trump's cabinet may be the wealthiest in modern US history, but several members have been embroiled in money-related scandals including private flights, luxury dining sets and Wimbledon tickets -- all at taxpayer expense.
Speculation mounted Friday over whether the axe would fall on any more officials within the president's inner circle, as Trump hinted at making additional changes a day after sacking Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this week.
Political attention might be turned to whether National Security Advisor HR McMaster will be the next ousted, but recent ethical misjudgements and questionable decisions made by several Trump advisors have put the cabinet under a cloud of controversy.
Accusations of high-flying excesses have swirled since Trump's inauguration 14 months ago. Last year the target was health secretary Tom Price, who reportedly spent more than $400,000 of public money on trips using private aircraft.
Trump, who has repeatedly pledged to drain the swamp in Washington, said in September he was "not happy" about the development. Price was ousted days later.
It turned out Price was the tip of the iceberg. Five other cabinet members are under scrutiny for their behavior.
"Trump cabinet officials have a track record of unnecessary, extravagant expenditures at taxpayer expense," said Melanie Sloan of ethics watchdog American Oversight, which filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documentation that could expose government abuse.
"It seems it's not only the president who has a penchant for luxury."
The most recent flap involves Housing Secretary Ben Carson, who stands accused of spending $31,000 of taxpayer money on a new dining set in his office dining room.
Carson has insisted he was "as surprised as anyone" about the ordering of the set. But emails obtained by American Oversight show Carson and his wife helped select the furniture themselves.
Carson says he has cancelled the order.
- Castle tours, military flights -
Deep palace intrigue surrounds Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin, whose tenure started out well but whose standing with the White House has eroded.
He is accused of spending $122,000 on a nine-day trip to Europe with his wife, which included sightseeing at castles and taking in professional tennis matches.
"Secretary Shulkin improperly accepted Wimbledon tickets," the VA's inspector general said last month in a scathing report.
It also said Shulkin's chief of staff doctored emails so the agency could justify including his wife on the trip.
Facing concerned lawmakers, Shulkin told a Senate budget hearing that "the distraction is something I deeply regret."
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has come under some of the most intense scrutiny, most recently over reports that his department was spending nearly $139,000 to upgrade three sets of double doors in his office.
Zinke told Congress this week that he managed to negotiate the cost down to $75,000.
He is also under pressure over costly US Park Police helicopter flights last July that allowed him to return to Washington for a horseback ride with Vice President Mike Pence, and several other flights on non-commercial aircraft.
Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt has faced a public backlash for taking dozens of first-class flights, which he said were necessary to avoid "unprecedented" personal threats.
House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, a Republican, has pressed Pruitt for answers about the travel excesses.
Pruitt told CBS News that he and his security detail were making adjustments, and that Pruitt would be flying coach far more often.
More recently, Pruitt has found himself in hot water over his agency paying $43,000 to install a custom, sound-proof booth in his office so he can communicate securely with government officials.
At the request of Congress, the EPA's inspector general is investigating.
Meanwhile, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has found that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, a former investment banker and Hollywood producer, has bilked tax payers by needlessly flying on military and non-commercial jets for $1 million.
The Treasury Department rejected the findings as mischaracterizations and said it followed appropriate protocol.
The revelation followed negative scrutiny last August after Mnuchin and his wife, the actress Louise Linton, traveled aboard a government jet to visit the US Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Kentucky.
I guess since this is all republicans....and all under republican control
the ethics committee just decided to put it's head in it's ass!
otherwise even the fat orange blob would have been gone a long time ago
Overly opulent? Trump cabinet under fire for ethics excess
Michael Mathes,AFP Washington (AFP) - President Donald Trump's cabinet may be the wealthiest in modern US history, but several members have been embroiled in money-related scandals including private flights, luxury dining sets and Wimbledon tickets -- all at taxpayer expense.
Speculation mounted Friday over whether the axe would fall on any more officials within the president's inner circle, as Trump hinted at making additional changes a day after sacking Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this week.
Political attention might be turned to whether National Security Advisor HR McMaster will be the next ousted, but recent ethical misjudgements and questionable decisions made by several Trump advisors have put the cabinet under a cloud of controversy.
Accusations of high-flying excesses have swirled since Trump's inauguration 14 months ago. Last year the target was health secretary Tom Price, who reportedly spent more than $400,000 of public money on trips using private aircraft.
Trump, who has repeatedly pledged to drain the swamp in Washington, said in September he was "not happy" about the development. Price was ousted days later.
It turned out Price was the tip of the iceberg. Five other cabinet members are under scrutiny for their behavior.
"Trump cabinet officials have a track record of unnecessary, extravagant expenditures at taxpayer expense," said Melanie Sloan of ethics watchdog American Oversight, which filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documentation that could expose government abuse.
"It seems it's not only the president who has a penchant for luxury."
The most recent flap involves Housing Secretary Ben Carson, who stands accused of spending $31,000 of taxpayer money on a new dining set in his office dining room.
Carson has insisted he was "as surprised as anyone" about the ordering of the set. But emails obtained by American Oversight show Carson and his wife helped select the furniture themselves.
Carson says he has cancelled the order.
- Castle tours, military flights -
Deep palace intrigue surrounds Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin, whose tenure started out well but whose standing with the White House has eroded.
He is accused of spending $122,000 on a nine-day trip to Europe with his wife, which included sightseeing at castles and taking in professional tennis matches.
"Secretary Shulkin improperly accepted Wimbledon tickets," the VA's inspector general said last month in a scathing report.
It also said Shulkin's chief of staff doctored emails so the agency could justify including his wife on the trip.
Facing concerned lawmakers, Shulkin told a Senate budget hearing that "the distraction is something I deeply regret."
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has come under some of the most intense scrutiny, most recently over reports that his department was spending nearly $139,000 to upgrade three sets of double doors in his office.
Zinke told Congress this week that he managed to negotiate the cost down to $75,000.
He is also under pressure over costly US Park Police helicopter flights last July that allowed him to return to Washington for a horseback ride with Vice President Mike Pence, and several other flights on non-commercial aircraft.
Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt has faced a public backlash for taking dozens of first-class flights, which he said were necessary to avoid "unprecedented" personal threats.
House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, a Republican, has pressed Pruitt for answers about the travel excesses.
Pruitt told CBS News that he and his security detail were making adjustments, and that Pruitt would be flying coach far more often.
More recently, Pruitt has found himself in hot water over his agency paying $43,000 to install a custom, sound-proof booth in his office so he can communicate securely with government officials.
At the request of Congress, the EPA's inspector general is investigating.
Meanwhile, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has found that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, a former investment banker and Hollywood producer, has bilked tax payers by needlessly flying on military and non-commercial jets for $1 million.
The Treasury Department rejected the findings as mischaracterizations and said it followed appropriate protocol.
The revelation followed negative scrutiny last August after Mnuchin and his wife, the actress Louise Linton, traveled aboard a government jet to visit the US Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Kentucky.
I guess since this is all republicans....and all under republican control
the ethics committee just decided to put it's head in it's ass!
otherwise even the fat orange blob would have been gone a long time ago
Dem offers to hire McCabe to help him qualify for his pension
The Hill
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/5b6d26...ad589321/ss_dem-offers-to-hire-mccabe-to.html
The Hill
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/5b6d26...ad589321/ss_dem-offers-to-hire-mccabe-to.html
In unhinged tweetstorm, Trump admits McCabe firing was about politics
thinkprogress.org 20
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/d9c4dd...fdd0aca/ss_in-unhinged-tweetstorm,-trump.html
James Comey Fires Back At Trump, Vowing To Reveal Who's 'Honorable' — And Who Isn't
Mary Papenfuss,HuffPost
https://www.yahoo.com/news/james-comey-fires-back-trump-000051704.html
thinkprogress.org 20
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/d9c4dd...fdd0aca/ss_in-unhinged-tweetstorm,-trump.html
James Comey Fires Back At Trump, Vowing To Reveal Who's 'Honorable' — And Who Isn't
Mary Papenfuss,HuffPosthttps://www.yahoo.com/news/james-comey-fires-back-trump-000051704.html
Gowdy: Trump's lawyer did president a 'disservice' in urging end to Mueller probe
Fox News
Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy on Sunday split with President Trump and lawyer John Dowd’s apparent efforts to try to end the special counsel’s Russia investigation, saying Dowd did the president a “disservice” and that investigators need the “time, independence and resources” to complete the probe. “I think the president’s attorney, frankly, does him a disservice when he says that and when he frames the investigation that way,” Gowdy told “Fox News Sunday.” “If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act like it.” Dowd, Trump’s personal attorney, on Saturday called for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to end the investigation into whether Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election and if the ...
Read more
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/7420fdc4-552a-35b4-9ad1-c4196cd0b200/gowdy:-trump's-lawyer-did.html
'The president is not going to fire him,' says Senate Republican of special counsel Mueller
ABC News
A Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee said he does not believe President Donald Trump will move to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, despite a tweet this weekend by a Trump attorney calling for an end to the Russia investigation. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” Sunday. “I don’t see the president firing him. I think the White House has said 10 times, maybe more, that they are not going to fire Robert Mueller. They want him to be able to finish the investigation." Stephanopoulos asked Lankford about a statement by Trump attorney John Dowd to The Daily Beast on Saturday suggesting that the Justice Department official ...
Read more
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4723dc72-5df5-3273-983e-e4d56610ca26/'the-president-is-not.html
Fox News
Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy on Sunday split with President Trump and lawyer John Dowd’s apparent efforts to try to end the special counsel’s Russia investigation, saying Dowd did the president a “disservice” and that investigators need the “time, independence and resources” to complete the probe. “I think the president’s attorney, frankly, does him a disservice when he says that and when he frames the investigation that way,” Gowdy told “Fox News Sunday.” “If you have an innocent client, Mr. Dowd, act like it.” Dowd, Trump’s personal attorney, on Saturday called for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to end the investigation into whether Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election and if the ...
Read more
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/7420fdc4-552a-35b4-9ad1-c4196cd0b200/gowdy:-trump's-lawyer-did.html
ABC NewsA Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee said he does not believe President Donald Trump will move to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, despite a tweet this weekend by a Trump attorney calling for an end to the Russia investigation. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” Sunday. “I don’t see the president firing him. I think the White House has said 10 times, maybe more, that they are not going to fire Robert Mueller. They want him to be able to finish the investigation." Stephanopoulos asked Lankford about a statement by Trump attorney John Dowd to The Daily Beast on Saturday suggesting that the Justice Department official ...
Read more
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/4723dc72-5df5-3273-983e-e4d56610ca26/'the-president-is-not.html
Even some republicans didn't like it?.....Just worried about votes!
House Republican blasts McCabe firing, says Trump’s conduct doesn’t ‘bode well’ for GOP
thinkprogress.org
During a Saturday morning interview on CNN, Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) harshly criticized the Trump administration’s decision to fire former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, adding that he doesn’t think it bodes well for his party. “Candidly, it looks like retribution and a bit vindictive,” Dent said. “And I think it’s unfortunate. The man said he’s resigning, and on a Friday night before his 50th birthday, he’s fired to take away his pension? I don’t like the optics of this. I really don’t.” Dent said he thinks the attorney general made the decision under pressure from President Trump. Trump has repeatedly publicly demanded that Sessions fire McCabe, who is potentially a key witness in special ...
Read more
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/a8112e13-8460-3252-8b70-7f8d93700525/house-republican-blasts.html
that's ranking him higher than I would....but I hate the guy so.......
Ex-CIA director slams Trump after McCabe firing: You'll be remembered as a 'disgraced demagogue'
The Hill
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/617dd46b-dd34-3f40-a31a-e65f41e7af21/ex-cia-director-slams-trump.html
House Republican blasts McCabe firing, says Trump’s conduct doesn’t ‘bode well’ for GOP
thinkprogress.org
During a Saturday morning interview on CNN, Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) harshly criticized the Trump administration’s decision to fire former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, adding that he doesn’t think it bodes well for his party. “Candidly, it looks like retribution and a bit vindictive,” Dent said. “And I think it’s unfortunate. The man said he’s resigning, and on a Friday night before his 50th birthday, he’s fired to take away his pension? I don’t like the optics of this. I really don’t.” Dent said he thinks the attorney general made the decision under pressure from President Trump. Trump has repeatedly publicly demanded that Sessions fire McCabe, who is potentially a key witness in special ...
Read more
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/a8112e13-8460-3252-8b70-7f8d93700525/house-republican-blasts.html
that's ranking him higher than I would....but I hate the guy so.......
Ex-CIA director slams Trump after McCabe firing: You'll be remembered as a 'disgraced demagogue'
The Hill
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/617dd46b-dd34-3f40-a31a-e65f41e7af21/ex-cia-director-slams-trump.html
