US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9912

On February 15 2018 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote:


Which is why I was skeptical of it's sincerity in addressing the issue and not being (poorly planned) political posturing that they both already agreed on going in as intro points out. Which if it isn't clear isn't really a compromise but people that already agreed with each other having someone work with lobbyists to write it into legislation.

WASHINGTON — The meeting, to say the least, had not gone well. Upset at a presidential dressing down, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had just left the White House vowing to resign. Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, raced out of the building, found him in his car, banged on the door and implored him to come back inside.

The dramatic episode, described by Mr. Priebus in a soon-to-be-released book, proved a turning point in the relationship between President Trump and his attorney general, one that has shaped the administration ever since. More than any president in modern times, Mr. Trump has engaged in a high stakes public conflict with the Justice Department with extensive potential consequences.

Mr. Priebus’s account comes in a new chapter included in the paperback edition of “The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency,” by Chris Whipple, to be published on March 6 by Broadway Books. In interviews with the author, Mr. Priebus gave the first extended description of his tumultuous six months as Mr. Trump’s top aide. Vanity Fair posted an excerpt from the new chapter on Wednesday.

Mr. Priebus described a roller-coaster experience trying to impose discipline on one of the most undisciplined figures in American politics, a period that led to his unhappy departure last summer when Mr. Trump unceremoniously announced his resignation on Twitter just before Mr. Priebus disembarked Air Force One in the rain.

From rushing out ill-prepared executive orders to arguing over the president’s Twitter fixation, Mr. Priebus struggled as none of his predecessors had before in a job that is historically among the toughest in Washington. “Take everything you’ve heard and multiply it by 50,” he said. Working for Mr. Trump, he added, was “like riding the strongest and most independent horse.” But he expressed admiration for Mr. Trump’s toughness and allowed that perhaps the president was right about Twitter.

The meeting that nearly led to Mr. Sessions’s resignation came last May shortly after the president fired James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director who was heading an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and any cooperation with Mr. Trump’s campaign. The dismissal of Mr. Comey, which Mr. Trump in an interview with NBC News linked to his unhappiness with the Russia investigation, triggered the appointment of a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to the ire of the president.

Mr. Trump was furious with Mr. Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation and therefore losing control over it. Mr. Priebus’s account confirms and adds more detail to a New York Times report that the president berated Mr. Sessions in a meeting in the Oval Office, leading him to offer his resignation. Vice President Mike Pence and the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, were in the meeting, but Mr. Priebus was not.

“Don McGahn came in my office pretty hot, red, out of breath and said, ‘We’ve got a problem,’” Mr. Priebus recalled. “I responded, ‘What?’ And he said, ‘Well, we just got a special counsel and Sessions just resigned.’ I said, ‘What? What the hell are you talking about?’ And I said, ‘That can’t happen.’”

Mr. Priebus bolted down the back stairway of the West Wing and out the door to the parking lot and found Mr. Sessions in the back of a black sedan with the engine running and about to leave. “I knocked on the door of the car and Jeff was sitting there and I just jumped in and shut the door and I said, ‘Jeff, what’s going on?’” Mr. Priebus said. “And then he told me that he was going to resign.”

“I said, ‘You cannot resign. It’s not possible. We are going to talk about this right now,’” Mr. Priebus continued. “So I dragged him back up to my office from the car. Pence and Bannon came in,” he added, referring to Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s chief strategist, “and we started talking to him to the point where he decided that he would not resign right then and he would instead think about it.”

In the end, Mr. Sessions still drafted a resignation letter later that night and sent it to the White House. Mr. Priebus then went to work on Mr. Trump, arguing that he should not accept it. The president reluctantly agreed and Mr. Sessions stayed.

But that did not end the danger to the attorney general. A couple months later, Mr. Trump took his anger with Mr. Sessions public by telling The New York Times in an interview that he would not have appointed him attorney general had he known that he would recuse himself.

Behind the scenes, Mr. Trump once again demanded Mr. Sessions’s resignation. Citing a White House insider, Mr. Whipple’s book says the president told Mr. Priebus to act on his order. “Don’t try to slow me down like you always do,” Mr. Trump told him. “Get the resignation of Jeff Sessions.”

Mr. Priebus, however, did try to slow him down and argued that pushing out Mr. Sessions would result in the resignations of the second- and third-ranking Justice Department officials too. “If I get this resignation, you are in for a spiral of calamity that makes Comey look like a picnic,” Mr. Priebus warned him. Again, Mr. Trump backed down.

But in other ways he did not. Mr. Priebus said he and other aides — including Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter; Jared Kushner, his son-in-law; and Hope Hicks, his communications director — regularly tried to convince Mr. Trump that his random, often incendiary Twitter messages were self-destructive.

“I told him, ‘Some of it’s not helpful, it causes distraction. We can get thrown off our message by tweeting things that aren’t the issues of the day,’” he said. But he did not get through. “Everybody tried at different times to cool down the Twitter habit — but no one could do it. Not me, Jared, Ivanka, Hope.”

Even the first lady weighed in when her husband addressed Congress. “After the joint session, we all talked to him and Melania said, ‘No tweeting,’” Mr. Priebus said. “And he said, ‘OK — for the next few days.’ We had many discussions involving this issue. We had meetings in the residence. I couldn’t stop it.”

The challenge was clear from the very start when Mr. Trump called him the morning after he was sworn in ranting about news coverage comparing the size of his inaugural crowd with that of his predecessor. Mr. Priebus tried to calm the new president, but ultimately had to go along. “Am I going to go to war over this with the president of the United States?” he asked himself.

Mr. Priebus’s inability to control Mr. Trump or even control who could wander in and out of the Oval Office caused consternation. Mr. Bannon told Mr. Whipple that John F. Kelly, then the secretary of homeland security, complained to him about it. “He said to me, ‘It really upsets me that I walk in the Oval Office and it’s like Grand Central Station,’” said Mr. Bannon.

Ultimately, Mr. Trump would pick Mr. Kelly to replace Mr. Priebus. But Mr. Kelly, who initially earned plaudits for imposing more order on the West Wing, lately has come under fire for his management of the White House, particularly his handling of spousal abuse allegations that resulted in the resignation of the staff secretary, Rob Porter.

Mr. Priebus said that Mr. Trump has spent his whole life resisting the sort of organization that others would like to impose on him. “The idea that he was suddenly going to accept an immediate and elaborate staff structure regulating every minute of his life was never in the cards,” Mr. Priebus said. “At least not on Day 1.”

On February 15 2018 14:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:

I remember you reposting a few of those social media stories. Hillary laughing at getting a rapist freed. Clinton foundation and Haiti. Bill Clinton museum.

Now, I can't honestly say where those originated from. A lot could've been official RNC ads or talking points. But from what I've seen of the Russian Facebook ads, that's about the vein of them.

And again, the nature of the internet and social media is that you don't have to see the source itself to be influenced. A lot of stories are small-time memes until someone with better writing and publication venues makes it more notable.

On February 15 2018 14:02 Plansix wrote:

It is a bill the majority of the house would support. Ryan will never bring it to a vote. The house is a pure dictatorship and 67 conservatives have been working the speaker to bills like this since 2013. Because it would pass.

On February 15 2018 14:12 GreenHorizons wrote:


I mean I'd like an example of one of these ads and how you think it influenced my beliefs, Russian ads repeating things I believe can't seriously be the grounds on which this claim is founded.

If I'm not mistaken my positions on all those predate whenever the Russians started talking about them. Regardless, I'd be pleased to address whatever it is about my position on those topics you think is unreasonable or influenced by Russian propaganda (and how) as to clear this up so it doesn't persist.

On February 15 2018 06:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Except they have had Press briefings the day of school shootings before.

On February 15 2018 14:22 Plansix wrote:
The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote. Even if every member of the house supported it, the speaker must approve. Prior to this rule, a majority vote could bring a bill to the floor for debate.

Since the speaker holds all the power, it only takes a small faction within his party to assure nothing gets done. Because they can push to remove him. Or tank other bills.

Not suprising, congress has become less productive every year since this rule went bit place. Because it make the minority powerless to the reasonable members of the majority.

On February 15 2018 14:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Until we get a full count of which ads were involved (which we probably won't ever), I don't think anyone can source a lot of those campaign talking points. And the ones sponsored by Russia were just a pile added onto existing ones.

But the point is the nature of those ads are not about convincing people, they're about polarizing further. As I said yesterday, or the day before or whatever, people don't get convinced by one good message. But they're certainly effected by a constant stream of them.

And given the volume of ads that Russia paid for, by sheer statistics its very likely that if you're a person who shares those kinds of stories or listens to them from your personal circle, there was probably a good number that originated or spread from them.

On February 15 2018 13:01 Gahlo wrote:
Just to set something straight...

AR15s are semi automatic. This means that when you fire the rifle, another bullet is loaded. You need to pull the trigger again to fire the 2nd bullet unless it is illegally modified or has a bump stock(which should be illegal imo). They are not assault rifles because they can't be set to burst fire and/or fully automatic.

On February 15 2018 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


Which rule is that?

On February 15 2018 14:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:


"The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote."

Prior to this rule, a majority vote could bring a bill to the floor for debate

On February 15 2018 14:39 GreenHorizons wrote:


.

I'm asking what rule this is. As in, "can I see the rule?". Like a citation. I'm aware of the idea that the leader decides what gets voted on and when but not any particular change in 2001

On February 15 2018 14:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


With little or no hope of ever seeing an example the best I can hope for is that you put forth what about my positions you disagree with. If Russian facebook ads put forth that 2+2=4 we wouldn't accuse the field of mathematics of being a Russian ploy... I hope. So if your contention is that Russia spending a minute fraction of what was spent on election ads ever so slightly amplified existing tensions, I don't know if I'd disagree with that until you try to make it a much bigger deal than it was. Not caring about the US doing the same things is problematic for me as well just to put that out there.

On February 15 2018 14:39 GreenHorizons wrote:


.

I'm asking what rule this is. As in, "can I see the rule?". Like a citation. I'm aware of the idea that the leader decides what gets voted on and when but not any particular change in 2001

It was a cool night for Havana, with the temperature falling into the mid-70s, and the diplomat and his family were feeling very good about their assignment to Cuba. They were still settling into their new home, a comfortable, Spanish-style house in the lush enclave that had been called “el Country Club” before wealthy families abandoned it in the early years of the revolution. “We were just thrilled to be there,” the diplomat recalled. “The music, the rum, the cigars, the people — and a very important moment for diplomacy.”

Eight months earlier, in March 2016, President Barack Obama had swept into town to commemorate the two countries’ historic rapprochement, vowing to bury “the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas.” Now, weeks after the election of Donald Trump, that entente was suddenly doubtful. Fidel Castro had just died, opening a new chapter in the Cuban saga. The diplomat could hardly have imagined a more fascinating time to arrive.

As the sun slid into the Florida Straits on that late-November evening, the diplomat folded back the living room doors that opened onto the family’s new tropical garden. The warm night air poured in, along with an almost overpowering din. “It was annoying to the point where you had to go in the house and close all the windows and doors and turn up the TV,” he recalled. “But I never particularly worried about it. I figured, ‘I’m in a strange country, and the insects here make loud noises.’”

A few nights later, the diplomat and his wife invited over the family of another American embassy official who lived next door. Around dusk, as they chatted on the patio, the same deafening sound rose from their yard again.

“I’m pretty sure those are cicadas,” the first diplomat said.

“Those are not cicadas,” his neighbor insisted. “Cicadas don’t sound like that. It’s too mechanical-sounding.”

The colleague had been hearing the same noises at home, sometimes for an hour or more at a stretch. After he complained to the embassy housing office, a couple of Cuban maintenance workers were dispatched to look around. They checked for electrical problems and scanned the yard for strange insects, but they left without finding anything out of place. In February, the nightly racket finally began to fade. Then it went away altogether.

It was not until a Friday in late March that the diplomat realized he might be facing something more dangerous than bugs. At work that day, an embassy colleague with whom he was friendly took him aside and said he was leaving Cuba right away. A fit-looking man in his thirties, the colleague said he had just been in Miami, where medical specialists found he had a series of problems including a serious hearing loss. In late December, he said, he had been struck by a strange, disturbing phenomenon — a powerful beam of high-pitched sound that seemed to be pointed right at him. The following Monday, the diplomat’s friend played him a recording of the noise: It sounded a lot like what the diplomat had heard in his backyard.

The diplomat, who agreed to discuss his experience on the condition he not be named, said neither he nor his wife had felt any signs of illness or injury. But within days, they, too, would be on their way to Miami to be examined by medical specialists. Along with 22 other Americans and eight Canadians, they would be diagnosed with a wide array of concussion-like symptoms, ranging from headaches and nausea to hearing loss. They would also find themselves caught up in an extraordinary international dispute, one that the Trump administration would use to sharply reverse the course of U.S. relations with Cuba.

Even in a realm where secrets abound, the Havana incidents are a remarkable mystery. After nearly a year of investigation that has drawn on intelligence, defense and technology expertise from across the U.S. government, the FBI has been unable to determine who might have attacked the diplomats or how. Nor has the bureau ruled out the possibility that at least some of the Americans weren’t attacked at all. Officials who have been briefed on the inquiry described it as having made strikingly little progress in answering the basic questions of the case, with frustrated FBI agents reporting that they are running out of rocks to overturn.

Those frustrations have roiled the U.S. national-security community, putting the FBI increasingly at odds with the CIA over the case. In early January, after more than eight months of analysis, the bureau ruled out its initial hypothesis that the Americans were targeted with some type of sonic device. That left the FBI without a weapon, a perpetrator or a motive, and still struggling to understand how the diplomats could have been hurt or fallen ill. Intelligence officials, for their part, have continued to emphasize a pattern they see as anything but coincidental: The first four Americans to report being struck by the phenomenon — including the fit-looking man in his 30s — were all CIA officers working under diplomatic cover, as were two others affected later on. The CIA and other agencies involved in the investigation also have yet to concur with the FBI’s conclusion about sonic technology.

More broadly, the Cuba problem has raised questions within the national security community about how the Trump administration is using intelligence information to guide its foreign policy. At a time when the White House has vowed to act more forcefully against North Korea, Iran and other threats, some officials see the Cuba problem as yet another lesson in the dangers of using intelligence selectively to advance policy goals. “Trump came in opposing better relations with Cuba,” said one national security official who, like others, would discuss the case only on the condition he not be named. “The administration got out in front of the evidence and intelligence.”

A ProPublica investigation of the case, based on interviews with more than three dozen U.S. and foreign officials and an examination of confidential government documents, represents the first detailed public account of how the Cuba incidents unfolded. Although the State Department has generally emphasized similarities in the medical files of the 24 affected Americans, officials and documents consulted for this story indicated that the nature and seriousness of the patients‘ symptoms varied rather widely. The experiences that precipitated their illnesses were also quite different, officials said, and the experiences and symptoms of the eight Canadians differed from those of the Americans.

Many U.S. officials who have dealt closely with the problem — including several who asserted that it has been distorted for political purposes — said they remain convinced that at least some of the Americans were deliberately targeted by a sophisticated enemy. Medical specialists who reviewed the patients‘ files last summer concluded that while their symptoms could have many causes, they were “most likely related to trauma from a non-natural source,” the State Department medical director, Dr. Charles Rosenfarb, said. “No cause has been ruled out,” he added. “But the findings suggest this was not an episode of mass hysteria.”

Yet it appears that secrecy, psychology and politics may all have played some part in how the phenomenon spread through the staffs of the two Havana embassies. Administration officials have been reluctant to discuss psychological factors in the case, in part because they fear offending or antagonizing the stricken diplomats (many of whom already feel badly treated by the State Department leadership). But as the mystery has deepened, U.S. investigators have begun to look more closely at the insular, high-pressure world of the Havana embassy, and they have found a picture that is far more complex than the rhetoric and headlines have suggested.

Despite the many unanswered questions, Trump administration officials have repeatedly blamed Raúl Castro‘s government for failing to protect the diplomats, if not actually attacking them. Early last fall, the State Department withdrew more than half of the diplomatic staff assigned to Havana, while ordering a proportional number of Cubans to leave Washington. The department also warned U.S. citizens they could be “at risk” of attack if they visit the island. “I still believe that the Cuban government, someone within the Cuban government, can bring this to an end,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said last month.

Such assertions have outraged the Cuban leadership. Since early last year, U.S. officials said, Castro and his senior aides have insisted they had nothing to do with the incidents and would help in any way they could to investigate and stop them. The FBI team has found no evidence of Cuban complicity in the incidents, officials said, and has privately emphasized the government‘s cooperation with its investigators. Tillerson‘s statements notwithstanding, some State Department officials have also told members of Congress privately that they have assessed the Cubans‘ denials of involvement to be credible, officials said. “They believe the Cuban government wants better relations with the United States,” one Senate aide said.

On February 15 2018 14:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Well, the Russian influence only existed within an environment where people are willing to latch on to easily consumed messages and spread them quickly. Here's some examples of the identified paid for ads: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html

Most are things you would reasonably see on an average day on Facebook anyway. But again, the point was volume, not specifically message.


Ah. Well, I think the rule is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

Dubbed so because of Hastert blocking a bill post 9/11. Like a lot of things in the US political system, what changed is that someone did it first, or notably enough.

The Hastert Rule, also known as the "majority of the majority" rule, is an informal governing principle used in the United States by Republican[1][2][3] Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s to maintain their speakerships[4] and limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the House.[5] Under the doctrine, the Speaker will not allow a floor vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.[6]

The Hastert Rule is an informal rule and the Speaker is not bound by it; he or she may break it at his or her discretion. Speakers have at times broken the Hastert Rule and allowed votes to be scheduled on legislation that lacked majority support within the Speaker's own party. Hastert described the rule as being "kind of a misnomer" in that it "never really existed" as a rule.

On February 15 2018 15:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I mean, there's a reason it's called the Hastert Rule and not the Gringich Rule right now. So obviously Hastert's actions stood out a little more when he was speaker.

On February 15 2018 15:36 GreenHorizons wrote:


Fine? But that's still not the rule he described, you understand that right?

On February 15 2018 15:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:

I mean, that's what prevents minority groups in the House from introducing Bills, so that pretty much seems like the rule?

As far as I can tell, it's only since Hastert that it's become explicit policy of the standing Speakers.

The Hastert Rule is an informal rule and the Speaker is not bound by it; he or she may break it at his or her discretion.

On February 15 2018 15:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I mean, is that not the long-short of it? The Speaker decides what Bills get presented.

Especially given:


As far as I can see, Bills will only go up for vote if the Speaker brings them to the floor. And the only way to forcibly stop the current Speaker from doing this is by removing him from this position, and hopefully select someone who does not follow this policy.