“Democrats and the media are accusing anyone who criticizes special counsel Robert Mueller as Trumpian conspirators trying to undermine his probe. But who needs critics when Mr. Mueller’s team is doing so much to undermine its own credibility?
Wednesday’s revelations—they’re coming almost daily—include the Justice Department’s release of 2016 text messages to and from Peter Strzok, the FBI counterintelligence agent whom Mr. Mueller demoted this summer. The texts, which he exchanged with senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, contain expletive-laced tirades against Mr. Trump. Such Trump hatred is no surprise and not by itself disqualifying. More troubling are texts that suggest that some FBI officials may have gone beyond antipathy to anti-Trump plotting.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Mr. Strzok wrote Ms. Page in an Aug. 15, 2016 text. He added: “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
What “policy” would that be? The “Andy” in question is Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director. FBI officials are allowed to have political opinions, but what kind of action were they discussing that would amount to anti-Trump “insurance”?
In another exchange that month, Ms. Page forwarded a Trump-related article and wrote: “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” He thanked her and assured: “Of course I’ll try and approach it that way.” Mr. Strzok, recall, is the man who changed the words “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” in James Comey’s July 2016 public exoneration of Hillary Clinton’s emails.
The McCabe meeting came on the heels of the FBI’s launch of its counterintelligence probe into Trump-Russia ties. July is also when former British spook Christopher Steele briefed the FBI on his Clinton-financed dossier of salacious allegations against Mr. Trump. The texts explain why Mr. Mueller would remove Mr. Strzok, though a straight shooter wouldn’t typically resist turning those messages over to Congress for as long as Mr. Mueller did.”
———————–
“Public confidence isn’t helped by the continuing Justice and FBI refusal to cooperate with Congress. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who supervises Mr. Mueller, toed the Mueller-FBI line on Wednesday before the House Oversight Committee. He repeated FBI Director Christopher Wray’s preposterous excuse that he can’t answer questions because of an Inspector General probe. And he wouldn’t elaborate on the news that Nellie Ohr, the wife of senior Justice official Bruce Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS, which hired Mr. Steele to gin up his dossier.
The man who should be most disturbed by all this is Mr. Mueller, who wants his evidence and conclusions to be credible with the public. Evidence is building instead that some officials at the FBI—who have worked for him—may have interfered in an American presidential election. Congress needs to insist on its rights as a co-equal branch of government to discover the truth.”
“Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett was confirmed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals today. Justice Willett is best known for his Twitter account, where he stays away from politics, and is quite funny. Kemberlee put together a Best of (Future SCOTUS?) Justice Don Willett’s Twitter Feed.
As we previously reported, during confirmation hearings, Dems tried to attack some of his tweets, Aging, humorless Dem Senator rips judicial nominee Don Willett over Bacon Marriage tweet.
Dems again showed a lack of good humor today, playing the War on Women card against Willett and other judicial nominees. The Texas Tribune reports:
Willett’s confirmation came over the objections of several Democratic senators. At a news conference Wednesday morning, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, called Willett an “extreme individual” with a “frightening record.”
“Can any woman coming before this individual expect a fair hearing?” Merkley asked. “The answer is probably not.”
Before the afternoon vote, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, spoke on the Senate floor about Ho and Willett, describing the judges as “close friends” he has known for decades. He implored Democrats to set aside “partisan rancor” and confirm both.
“They are brilliant. They are principled. They are humble men of deep character,” Cruz said. “And I am confident not only will they faithfully follow the law on the Court of Appeals, but…I predict that Jim Ho and Don Willett will become judicial superstars.”
Willett will assume a seat that was vacated in 2012. All four openings on the 5th Circuit have been classified as “judicial emergencies.”
The Muller team is useless.
Whatever, if anyghing, comes of the investigation, it is automatically useless because the process has been corrupted.
If one of them told you the time of day, you would look at your watch.I
Because they are part of the deep state and the establishment. Both have clearly been working to undermine Trump since day one. Trump thought he’d be loyal to him. Turns out he’s only loyal to the bureaucracy and his friends from work.
Roy Moore’s a lifelong Republican, Ala. Supreme Court justice, and Christian. Yet you don’t support him. Why?
I’ll answer for you. Because based upon additional info it turns out he’s a perv and not at all as advertised. What he is, isn’t what we thought. Same goes for Rosenstein, Comey, and Meuller. Minus the pervieness, as far as we know. That could change too.
Traditional conservatives view Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, Kelly, Mattis, McMaster, Tillerson and their ilk as being committed to the Constitution, the rule of law, and separation of powers.
Trump came to office very green. He didn’t understand those concepts. He still doesn’t. In his business, he was everyone’s boss. That is not how Madison designed the US government.
1. But you did during the 10 Commandments thing years ago, right? Most of us did, before we knew of his thing for underage girls. Additional info changed your opinion of him, as it did for many.
2, See Mueller, Comey, Wray, Rosenstein, Strozk, and most of our intelligence apparatus. And it’s not just for this, it’s also for the fact that they spy on American citizens with no justified cause to do so.
3. It’s not like you can appoint someone without some experience to that particular position, or the FBI, You don’t appoint a reporter to run the DoJ, you put in someone with law degree. It’s not like the President where any warm body can be plugged in. It’s not like there were a lot of other choices either, that was part of the establishments plan. Many qualified people declined I’m sure, for solely political reasons. These guys were happy to take these jobs. What better way to ensure you get what you want out of these witch hunts than by being the ones running it?
“Traditional conservatives view Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, Kelly, Mattis, McMaster, Tillerson and their ilk as being committed to the Constitution, the rule of law, and separation of powers.”
Oh please. Even you don’t believe that. Were Comey and Rosenstein demonstrating those characteristics when they let the criminal Clinton skate free, even though they knew she was guilty because of some BS “intent” she supposedly didn’t have?
Please…..
Their actions exposed here during this investigation by most you listed show your admiration to be misguided at best. Is it the rule of law and Constitution that’s causing them to obstruct Congress’ investigations, and hide evidence of their rank partisanship?
Hillary Clinton and Trump are both more stupid than criminal, though each are a blend of both. Just wait. Don’t be surprised if Mueller concludes that Trump obstructed justice but was too ignorant to know he was doing anything wrong. Then the Democrats will be screaming as loudly as the Republicans did when Comey concluded that Hillary should not be prosecuted. At that time, the Trumpkins will claim that Mueller defamed Trump.
For some time now, I have been expecting all the intelligent adults ( Rosenstein, Wray, Kelly, Mattis, McMaster, Tillerson, and the conservative Republicans in Congress) to join Flake, Corker and now Ryan in returning to the private sector and simply allowing the Trumpers and the Democrats fight it out in a hilarious sequel to Idiocracy as the entire world roars with laughter. It has been patriotism that has made them stay this long.
Here is the difference between Roy Moore and Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein et al.
As Kim has stated Moore was a notorious nitwit for years before we found out he was also a pedophile. How else do you get kicked off the Alabama Supreme Court twice?
Mueller and the others have always been respected Republican public servants. They still are, by everyone except Trump supporters.
“A top congressional ethics official who oversees investigations into misconduct by lawmakers is accused in a federal lawsuit of verbally abusing and physically assaulting women and using his federal position to influence local law enforcement, according to a complaint filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania last month.
The ongoing lawsuit against Omar Ashmawy, staff director and chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics, stems from his involvement in a late-night brawl in 2015 in Milford, Pennsylvania, and includes a range of allegations relating to his behavior that evening and in the following two-and-half years.
Ashmawy’s office conducts the preliminary investigations into allegations of misconduct in the House of Representatives, deciding which cases to pursue or refer to the Committee on Ethics. He is named in congressional documents as the official who presented one of the investigations into John Conyers, the Democratic lawmaker from Michigan accused of sexual harassment, to the ethics committee for further action.
Among other allegations, Ashmawy is accused in the lawsuit of “threatening to use his position as staff director and chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics to induce a criminal proceeding to be brought against Plaintiff and/or others,” according to the federal lawsuit filed against him.”
“The GOP’s vision of passing a tax bill in the Senate is slowing fading as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has threatened to vote no on it unless the bill expands the child tax credit. From The Washington Post:
“I understand that this is a process of give and take, especially when there’s only a couple of us fighting for it, the leverage is lessened,” Rubio (R-Fla.) said Thursday in the Senate. “But given all the other changes made in the tax code leading into it, I can’t in good conscience support it unless we are able to increase [the child tax credit], and there’s ways to do it and we’ll be very reasonable about it.”
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rubio’s partner in pushing for the expanded child tax credit, is undecided on whether to support the Republicans’ final tax bill, according to a Lee spokesman.
What is the child tax credit? It’s meant to offset the expenses you pay to raise a child. Right now, it’s worth $1,000 and refundable if the tax credit is more than the total amount of income taxes you have to pay. You have to make at least $3,000 a year in order to qualify. It’s not available to those with a tax rate of 15% or higher. The credit phases out throughout the tax brackets, too.
The new tax bill has the child tax credit at $2,000, but a maximum of $1,100 is refundable Rubio and Lee want it set at $3,000. As I said before, right now, it’s for those who make at least $3,000 a year. Rubio and Lee want to include those “who pay payroll taxes but do not earn enough to pay income taxes to claim the expanded credit.” This change “would expand the credit by $80 billion over 10 years, a smaller change than they proposed for the Senate bill.”
The GOP cannot afford to lose Rubio. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) voted against the bill the first time and has not given any inkling that he will change his mind. That means if Rubio votes no, Vice President Mike Pence will have to come in and cast his tie break vote.
But that won’t be necessary because moderate Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has not come out as 100% behind this bill along with Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ). If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell loses Rubio, Corker, Flake, and Collins, then the bill will fail.”
AJ @ 10:39 This may sound hokey and old-fashioned to some, but Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein and Wray each took an oath to upheld the Constitution. They are not supposed to be loyal to Trump or Hillary or anyone in the bureaucracy.
It may be old-fashioned, but they take that duty very seriously. That is why Comey revealed those emails found on Weiner’s computer right before the election. It is why Strzok was demoted. Their job is hard when the targets of their investigations are foolish and dishonest Presidents or Secretaries of State. They have to make tough calls.
That loyalty to the Constitution and not to any particular President or other political leader is what separates us from Haiti, Iraq and Zimbabwe.
“Okay, so the first question is what are the rules that Obama’s administration passed? Back in 2014, Obama pushed the agency “to impose upon internet service providers a creaky regulatory framework called ‘Title II,’ which was designed in the 1930s to tame the Ma Bell telephone monopoly.” This meant that broadband providers had to treat all traffic equally so they could not block or slow content or provide better speeds for certain websites.
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai sat on the board at the time and he voted no. He was disappointed that the board “chose micromanagement over markets.” He was correct as he points out in his Wall Street Journal op-ed:
This burdensome regulation has failed consumers and businesses alike. In the two years after the FCC’s decision, broadband network investment dropped more than 5.6%—the first time a decline has happened outside of a recession. If the current rules are left in place, millions of Americans who are on the wrong side of the digital divide would have to wait years to get more broadband.
The effect has been particularly serious for smaller internet service providers. They don’t have the time, money or lawyers to cut through a thicket of complex rules. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that generally operate in rural America, found that more than 80% of its members “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.” They aren’t alone. Other small companies have told the FCC that these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay or curtail upgrades to their fiber networks.
The rules also slowed a company from introducing new services due to fear of non-compliance. A major company shelved an idea for “its out-of-home Wi-Fi network” because those in charge did not know if the FCC would approve. Last May, Pai heard from 19 municipal internet service providers (city-owned nonprofits) that had to “often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because we cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action.”
Pai’s Rules
The burden on people and companies, the market overall, led Pai to develop new rules that concentrate on transparency. The way that people have acted online today you’d think that Pai just ordered the end of the world. He did not (emphasis mine):
This is why I’m proposing today that my colleagues at the Federal Communications Commission repeal President Obama’s heavy-handed internet regulations. Instead the FCC simply would require internet service providers to be transparent so that consumers can buy the plan that’s best for them. And entrepreneurs and other small businesses would have the technical information they need to innovate. The Federal Trade Commission would police ISPs, protect consumers and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Instead of being flyspecked by lawyers and bureaucrats, the internet would once again thrive under engineers and entrepreneurs.
You know what’s so great about the free market? Competition. Power of the consumer. This means those companies have to tell you if they plan on throttling Netflix or make you pay for certain sites. The companies HAVE to tell you everything you’re signing up for.”
@6:10 This is very bad. The demise of net neutrality is yet another win for big business—mostly telecoms. The power to slow internet connection to sites that don’t pay up will eventually crush the small online business–and can eventually be used as a political weapon as well. But hey, all politicians and lobbyists have to do is scream ‘competition!’ and you’ll find people who will cheer for absolutely anything. Such is life.
On that I disagree. I think everyone is better off with those Obama era regulations scraped. The link clearly shows how those regs negatively affected smaller businesses and big. They stopped innovation and upgrades. Many times those upgrades would have expanded access in rural areas, and provided cheaper services that would have benefited the poor people in urban areas. Those regs were supposed to be protecting these people, yet the opposite happened. Like the supposed consumer protections in the that the Obama era (and Liz Warren) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, this was nothing more another good idea ruined by inefficient govt. and do gooder liberals with another agenda entirely. And like the CFPB, it can be, and is, used as a political shake down weapon against business. Good riddance.
Wandering Views 
Gowdy gets it.
————————-
LikeLike
And so does the Wall St. Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbis-trump-insurance-1513210929
“Democrats and the media are accusing anyone who criticizes special counsel Robert Mueller as Trumpian conspirators trying to undermine his probe. But who needs critics when Mr. Mueller’s team is doing so much to undermine its own credibility?
Wednesday’s revelations—they’re coming almost daily—include the Justice Department’s release of 2016 text messages to and from Peter Strzok, the FBI counterintelligence agent whom Mr. Mueller demoted this summer. The texts, which he exchanged with senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, contain expletive-laced tirades against Mr. Trump. Such Trump hatred is no surprise and not by itself disqualifying. More troubling are texts that suggest that some FBI officials may have gone beyond antipathy to anti-Trump plotting.
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Mr. Strzok wrote Ms. Page in an Aug. 15, 2016 text. He added: “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
What “policy” would that be? The “Andy” in question is Andrew McCabe, the deputy FBI director. FBI officials are allowed to have political opinions, but what kind of action were they discussing that would amount to anti-Trump “insurance”?
In another exchange that month, Ms. Page forwarded a Trump-related article and wrote: “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” He thanked her and assured: “Of course I’ll try and approach it that way.” Mr. Strzok, recall, is the man who changed the words “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” in James Comey’s July 2016 public exoneration of Hillary Clinton’s emails.
The McCabe meeting came on the heels of the FBI’s launch of its counterintelligence probe into Trump-Russia ties. July is also when former British spook Christopher Steele briefed the FBI on his Clinton-financed dossier of salacious allegations against Mr. Trump. The texts explain why Mr. Mueller would remove Mr. Strzok, though a straight shooter wouldn’t typically resist turning those messages over to Congress for as long as Mr. Mueller did.”
———————–
“Public confidence isn’t helped by the continuing Justice and FBI refusal to cooperate with Congress. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who supervises Mr. Mueller, toed the Mueller-FBI line on Wednesday before the House Oversight Committee. He repeated FBI Director Christopher Wray’s preposterous excuse that he can’t answer questions because of an Inspector General probe. And he wouldn’t elaborate on the news that Nellie Ohr, the wife of senior Justice official Bruce Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS, which hired Mr. Steele to gin up his dossier.
The man who should be most disturbed by all this is Mr. Mueller, who wants his evidence and conclusions to be credible with the public. Evidence is building instead that some officials at the FBI—who have worked for him—may have interfered in an American presidential election. Congress needs to insist on its rights as a co-equal branch of government to discover the truth.”
LikeLike
Ricky,
You Texans sure love your Tweets. 🙂
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/12/tweetin-texan-don-willett-confirmed-to-5th-circuit-despite-dems-playing-war-on-women-card/
“Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett was confirmed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals today. Justice Willett is best known for his Twitter account, where he stays away from politics, and is quite funny. Kemberlee put together a Best of (Future SCOTUS?) Justice Don Willett’s Twitter Feed.
As we previously reported, during confirmation hearings, Dems tried to attack some of his tweets, Aging, humorless Dem Senator rips judicial nominee Don Willett over Bacon Marriage tweet.
Dems again showed a lack of good humor today, playing the War on Women card against Willett and other judicial nominees. The Texas Tribune reports:
Willett’s confirmation came over the objections of several Democratic senators. At a news conference Wednesday morning, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, called Willett an “extreme individual” with a “frightening record.”
“Can any woman coming before this individual expect a fair hearing?” Merkley asked. “The answer is probably not.”
Before the afternoon vote, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, spoke on the Senate floor about Ho and Willett, describing the judges as “close friends” he has known for decades. He implored Democrats to set aside “partisan rancor” and confirm both.
“They are brilliant. They are principled. They are humble men of deep character,” Cruz said. “And I am confident not only will they faithfully follow the law on the Court of Appeals, but…I predict that Jim Ho and Don Willett will become judicial superstars.”
Willett will assume a seat that was vacated in 2012. All four openings on the 5th Circuit have been classified as “judicial emergencies.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bermuda goes against the tide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Justice Willett is the best on Twitter.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Muller team is useless.
Whatever, if anyghing, comes of the investigation, it is automatically useless because the process has been corrupted.
If one of them told you the time of day, you would look at your watch.I
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is Rod Rosenstein’s biography. He is a Republican, appointed to his current position by Donald Trump.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein
I am curious. Why do those of you who are now anti-Mueller think Rosenstein is continuing to defend and support Mueller (who is also a Republican)?
LikeLike
Because they are part of the deep state and the establishment. Both have clearly been working to undermine Trump since day one. Trump thought he’d be loyal to him. Turns out he’s only loyal to the bureaucracy and his friends from work.
That’s why.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And using that logic Ricky…..
Roy Moore’s a lifelong Republican, Ala. Supreme Court justice, and Christian. Yet you don’t support him. Why?
I’ll answer for you. Because based upon additional info it turns out he’s a perv and not at all as advertised. What he is, isn’t what we thought. Same goes for Rosenstein, Comey, and Meuller. Minus the pervieness, as far as we know. That could change too.
🙂
LikeLike
This isn’t really that hard. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Love that Tweet from the judgeby the way. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
AJ, 1. I don’t support child molesters.
2. How would you define “deep state”?
3. Why did Trump appoint the “deep stater” Rosenstein to be the Deputy Attorney General?
LikeLike
Traditional conservatives view Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, Kelly, Mattis, McMaster, Tillerson and their ilk as being committed to the Constitution, the rule of law, and separation of powers.
Trump came to office very green. He didn’t understand those concepts. He still doesn’t. In his business, he was everyone’s boss. That is not how Madison designed the US government.
LikeLike
1. But you did during the 10 Commandments thing years ago, right? Most of us did, before we knew of his thing for underage girls. Additional info changed your opinion of him, as it did for many.
2, See Mueller, Comey, Wray, Rosenstein, Strozk, and most of our intelligence apparatus. And it’s not just for this, it’s also for the fact that they spy on American citizens with no justified cause to do so.
3. It’s not like you can appoint someone without some experience to that particular position, or the FBI, You don’t appoint a reporter to run the DoJ, you put in someone with law degree. It’s not like the President where any warm body can be plugged in. It’s not like there were a lot of other choices either, that was part of the establishments plan. Many qualified people declined I’m sure, for solely political reasons. These guys were happy to take these jobs. What better way to ensure you get what you want out of these witch hunts than by being the ones running it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Traditional conservatives view Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray, Kelly, Mattis, McMaster, Tillerson and their ilk as being committed to the Constitution, the rule of law, and separation of powers.”
Oh please. Even you don’t believe that. Were Comey and Rosenstein demonstrating those characteristics when they let the criminal Clinton skate free, even though they knew she was guilty because of some BS “intent” she supposedly didn’t have?
Please…..
Their actions exposed here during this investigation by most you listed show your admiration to be misguided at best. Is it the rule of law and Constitution that’s causing them to obstruct Congress’ investigations, and hide evidence of their rank partisanship?
I think not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can’t tell, but I’m grinning ear to ear right now.
😀
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/14/paul-ryan-retire-speaker-ready-leave-washington-216103
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hillary Clinton and Trump are both more stupid than criminal, though each are a blend of both. Just wait. Don’t be surprised if Mueller concludes that Trump obstructed justice but was too ignorant to know he was doing anything wrong. Then the Democrats will be screaming as loudly as the Republicans did when Comey concluded that Hillary should not be prosecuted. At that time, the Trumpkins will claim that Mueller defamed Trump.
LikeLike
AJ @ 1:05. You were quicker than I was. Weren’t we just discussing this the other night?
LikeLike
For some time now, I have been expecting all the intelligent adults ( Rosenstein, Wray, Kelly, Mattis, McMaster, Tillerson, and the conservative Republicans in Congress) to join Flake, Corker and now Ryan in returning to the private sector and simply allowing the Trumpers and the Democrats fight it out in a hilarious sequel to Idiocracy as the entire world roars with laughter. It has been patriotism that has made them stay this long.
LikeLike
Jeff Flake proudly donated to the campaign of a guy who condones murder of children. “Idiot” would be a kind way of describing him.
LikeLike
Here is the difference between Roy Moore and Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein et al.
As Kim has stated Moore was a notorious nitwit for years before we found out he was also a pedophile. How else do you get kicked off the Alabama Supreme Court twice?
Mueller and the others have always been respected Republican public servants. They still are, by everyone except Trump supporters.
LikeLike
So by everyone except half the country…. 🙂
LikeLike
32%
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/administration/364715-monmouth-poll-trump-approval-rating-hits-record-low-32-percent%3famp
LikeLike
😦 Hillary is more criminal than stupid.
With the Clintons, it’s about money.
With Bill, money and sex, but mostly money.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gee, think maybe this is part of the problem?
Who watches the watchers?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/head-congressional-ethics-office-sued-192711888.html
“A top congressional ethics official who oversees investigations into misconduct by lawmakers is accused in a federal lawsuit of verbally abusing and physically assaulting women and using his federal position to influence local law enforcement, according to a complaint filed in a federal court in Pennsylvania last month.
The ongoing lawsuit against Omar Ashmawy, staff director and chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics, stems from his involvement in a late-night brawl in 2015 in Milford, Pennsylvania, and includes a range of allegations relating to his behavior that evening and in the following two-and-half years.
Ashmawy’s office conducts the preliminary investigations into allegations of misconduct in the House of Representatives, deciding which cases to pursue or refer to the Committee on Ethics. He is named in congressional documents as the official who presented one of the investigations into John Conyers, the Democratic lawmaker from Michigan accused of sexual harassment, to the ethics committee for further action.
Among other allegations, Ashmawy is accused in the lawsuit of “threatening to use his position as staff director and chief counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics to induce a criminal proceeding to be brought against Plaintiff and/or others,” according to the federal lawsuit filed against him.”
LikeLike
Once again Republicans seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/12/rubio-threatens-to-vote-no-on-tax-bill-if-child-tax-credit-isnt-raised-more/#more-236047
“The GOP’s vision of passing a tax bill in the Senate is slowing fading as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has threatened to vote no on it unless the bill expands the child tax credit. From The Washington Post:
“I understand that this is a process of give and take, especially when there’s only a couple of us fighting for it, the leverage is lessened,” Rubio (R-Fla.) said Thursday in the Senate. “But given all the other changes made in the tax code leading into it, I can’t in good conscience support it unless we are able to increase [the child tax credit], and there’s ways to do it and we’ll be very reasonable about it.”
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rubio’s partner in pushing for the expanded child tax credit, is undecided on whether to support the Republicans’ final tax bill, according to a Lee spokesman.
What is the child tax credit? It’s meant to offset the expenses you pay to raise a child. Right now, it’s worth $1,000 and refundable if the tax credit is more than the total amount of income taxes you have to pay. You have to make at least $3,000 a year in order to qualify. It’s not available to those with a tax rate of 15% or higher. The credit phases out throughout the tax brackets, too.
The new tax bill has the child tax credit at $2,000, but a maximum of $1,100 is refundable Rubio and Lee want it set at $3,000. As I said before, right now, it’s for those who make at least $3,000 a year. Rubio and Lee want to include those “who pay payroll taxes but do not earn enough to pay income taxes to claim the expanded credit.” This change “would expand the credit by $80 billion over 10 years, a smaller change than they proposed for the Senate bill.”
The GOP cannot afford to lose Rubio. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) voted against the bill the first time and has not given any inkling that he will change his mind. That means if Rubio votes no, Vice President Mike Pence will have to come in and cast his tie break vote.
But that won’t be necessary because moderate Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has not come out as 100% behind this bill along with Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ). If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell loses Rubio, Corker, Flake, and Collins, then the bill will fail.”
LikeLike
AJ @ 10:39 This may sound hokey and old-fashioned to some, but Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein and Wray each took an oath to upheld the Constitution. They are not supposed to be loyal to Trump or Hillary or anyone in the bureaucracy.
It may be old-fashioned, but they take that duty very seriously. That is why Comey revealed those emails found on Weiner’s computer right before the election. It is why Strzok was demoted. Their job is hard when the targets of their investigations are foolish and dishonest Presidents or Secretaries of State. They have to make tough calls.
That loyalty to the Constitution and not to any particular President or other political leader is what separates us from Haiti, Iraq and Zimbabwe.
LikeLike
Less govt. overreach is a win for everyone.
Except George Soros, who funded the opposition to repealing Obama’s meddling.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/12/no-the-world-will-not-end-because-the-fcc-repealed-obamas-net-neutrality/
“Okay, so the first question is what are the rules that Obama’s administration passed? Back in 2014, Obama pushed the agency “to impose upon internet service providers a creaky regulatory framework called ‘Title II,’ which was designed in the 1930s to tame the Ma Bell telephone monopoly.” This meant that broadband providers had to treat all traffic equally so they could not block or slow content or provide better speeds for certain websites.
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai sat on the board at the time and he voted no. He was disappointed that the board “chose micromanagement over markets.” He was correct as he points out in his Wall Street Journal op-ed:
This burdensome regulation has failed consumers and businesses alike. In the two years after the FCC’s decision, broadband network investment dropped more than 5.6%—the first time a decline has happened outside of a recession. If the current rules are left in place, millions of Americans who are on the wrong side of the digital divide would have to wait years to get more broadband.
The effect has been particularly serious for smaller internet service providers. They don’t have the time, money or lawyers to cut through a thicket of complex rules. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that generally operate in rural America, found that more than 80% of its members “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.” They aren’t alone. Other small companies have told the FCC that these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay or curtail upgrades to their fiber networks.
The rules also slowed a company from introducing new services due to fear of non-compliance. A major company shelved an idea for “its out-of-home Wi-Fi network” because those in charge did not know if the FCC would approve. Last May, Pai heard from 19 municipal internet service providers (city-owned nonprofits) that had to “often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because we cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action.”
Pai’s Rules
The burden on people and companies, the market overall, led Pai to develop new rules that concentrate on transparency. The way that people have acted online today you’d think that Pai just ordered the end of the world. He did not (emphasis mine):
This is why I’m proposing today that my colleagues at the Federal Communications Commission repeal President Obama’s heavy-handed internet regulations. Instead the FCC simply would require internet service providers to be transparent so that consumers can buy the plan that’s best for them. And entrepreneurs and other small businesses would have the technical information they need to innovate. The Federal Trade Commission would police ISPs, protect consumers and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Instead of being flyspecked by lawyers and bureaucrats, the internet would once again thrive under engineers and entrepreneurs.
You know what’s so great about the free market? Competition. Power of the consumer. This means those companies have to tell you if they plan on throttling Netflix or make you pay for certain sites. The companies HAVE to tell you everything you’re signing up for.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump had a very good day on Twitter today. He was strong, positive and on message about both regulations and the tax bill.
LikeLike
@6:10 This is very bad. The demise of net neutrality is yet another win for big business—mostly telecoms. The power to slow internet connection to sites that don’t pay up will eventually crush the small online business–and can eventually be used as a political weapon as well. But hey, all politicians and lobbyists have to do is scream ‘competition!’ and you’ll find people who will cheer for absolutely anything. Such is life.
LikeLike
Debra, This is good. You and AJ are proving that Trumpers are not monolithic. A little Milton Friedman is guaranteed to show you who is right.
LikeLike
Debra,
On that I disagree. I think everyone is better off with those Obama era regulations scraped. The link clearly shows how those regs negatively affected smaller businesses and big. They stopped innovation and upgrades. Many times those upgrades would have expanded access in rural areas, and provided cheaper services that would have benefited the poor people in urban areas. Those regs were supposed to be protecting these people, yet the opposite happened. Like the supposed consumer protections in the that the Obama era (and Liz Warren) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, this was nothing more another good idea ruined by inefficient govt. and do gooder liberals with another agenda entirely. And like the CFPB, it can be, and is, used as a political shake down weapon against business. Good riddance.
LikeLiked by 1 person