Hide and go leak
Link to quote: Lankford cites 'election year' for waning GOP support on border bill: 'Not about letting 5000 people in a day' (yahoo.com)
The Senate is working on a bill that would supposedly secure the southern border, while unlocking funds for aid to the Ukraine and Israel. Sadly, it is politics at its worst. The game they are playing is called "hide and go leak." The name was given to the deal by a Fox anchor. The way it works is that the dealmakers, Schumer & McConnell, would hide the text of the deal from the public and Senate members until the last minute, while leaking only certain provisions of the deal to satisfy critics.
Senator James Langford of Oklahoma has been the chief negotiator on the Republican side. He has drawn considerable criticism from fellow Republicans. It seems that he wants us to believe that Joe Biden will follow the provisions of a Senate deal after ignoring the laws of the United States. Under a provision of the bill, Biden would not be compelled to close the border unless a threshold number of about 5,000 migrants passed into the US in a single day.
Lankford, under fire from the Oklahoma GOP as well over the border bill, appeared on "Fox News Sunday," where he defended the package said to have something akin to a Title 42 power that would allow everyone at the border to be turned away. Last week, Cruz blasted the Republican compromise, however, saying it still afforded about 6 million people – or two-thirds of the 9.6 million illegal border crossings under President Biden – to illegally enter and stay. He further argued the actual text language of the legislation was being kept a secret.
Lankford cites 'election year' for waning GOP support on border bill: 'Not about letting 5000 people in a day' (yahoo.com)
As for the idea that we could ever trust Biden and Mayorkas to observe immigration laws or secure the border, we have 3 years of proof that they will not. The worst thing that could happen is that provisions would be included to prevent a new president, such as Donald Trump from securing the border.
In other news:
Qatar, representing Egypt, Israel, the US and most likely those we don't know about is proposing a six week pause in fighting so that Hamas can "exchange hostages" with Israel.
Future First, the main super PAC supporting Joe Biden is allocating $250 million for advertising in the battleground states.
A former IRS contractor accused of leaking Donald Trump's tax returns to the New York Times got a minimal 5-year prison sentence.
president Joe Biden is still in a quandary about what to do about the attack that killed 3 US service member and wounded about 40 others.
Tags
Who is online
54 visitors
Good morning
It is also another day closer to a Mayorkas impeachment.
You are probably the biggest Jonathan Turley fan on Newstalkers. Turley told Fox News there is no "cognizable" basis for impeaching Mayorkas.
Can you show us the context of that?
You figure out the "context"
Democrats made impeachment political. There doesn't need to be a "basis" for it.
Mayorkas lying repeatedly to Congress- and willfully failing to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws as written is more than enough.
Donald Trump tried to extort a foreign government into helping him achieve re-election by saying they were investigating trump's opponent. He not only should have been impeached , he should have been convicted and removed.
Mayorkas will be impeached and deservedly so, but the blindly partisan and cowardly Senate Dems won't convict him for what amounts to treason
Maybe they should tie the impeachment vote to aid for Ukraine, it appears you have to bribe the pieces of shit to do the right thing.
I guess the context is there is now a bad impeachment standard in place.
That is too bad.
No, he asked them to tell the truth.
Say, it is that the very same Jonathon Turley liberals despise and argue how horrible he is when they don't agree with him--THAT Turley??
Impeachment of Mayorkas will probably make MAGA happy, but I dont see it winning them any undecided voters.
I can agree with that. There are so many other more important issues that the House should be focusing on such as the budget. With this being an election year, how much time will the House actually spend in session to work on all these issues vs out on the campaign trail working for their re-election. IMO if they continue to waste time they will risk their re-election efforts.
But I can also see with the very narrow margin in the House that leadership is making all sorts of stupid deals to try to remain in power so are taking on these issues to keep the extreme right members happy.
Not only keeping their extreme members happy but possibly positioning themselves for the onslaught of "Republicans won't vote on any bill because of Trump" narrative. Seems Repubs will yell about Joe not doing anything and possibly if they can blame part of the crisis on Mayorkis and point that no one did anything about him.................
That is only conjecture about political games, who knows for sure.
Same ole same ole. No one wants to get anything done so they can blame the other party. There is more positioning and game playing. A party asks for the extreme (Is that why Schumer won't bring the house bill up for a vote) and the other party says no way. Now we may see the senate proposal (maybe says 5000 a day is OK) knowing the other side will not go along with it. And around and around we go.
It will put a stain on his legacy, and it would be in that sense justice served.
Only valid if you recognize that this is common to both parties.
Particularly disgusting is the kowtowing to Trump who, easy to believe, does not want immigration problems lessened while Biden is PotUS.
Thought that was clear when I stated "No one wants to get anything done so they can blame the other party."
That is assuming they are doing it because of Trump and not because they are honestly against it, want to continue negotiating on it, or are just playing the same ole same ole games.
Which is what Romney has reported. Romney expressed his disappointment that Senators who were going to support the legislation are now undecided due to Trump.
"reading the reports and the fact that McConnel hasn't corrected them suggest" sounds like alot of conjecture. I might have missed it but where did he say senators that were going to support the legislation (whatever it is, is it finalized?) are no longer going to because of Trump. Which ones are doing that?
AH.
Sounds like you don't understand the whole idea of impeachment, but I get that based off the last two impeachments.
Impeachment of Mayorkas isn't about votes, man, it is all about the shitty job he's doing.
I find everything the former 'president' says and does appalling and that's putting it mildly.
Romney and Cheney are two of the very few republicans nowadays with a spine.
When will the rest grow one and remove their balls from the former 'president's' pockets?
We need new blood in Congress.
That is universally held belief across the political spectrum in America regarding other people's representatives, only...
Yet, we like our reps and reelect them all.
But they MIGHT!!!!!
He was not specific. He is not going to name names.
Where did he actually say "Senators who were going to support the legislation are now undecided due to Trump"? Did he mention how many?
I did not quote Romney. I summarized and gave a video.
Do your own research RdTC instead of playing pathetic games.
For example, read this:
And watch the video included within.
You summarized what Romney said by stating:"Romney expressed his disappointment that Senators who were going to support the legislation are now undecided due to Trump." When you are asked where you got that from you deflect and pivot because your comment was bullshit . Then you complain about someone else playing a pathetic game. Sad
Hmmm... What are your thoughts on Sinema and Manchin?..
If you are going to attempt to engage in analysis, you need to do more than look for specific literal words — demanding a quote when none was ever indicated.
It should be obvious to you that Romney, based on what he has stated (see, for example: ), holds that Trump has great influence over the GOP. And when Trump makes his statements urging GOP senators to not vote for a bill, that this has an effect. Romney's public complaints about Trump trying to pressure Congress is due to the fact that Romney knows that Trump's positions do indeed impact his colleagues. If you follow Romney at all you would know this. You are ill-informed about this matter.
To wit:
Since you did not read my link, I am going to make this real obvious:
Now in context of the above:
Continuing on:
This is yet another of many treatments of this subject. It is important to have a realistic understanding of political reality. One should spend time getting informed and less time playing pointless, pathetic little games.
The leaked deals can’t be possibly be accurate. There’s no way any republican In senate could possibly think making the border weaker is an acceptable solution.
If only we could read it!
There are Republicans in the Senate that are long time Establishment buffoons. They are the same idiots that thought caving and signing a Democrat based budget was a good idea right before Republicans assumed control of the House.
They are more concerned with keeping donor money flowing; insider trading bonuses; and making sure their friends and family have access to high paying easy jobs from their cronies.
I think you've got it.
As much as Mitch McConnell tries to portray the Senate as the more moderate, more deliberate body, it is simply the last vestige what the Senate once was. McConnell now simply goes along to get along.
So, if Oklahoma's far far rightwing ulta conservative Senator Lankford is saying that his, the Senate's bill, gives the gop "everything we ever wanted" your out?
MAGA!
What is in the bill?
In the US Senate with bipartisan support!
Not what, where. And why hasn't that piece of worthless shit Chuck Schumer done anything with the house Bill? [deleted] Fuck you schumer and do your job.
Read this a get back to us...
Tell that to the gop senators who back it.
You mean the same Establishment POS Republican Senators that allowed a Democrat written budget to pass just before Republicans assumed control of the House?
Based on their track record we will pass.
Nothing is stopping Brandon from securing the border and enforcing our immigration laws as written right now. He doesn't need any new authority or money from Congress to do his damn job.
Democrats created this crisis- they can damn well do what it takes with what they have now to fix it.
I asked what is in it.
You don't know, do you?
I can't read it without a subscription.
I know the democrats who rejected HR 2
In it?
Everything the gop Senators ever wanted!
According to far rightwing Sen Lankford...
Yet you can't show us?
I did ^! You are locked in a denial bubble...
I've posted two links so you're floundering!
You have not posted any link showing us what is in the bill.
I am not going to play your juvenile game!
The Senate Bill has bipartisan support and gives the gop everything it wanted...
The MAGA oppose it because of Trump!
MAGA House. MAGA Senate is onboard...
I see a bit of contradiction:
The MAGA oppose it because of Trump!
MAGA Senate is onboard...
The Senate Bill has bipartisan support and gives the gop everything it wanted...
did you type that with a straight face?
The links within your link either get "404 Not Found" or "deleted" Try again.
It's amazing how they know what is in a bill that hasn't been written or even published, they wouldn't be lying about it would they?
The outline of the agreed bill is known...
Shades of Nancy Pelosi.................
Post a link! Here is an actual Bill that you can read! Where has that worthless piece of shit Schumer been?
Summary of H.R. 2: Secure the Border Act of 2023 - GovTrack.us
Are you suggesting you know what the GOP wants. I guess you could if you read the Bill already passed by the GOP in the house. Is that what is on the Senate bill?
Does gop Oklahoma Senator Lankford know? Says he does...
Did he say it was everything the gop wanted?
A budget is supposed to be passed in Sept at the latest before the start of the fiscal year on 1 Oct.
Rachel Maddow asks E. Jean Carroll what she's going to do with "Trump's money" to help "women's rights."
Carroll says she and Maddow will "go shopping, get completely new wardrobes, new shoes...Rachel, what do you want, penthouse?"
Her lawyer nervously says "that's a joke":
Here is a question for our readers:
Should a woman go to jail if it is proven that she falsely accused a man of rape ?
There is zero evidence that happened here. The only thing I see is blind partisanship from trump supporters with a dash of victim shaming.
There is zero evidence that she isn't lying.
Something the TDS driven have been guilty of for the last 8 years and counting. It is getting rather old. Can't you all find something better to with your time; like open your homes and wallets to the millions of illegal immigrants Brandon has let into the country?
The jury believes her argument. That is it. That is how our system works.
No surprise that Trump supporters will still try to defend Trump even after the resolution of two trials with two juries.
There is no evidence she is telling the truth. No physical evidence and no witnesses to something that allegedly happened 30 some year ago. All it amounts to is an unverifiable "she said" to obviously biased juries. This is eerily similar to the accusations brought against Justice Kavanaugh
And how can we forget the accusations against Bubba Bill Clinton by several women at least two of which have accused him of rape. Hillary dismissed them as bimbos! And then there is the payoff to Paula Jones and that stained blue dress from the Oval Office blow job.
Deep denial and blind partisan by the left, as usual
Well, Greg (and Just Jim), I am pretty sure a formal trial where the jury concurs is evidence (albeit not proof) that she was telling the truth.
An incredible declaration by someone who is denying a formal trial.
I will not be surprised if this exact same blindly partisan tactic reappears upon every trial that Trump loses.
A witness at the trial said that E Jean Carroll called her on the day it happened and told her what had just happened.
”I will not be surprised if this exact same blindly partisan tactic reappears upon every trial that Trump loses.”
And inexplicably, the chorus of criticism from the cultists will only get louder.
Is this supposed to be supporting your pathetic defense of Trump? Because Clinton was a womanizer, Trump is not???
That is some incredibly confused logic.
There is zero evidence that ANYTHING happened.
My question stands.
Trump's boasts don't prove whether he was a womanizer or not.
My comments in no way support Trump but show your propensity to accept uncorroborated statements about alleged events that happened decades ago, and simply point out your blind partisanship and flawed logic.
Oh, and by the way, your cleverly crafted taunts bordering on personal attacks show the weakness of your arguments.
Not sure anyone has stated that that boasts alone make someone a womanizer. It would certainly go against a claim of not being a womanizer. Those boasts could indeed influence a jury. But they are not proof and nobody has suggested they are proof.
Greg, are you aware that two trials were conducted and both juries sided with the plaintiff?
You are feebly trying to defend Trump even after two formal trials have concluded.
And bringing up Clinton's womanizing does not, in any way shape or form, imply that Trump is NOT a womanizer or that the verdict of liability was a travesty of justice.
Here, Vic, I will provide an answer:
I believe a woman should be held legally accountable if determined in a court of law that she falsely accused a man of rape. The consequences of that accountability would likely depend on the circumstances. I do not think jail is appropriate, but a fine certainly would be.
I think that question was for you a segue to this subject.
Now that you brought us here, let us get to the agreeable facts:
What led to both Trump and Caroll to willingly retreat together to a department store dressing room?
Off the top of my head I would say Carroll was flirting with him.
"she was teasing me " is not a legal defense for sexual assault.
But nobody seems to know how they both supposedly agreed to do that.
Why did the sexual assault complaint come decades after the supposed act took place?
I do not know. Here is the story from her perspective:
Do you have special inside information to share?
Or do you just want to retry the case to get a different outcome?
Shouldn't that part of the story been questioned?
when he allegedly led her to an unmonitored dressing room.
And she followed him right in. Why?
Do you have special inside information to share?
No, only questions for a woman with a story full of inconsistencies.
Or do you just want to retry the case to get a different outcome?
There is no other outcome for anyone named Trump.
“Let us start with facts.
1) This thing about Trump trials has no relation to the topic.”
What makes you think that was not addressed in the trial?
You did not read what I posted?
Well, Vic, two juries disagree with your 'informed' analysis.
Oh poor Trump ... such a victim ... never does anything wrong.
Give us all a break, Vic.
"Thank You", someone had to say it...
That's exactly what 'this' is Mr. Frost.
It's also a deflection, why do some always default/deflect to the Clintons?
This isn't about the Clintons!
"What led to both the former 'president' and Ms. Carroll to willingly retreat together to a department store dressing room?"
How can that be when the former 'president' stated at trial and many times before, and many times after,
"THIS WOMAN, I DON'T KNOW HER, I NEVER MET HER. I HAVE NO IDEA WHO SHE IS.
So, which is it? He raped her? Or "THIS WOMAN, I DON'T KNOW HER, I NEVER MET HER. I HAVE NO IDEA WHO SHE IS.
Has nothing to do with the question asked. It is asking the question as to how they "supposedly" were in a dressing room together according to her. You know, did she go willingly? Did he sneak up on her and if so, why no screaming or yelling for someone to help?
Of course it does, so he obviously lied when he said he didn't rape her then "This woman, I don't know her, I never met her. I have no idea who she is"
So, he lied when he said he didn't know the woman that he raped in the dressing room, right?
Do you remember every acquaintance you came in contact with 30 years ago? And again, it doesn't answer the question of how they were in the room together in the first place. You know, her CLAIM and basis about what happened and WHERE.
Where did he mention "woman in the dressing room"? Your imagination I'm guessing.
So he raped her and lied about it.
by claiming that he never met her, didn't know her, had no idea who she was, yet raped her in the dressing room
I'd remember being raped, which is what the former 'president' did to Ms. Carroll in the dressing room.
Or he didn't and she lied about it.
You can't possibly know that for sure. You take her word for it and that of a bias jury.
So it is your claim that both juries were biased? That these people did not take their oaths seriously and chose to find Trump liable when they really did not believe he was?
Not that I am surprised by this crap. The typical defense of Trump starts with denying the evidence. Then it is denying the allegations. Then it is a question of where is the indictment. Then it is a claim that the indictment is politically motivated and without merit. Then as trials complete the very predictable claim is that this was a travesty of justice. The agents are all biased and dishonest ... the process is rigged.
The unsupported, partisan denial is entirely predictable. Evidence and arguments do not matter.
Trump is an innocent 'victim' no matter what.
But he did, he is known for doing things like this, he did it to another woman on a plane - just put his hand up her skirt and grabbed her pussy and shoved his disgusting little fingers in her - and then claimed, like Ms. Carroll, that she wasn't his type and that he probably had never met her.
It's for sure!!!!!!!!!!! We all know it.
It's the endless defense of the indefensible on top of everything else which is so mindblowing/boggling/stupefying
Penthouse forum the source?
Try to remember Vic, both of these decisions we reached using a jury, not a judge. And before people start screaming about, "liberal juries", trump's lawyers helped pick those juries. Trump fucked around and found out, it's really that simple. Trump is a rapist, deal with it.
A New York Trump hating jury. You could convict Trump of the JFK assassination there.
Of course, every trial against Trump will be deemed a travesty of justice. Trump has done no wrong, he is just a victim.
Let us know when we have some agreeable facts.
What is an "agreeable fact"? That is not a common phrase.
Do you mean a fact with which you personally agree?
One that we can both agree IS a fact.
“What is an "agreeable fact"? “
Akin to an ‘alternate truth’.
So, you say there are no facts?
As in:
“There is zero evidence that ANYTHING happened.” ?
Oh, I see, you want me to withhold my comments until I can write something that you agree with.
Request denied.
Let us start with facts.
1) This thing about Trump trials has no relation to the topic.
2) I submitted an article on the subject. That is where the discussion belongs.
3) In that article (entitled $83 Million?) are what I consider to be undeniable facts.
I want you to admit to facts.
You are implying that I do not acknowledge facts.
I suspect the problem here is that you have your own special 'facts' and want others to simply agree with you.
Facts are determined by a preponderance of quality evidence and sound reasoning. Your desires are not ipso facto facts.
Facts should be acceptable to all sides.
For instance: Hillary Clinton destroying classified documents should a simple fact accepted by both of us.
“Let us start with facts.
1) This thing about Trump trials has no relation to the topic.”
I have yet to see evidence that she intentionally destroyed classified documents.
Given the volume of emails in play, I would not be surprised if there were emails containing classified information that were destroyed.
Show me the evidence that she intentionally destroyed classified documents.
Comey:
I have no use for Hillary Clinton, Vic. So your presumption that I would deny actual facts that go against her is yet another ill-conceived notion on your part.
I follow the evidence to where it leads. Make your case.
Thank you TiG. That is exactly the problem.
“We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server,” he continued. “While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.”
Did Hillary Clinton destroy evidence in 'wiping clean' her email server? - CSMonitor.com
I shouldn't have to post that.
A perfect illustration of you inventing your own facts.
Your link does not provide evidence of "Hillary Clinton destroying classified documents"
And you ignored the link I gave you including Comey's statements.
As I noted, it is possible that classified information was within the emails she deleted. So you offering a link that she destroyed emails does not add any information that I did not already note. Again, it would not surprise me given the numbers involved. But there is a difference between the probability that classified information was deleted and sound evidence that classified documents were deleted.
And the notion of intent is critical here. So the evidence should be "Hillary Clinton intentionally destroying classified documents"
What you have provided just further explains how you come to some of your conclusions. Mere conjecture is elevated to evidence if it goes the way you wish and statements from the head of the investigation at the time are ignored.
Good grief, Vic, do you really think this is persuasive to rational adults?
Maybe it's the equivalent of the "alternative facts" that we see so often on NT?
"I want you to admit to facts."
TiG does that all time.
We're still waiting on other folks on NT to admit to facts.
You are not supplying any facts,
Ridiculous.
Trump claimed his Trump Tower apartment was 30,000 square feet. He was not "agreeable" to the facts of the matter.
So tell us, which members of the jury hated trump because.. "New York"?
CDS!
Sure, lets start with how you know for a fact the jury hated trump?
We'll wait.
What did Letitia James run on?
“Let us start with facts.
1) This thing about Trump trials has no relation to the topic.”
I especially love what Ms. Carroll said here about the former 'president'
"He's nothing. He's like a walrus snorting, in court, "a rhino flopping his little hands"
A jury in a district that voted 80 or 90 percent for Brandon. With a leftist judge that wouldn't allow Trump's attorneys to present evidence on his behalf- and tried to restrict him from making a closing argument.
Picking from a TDS driven jury pool. I am sure the prosecution made sure all of the Conservatives- however few there were from the pool- were left off of the jury.
You are leaving out the caveat that this was the first use of a recently passed law by New York- that allowed rape accusers to sue their victims well after the statute of limitations had worn out. Guess who the first target was? Awfully damn convenient wasn't it. The victim has accused several other men of raping her- yet she only went after Trump.
Democrats fucking around with the law will find out quickly enough- when the law no longer applies to everyone; it will apply to no one. Democrats/leftists will be screaming the loudest when that day comes.
Also, learn the difference between a civil case and an actual charge. She didn't have to present any evidence- just a claim- one she couldn't even nail down the exact year it happened; and changed her story multiple times. If Trump were actually guilty of rape he would be in prison. What he is guilty of is beating the Queen Bitch for the presidency in 2016. Democrats/leftists have never recovered from it.
The deal on immigration is called H.R.2 - Secure the Border Act of 2023. The House passed the bill an moved it to the Senate last May. If Schumer tables the House bill because he doesn't like it then why can't Mike Johnson do the same? Oh, that's right, the unbiased liberal press has lied about the truth again. For Democrats equity must be built upon falsehoods; the truth cannot stand.
And the truth is what the Senate is negotiating means Biden doesn't have to do anything about the border. The limits are set so high that they're meaningless. How will Biden handle the continued streams of buses to New York and Chicago? Biden'll lie about it just like he is doing now. The Senate has fallen back on the stale, old, obsolete neoliberal practice of negotiating to achieve nothing. That's how shysters, shirkers, and skimmers do things. Ronald Reagan would be so proud. And Newt Gingrich has renewed status with the unbiased liberal press.
This whole charade is about Biden giving money to his pet Soviet. Obama screwed the poochsky in Kiev, Biden got caught with his hand in the till, and the worthless Senate Republicans want to bring home the bacon. Oink, oink, someone nominate Romney again.
BTW if anyone is interested the Impeachment Hearing is on C-Span 3.
There you'll find democrat members trying to obstruct everything.
Impeachment for what?
... for not being a trump dick sucker like the republicans on the committee.
[deleted]