Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: August 2019


Apparently, the DNC and it’s aspiring candidates for President haven’t figured out how to beat TOTUS. Aside from begging for money and pointless debates (20 plus people?-ridiculous!), there is NO party line that grabs attention. TOTUS aka os
calcaribus (bone spurs) is on definitive search and destroy by being a bully, lying and name-calling. The way to combat it is giving back, there is no better reaction to a bully than standing up. It may be under ordinary circumstances smart to go high when they go low but not now. Bully the bully by using a higher quality of insults and naming his cohorts such as “Moscow Mitch”, “Manipulating Mnuchin”, “Madman Mulvaney” or “Bulldog Barr”. I see no reason to donate to wimps who cannot conjure up a cohesive theme for their election run. In a simplistic fashion, there has to be a basic theme even in the debates regardless of the individual ideas presented by each aspirant. The Dupublicans are United even when they don’t like each other and they all follow a basic theme, perhaps the Scamocrats can do the same.

btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate


Is “Moscow Mitch”  better or worse than TOTUS? MA

By NATASHA BERTRAND and THEODORIC MEYER 10 hrs ago
Two former top staffers to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have lobbied Congress and the Treasury Department on the development of a new Kentucky aluminum mill backed by the Russian aluminum giant Rusal, according to a new lobbying disclosure.

The disclosure comes as Democrats are pushing the Trump administration to review Rusal’s $200 million investment in the Kentucky project — concerned that the mill will supply the Defense Department — and as McConnell weathers criticism for helping block a congressional effort to stop the investment.

The Russian firm was only able to make the investment after it won sanctions relief from penalties the Treasury Department initially imposed in April 2018 on Rusal and other companies owned by Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch and Kremlin ally accused of facilitating Moscow’s nefarious activities, such as seizing land in Ukraine, supplying arms for the Syrian regime and meddling in other countries’ elections.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin announced in December that the department would lift the sanctions on Deripaska’s companies, which had roiled global aluminum markets, if the oligarch agreed to drastically reduce his stake in the businesses. The deal was reportedly potentially beneficial to Deripaska, however. Deripaska himself still remains under U.S. sanctions.
Attention over the sanctions relief deal has focused on McConnell, given his role in halting a bipartisan congressional effort in January to stop the penalties rollback. McConnell told reporters in May that his support for lifting the sanctions was “completely unrelated to anything that might happen in my home state.”
“A number of us supported the administration,” McConnell said. “That position ended up prevailing. I think the administration made a recommendation without political consideration. And that’s — that was how I voted — the reason I voted the way I did.”
Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, has been pushing the administration to review the Rusal investment.
In a statement, Wyden said: “Rusal’s proposed investment in a Kentucky rolling mill is deeply concerning. The deal was announced just three months after the Senate voted to lift sanctions on Rusal, and now we learn that Majority Leader McConnell’s former staff have been lobbying for the project. The American people need to have confidence that this deal is in the country’s best interest.”
It’s unclear whether the former staffers — Hunter Bates, a former McConnell chief of staff, and Brendan Dunn, who advised the Kentucky Republican on tax, trade and financial services matters before heading to K Street last year — directly lobbied McConnell’s office over the aluminum mill project. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, the law and lobbying firm where Bates and Dunn work, and McConnell’s office declined to comment on whether they had done so.
In Washington, it’s common for congressional staffers to lobby their former colleagues.
Former Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who’s now a lobbyist representing Rusal’s parent company, EN+ Group, gave McConnell “a heads up” on the Rusal deal prior to its announcement, according to a disclosure filing first spotted by The New York Times.
The lobbying push by McConnell’s former staffers, one of whom left his office in 2002 and the other who left a year ago, also comes as McConnell is being criticized for blocking election-security bills in the wake of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. McConnell took to the Senate floor earlier this week to rebut accusations that he’s kowtowing to Russia, prompting the hashtag #MoscowMitch to begin trending on Twitter.
The lobbying disclosure, made last week, shows Bates, Dunn and three other Akin Gump lobbyists are working for Braidy Industries in the new Ashland, Ky., aluminum mill. Rusal holds a 40 percent stake in the project.
Democratic lawmakers have called for an investigation of the project by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency body that can recommend the cancellation of foreign financial arrangements with U.S. firms over national security concerns.
A spokesman for Braidy told POLITICO in a statement that the company “has never negotiated or signed any contract to supply aluminum to the U.S. Government, including the DOD,” and noted that Braidy first “engaged” Akin Gump on May 20, months after the decision to lift the sanctions was made.
“We are thankful for the support provided by Rusal, the world’s second largest aluminum company and largest supplier of low-carbon aluminum,” the spokesman added. “Leading the rebuild of Appalachia is not easy. Unemployed coal miners, steel workers, and railroad workers in Appalachia need new advanced manufacturing jobs.”

btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate


I suppose Ratcliffe wasn’t a bad enough Rat to bring on board? MA

John Wagner, Shane Harris 20 mins ago

Ratcliffe to Mueller: ‘You didn’t follow the special counsel regulations’
President Trump announced Friday that Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.), his embattled pick to lead the nation’s intelligence community, was withdrawing from consideration and would remain in Congress.

The lawmaker was facing intense questions about padding his résumé and a lack of experience, which led to a lukewarm reception on Capitol Hill.
Trump said he would announce a new pick for director of national intelligence shortly.
In tweets, Trump said that Ratcliffe was being treated “very unfairly” by the media.
Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post
“Rather than going through months of slander and libel, I explained to John how miserable it would be for him and his family to deal with these people,” Trump wrote. “John has therefore decided to stay in Congress where he has done such an outstanding job representing the people of Texas, and our Country.”
In a statement issued shortly after Trump’s tweets, Ratcliffe said that he remained convinced that if confirmed by the Senate he would he would have served “with the objectivity, fairness and integrity that our intelligence agencies need and deserve.”
“However, I do not wish for a national security and intelligence debate surrounding my confirmation, however untrue, to become a purely political and partisan issue,” he said. “The country we all love deserves that it be treated as an American issue. Accordingly, I have asked the President to nominate someone other than me for this position.”
Trump made the announcement of Ratcliffe’s withdrawal shortly before appearing at a White House event to announce a new deal to sell more beef to the European Union. He ignored questions shouted by reporters about Ratcliffe’s withdrawal as he left the event.
One White House official, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said that Ratcliffe got cold feet because of the lack of support among Republican senators.
But inside the White House, at least some believed that while Ratcliffe would likely have faced a contentious nomination fight, Senate Republicans were ultimately unlikely to vote against a Trump nominee. Ratcliffe might have survived, and may have withdrawn too early, in the view of some.
Ratcliffe’s background has come under scrutiny since Trump announced Sunday that he planned to nominate the lawmaker to be the next director of national intelligence, replacing Daniel Coats, a longtime senator and diplomat who was often at odds with the president.
Though Ratcliffe had dialed back claims that he had won convictions in a high-profile terrorism case as a federal prosecutor, his planned nomination drew opposition from Senate Democrats and tepid support from key Republicans.
Some current and former intelligence officials have said Ratcliffe is the least-qualified person ever nominated to oversee the country’s intelligence agencies — previous directors have been former diplomats, senior intelligence officials and military leaders — and questioned whether he would use the position to serve Trump’s political interests.

© Andrew Harnik/AP Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) questions former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III on Capitol Hill last week.
The post was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to coordinate the 16 other agencies of the nation’s intelligence community.
Ratcliffe has been a staunch defender of the president and has alleged anti-Trump bias at the FBI. Trump tweeted out his plan to nominate Ratcliffe several days after the lawmaker attacked former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III during a hearing.
Congressional and intelligence officials have described Ratcliffe as a relatively disengaged member of the House Intelligence Committee and as little-known across the ranks of spy agencies he has been tapped to lead.
Though Rep. John Ratcliffe’s membership on the House committee is perhaps his most important credential for the top intelligence job, officials said he has yet to take part in one of its overseas trips to learn more about spy agencies’ work. The other new lawmakers on the panel have done so or are scheduled to travel in the coming months.
It is also unclear whether Ratcliffe has spent much time at the headquarters of the CIA, the National Security Agency or other parts of the sprawling U.S. intelligence community that he has been nominated to direct.
On Thursday, The Washington Post also reported that a Ratcliffe claim of a massive roundup of immigrant workers at poultry plants in 2008 as a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Texas was undercut by the court record and recollections of others who participated in the operation. Ratcliffe has often cited the arrests as a highlight of his career.
In a statement, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said he respected Ratcliffe’s decision to withdraw from consideration.
“As the White House determines its next nominee, I’m heartened by the fact that [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence] has an experienced and capable leadership team to see it through this transition,” Burr said. “However, there is no substitute for having a Senate-confirmed director in place to lead our Intelligence Community.”
john.wagner@washpost.com
Ashley Parker, Robert O’Harrow, Shawn Boburg and Greg Miller contributed to this story

btn_donateCC_LG

Please Donate