ChrisWeigant.com

McConnellcare 2.0 On Life Support Already

[ Posted Thursday, July 13th, 2017 – 16:22 PDT ]

I have to preface this article with the useful phrase "as of this writing," because events are moving quickly in Washington. So, as of this writing, Mitch McConnell has released his new draft of the Republican "repeal and replace Obamacare" bill, and within mere hours two GOP senators said they wouldn't even vote to begin debate on the bill. If McConnell loses one more vote, then this draft will be pronounced as dead as McConnellcare 1.0.

This is before we all see the Congressional Budget Office score of the bill, mind you. And before the fight over the amendment from Ted Cruz, which could (if enacted) send the entire health insurance industry into a death spiral, according to many experts.

The Cruz amendment was included in the draft of the bill sent to the C.B.O., but with a large caveat. All the Cruz language was included in brackets, meaning the C.B.O. will issue two scores -- one with the Cruz amendment, and one after an emergency Cruzectomy. Both scores are likely to be pretty bad, because McConnellcare 2.0 kept a whole lot of the 1.0 ideas -- such as fundamentally changing the Medicaid system in order to undermine it in future years. This is one of the big reasons so many will lose insurance, and since it has stayed the same, the numbers will likely remain pretty horrific.

With the Cruz amendment or without, the bill has not added much to convince wavering Republicans whom the press likes to label "moderates." I prefer a more-descriptive term: "empirical Republicans." Or, perhaps, "realistic Republicans." These folks are still pretty conservative, in other words (which is why "moderate" isn't very accurate), but they also still tend to believe actual facts and figures -- even when they run counter to conservative ideology. That last part's the important part, obviously.

Of the two senators who have already announced they are a "no" vote, one is an empirical Republican. The other is Rand Paul, who is voting against the bill because Ayn Rand would not love it. Or something. Whatever his reasons, he seems pretty solidly against the bill. The realistic Republican is Susan Collins, from Maine. She knows precisely how many Mainers would be negatively affected by the bill, and no amount of rah-rah "let's just win one for the team" talk is likely to convince her. She can see it's a bad bill for her state, and she is going to vote accordingly.

As of this writing, there are seven more Republicans identified as sitting on the fence. A few are staunch conservatives, but most are from the reasonable wing of the party (tiny though it may be). They are worried about two things: (1) how the bill will negatively affect their state, and (2) getting re-elected. McConnell did try to sweeten the pot for several of these folks, by adding in $45 billion to fight the opioid epidemic. Some of these senators are from states hit especially hard, and this was a major concern for many who refused to support McConnellcare 1.0. So we'll have to see how many senators that $45 billion actually buys.

McConnell did make one rather large concession to the empirical members of his caucus in the bill's rewrite. He punted the idea of repealing a tax which hits only the wealthiest Americans, and put the money thus saved into (partially) shoring up the Obamacare exchange marketplace. This will, assumably, mean Republicans think they won't have to worry (as much) over the optics of slashing poor people's medical care specifically to shovel billions of dollars to the richest of the rich. Whether this will work or not remains to be seen. We won't know until we see the C.B.O. numbers how much McConnell's changes will affect the overall impact of the bill on taxes and medical care.

It's probably a safe bet that some of the wavering Republicans will wait until those numbers come out before making up their mind. Who knows what the magic number it will take for each of them to decide: "Well, this only kicks 18 million people off health insurance, so I guess I can vote for it!" For the moment, though, McConnellcare 2.0 is already on life support. Mitch cannot lose one more vote, at this point. If he does, McConnellcare 2.0 will flatline.

This still may not be the end of it, it's worth noting. Obamacare fans shouldn't proclaim too early a victory here. McConnell has indicated that he will be open to tweaks in the bill all the way up to final passage. So a "McConnellcare 2.1" version may be written on the fly, next week. McConnell will then claim there simply isn't enough time for the C.B.O. to issue another score, and it will be hastily voted on. If enough targeted pork is included to convince the remaining votes, then this might actually pass. So just hearing that a third GOP senator has announced opposition to the current bill is not necessarily going to be the end of the fight. Especially considering those two extra weeks Mitch tacked on to the Senate's work schedule.

Still, it is heartening to see how quickly Republican opposition to McConnellcare 2.0 began. Within hours of its unveiling, Mitch has already lost two votes, and he cannot afford to lose another. The McConnellcare 2.0 deathwatch began immediately, and the end may be near. One more Republican senator walking away from it will kill this draft's chances of becoming law for good.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

82 Comments on “McConnellcare 2.0 On Life Support Already”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One more Republican senator walking away from it will kill this draft's chances of becoming law for good.

    Hmmm ... is this going to be a problem?

    I mean, who is going to be the one Republican who makes that lonely walk away from this bill.

    Maybe what we need to see here is a group of Republicans in front of a microphone singing NO!, in unison ...

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    Regardless of the CBO numbers, I really don't see how Dean Heller can support this bill... based on his prior statements with Governor Brian Sandoval.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKdLwBstdX4

    I still think Heller and Collins are solid "no" votes and with Rand Paul also a "no," this seems like it should be coming off life support because it should be pronounced dead already. Has Heller changed his mind?

  3. [3] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    I am guessing that Heller just hasn't reviewed it yet, but I agree that he will likely be another "No"! Collins deserves the "Not-a-Democrat Person of the Week" award.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    LWYH
    3

    I am guessing that Heller just hasn't reviewed it yet, but I agree that he will likely be another "No"! Collins deserves the "Not-a-Democrat Person of the Week" award.

    Yes... good call; Collins definitely deserves the NADPOW! :)

  5. [5] 
    michale wrote:

    If McConnell loses one more vote, then this draft will be pronounced as dead as McConnellcare 1.0.

    Didn't you say a couple days ago that if it comes down to only a SINGLE Republican that the bill will probably pass.... or words to that effect?? :D

    Looks like the repeal of TrainWreckCare is going to happen!! :D

    Not that I care too much about it. I just love to see egg all over the face of the Dumbocrat Party.. :D

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    I still think Heller and Collins are solid "no" votes and with Rand Paul also a "no," this seems like it should be coming off life support because it should be pronounced dead already.

    And you thought that NOT-45 was going to be POTUS as well..

    Your view is askew and SOLELY based on Party zealotry...

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    Maine Democrat Lawmaker Threatens Life Of President Trump
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/13/secret-service-investigating-maine-democrats-comments-about-trump.html

    Dumbocrats... :^/

  8. [8] 
    michale wrote:

    " I prefer a more-descriptive term: "empirical Republicans." Or, perhaps, "realistic Republicans."

    AKA Republicans who toe the Democrat Party line.. :D

    It's probably a safe bet that some of the wavering Republicans will wait until those numbers come out before making up their mind. Who knows what the magic number it will take for each of them to decide: "Well, this only kicks 18 million people off health insurance, so I guess I can vote for it!"

    Again, I have to ask.. And... Again I am sure I will get no answer...

    Where was ya'all's concern for Americans losing their health insurance when Odumbo and the Dumbocrats blatantly LIED to get TrainWreckCare passed..

    NO ONE here cared about Americans losing their health insurance then...

    If enough targeted pork is included to convince the remaining votes, then this might actually pass.

    {{cough}}Cornhusker Kickback.. {{cough}} {{cough}} Louisiana Purchase... {cough}

    Still, it is heartening to see how quickly Republican opposition to McConnellcare 2.0 began. Within hours of its unveiling, Mitch has already lost two votes, and he cannot afford to lose another. The McConnellcare 2.0 deathwatch began immediately, and the end may be near. One more Republican senator walking away from it will kill this draft's chances of becoming law for good.

    Again, I have to remind ya'all how many times TrainWreckCare was "killed for good" only to survive... Remember when Coakley choked her election (wasn't her fault. She had Odumbo's kiss of death) and everyone said TrainWreckCare is dead....

    It ain't over til it's over...

    Like I said, I don't have any skin in this game... If the GOP chokes and doesn't deliver, it will actually be a '+' for President Trump..

    So, either way, the Democrat Party gets egg all over their faces..

    For me, it's a win/win... :D

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    And in other news..

    Monthly Federal Spending Tops $400B for First Time
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/monthly-federal-spending-tops-400b-first-time

    Looks like the moronic GOP is as much spend-aholics as the Dumbocrats were....

    Once again, factual evidence that there really isn't any difference between the GOP and the Dems...

  10. [10] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I don't think McC can produce enough pork to move the key senators. An end run around the CBO won't help....the score is going to be released....and won't be pretty.

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The downside of repealing Obamacare does not benefit the Republicans. But appearing to try to repeal Obamacare without actually repealing it does benefit the Republicans and fighting to preserve Obamacare without having to fix it benefits the Big Money Democrats.
    And watching the show distracts citizens from paying attention to fixing the electoral process that gave us the people that are putting on the show.
    I recently suggested Thursday Action Points (even once a month if not every week), but all we got was Thursday Distraction Points.

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Didn't you say a couple days ago that if it comes down to only a SINGLE Republican that the bill will probably pass.... or words to that effect?? :D

    The Republicans won't let it come down to a single vote - that means that all three of the "nays" will be targeted as "the vote that kept Obamacare". They'll find a few more, or, as is stated, roll over and accept Trumpcare in all its glory.

    If Trumpcare 2.1 does not get CBO review in time for the vote, and the impact is felt by 2020 it is going to create a strong headwind for Republicans. However this is the price you pay when you pick killing kids and old folk over taxing the richest of the rich and trotting out the old trickle down line.

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    The Republicans won't let it come down to a single vote - that means that all three of the "nays" will be targeted as "the vote that kept Obamacare". They'll find a few more, or, as is stated, roll over and accept Trumpcare in all its glory.

    You say that like it's a bad thing??

    And, of course, it CAN'T be a "bad" thing because that is EXACTLY what Democrats would do if the roles were reversed???

    Am I wrong??

    "Yer not wrong."
    God AKA Chuck, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

    However this is the price you pay when you pick killing kids and old folk over taxing the richest of the rich and trotting out the old trickle down line.

    As opposed to the price the Dumbocrats paid for lying out their asses to put TrainWreckCare over the finish line.. :D

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    As opposed to the price the Dumbocrats paid for lying out their asses to put TrainWreckCare over the finish line.. :D

    I mean, honestly..

    Just change the names and the groups around and ya'all's EXACT attitudes could be EXACTLY the same as the GOP's attitudes...

    The Left says and does A and the Right says and does A and each yells at the other that they are wrong and are going to burn in eternal damnation..

    I wish ya'all could take a step back and see how all the same it all really is...

    "Your good and your evil use the same methods to achieve the same goals..."
    Yarnek/General George Washington, STAR TREK

    It's more true today than it was a decade ago...

  15. [15] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Where was ya'all's concern for Americans losing their health insurance when Odumbo and the Dumbocrats blatantly LIED to get TrainWreckCare passed..

    NO ONE here cared about Americans losing their health insurance then...

    And where are these people that actually lost their coverage that you speak of? 23 million gained coverage, how many lost it?

    BTW, if your insurance provider changed the plan you were on and enrolled you in a new one that made them more money, you didn't LOSE your health insurance!

    I supported RomneyCare when I considered myself a Republican and I still think it is far better than what our healthcare system was previously! Again, you fail to address the issue at hand and instead try to shift the focus onto other things.

    Why are you supporting a plan that will cause millions more to lose coverage than you claim ObamaCare did? Or is your rejection of ObamaCare based in bigotry and your hatred of the fact that a black man signed it into law?

    We have a Republican Congress that is made up of politicians that have never actually attempted to create and work out the details of a plan in order to pass real legislation! They have only focused on criticizing and destroying what others' built. They have no idea how to implement such an undertaking, nor do they care enough to even try to figure it out. They aren't concerned with creating a healthcare system that benefits our citizens, they only care about removing ObamaCare's name from the history books.

  16. [16] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    So, either way, the Democrat Party gets egg all over their faces..

    For me, it's a win/win... :D

    Well, at least you show your true colors as a partisan hack!

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    BTW, if your insurance provider changed the plan you were on and enrolled you in a new one that made them more money, you didn't LOSE your health insurance!

    Yes, you lost the health insurance that you were PROMISED you could keep...

    Why are you supporting a plan that will cause millions more to lose coverage than you claim ObamaCare did? Or is your rejection of ObamaCare based in bigotry and your hatred of the fact that a black man signed it into law?

    Ahh yes.. When you utterly fail at logic and rational discourse, the race card is all you can play...

    I expected better from you, Russ...

    First Liz and now you..

    I must have ya'all REALLY on the ropes that ya'all would stoop to such lame, discredited and wholly ineffective tactics..

    We have a Republican Congress that is made up of politicians that have never actually attempted to create and work out the details of a plan in order to pass real legislation! They have only focused on criticizing and destroying what others' built. They have no idea how to implement such an undertaking, nor do they care enough to even try to figure it out. They aren't concerned with creating a healthcare system that benefits our citizens, they only care about removing ObamaCare's name from the history books.

    As opposed to Odumbo and the Dumbocrats who were only concerned about their agenda and to hell with the American people??

    Like I said... The names and the players change but the game is still the same...

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, at least you show your true colors as a partisan hack!

    Yer just being pissy because I asked you to PROVE that there is a law that says you can't go to as foreign adversary to get information and you can't do it....

    :D

    As usual, I have the FACTS on my side and ya'all have nothing but Party bigotry and hysteria....

    Donald Trump is YOUR president... You are not going to be able to nullify the free, fair and legal election.. NOT-45 will NEVER be President...

    Man up and deal with it...

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    yikes, there's more??? Rinat Akhmetshin, former soviet counterintelligence officer, was also in the meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, don jr, kushner and manafort.

    i propose a total and complete shutdown of Russians entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

    JL

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    i propose a total and complete shutdown of Russians entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

    Are you saying you want a TRAVEL BAN!!!??????

    BUT!!!! BUT!!!!! BUT!!!!!!

    THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!

    :D

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    i propose a total and complete shutdown of Russians entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

    Bill Clinton got a cool half a million dollars for a 20 min speech from a company with ties to Russian intelligence.. And he got that when his wife was the US's Sec State...

    Does THAT bother you??

    Of course not.. Contacts with Russians are NO PROBLEM when it's DUMBOCRATS who have the contacts...

    Like I said..

    NOTHING but Party zealotry at work.... That's all...

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Viktor Vekselberg and many MANY other Putin henchmen gave TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars to the Clintons...

    Does THAT bother you??

    Of course not...

    Dealing with Russians is *ONLY* an issue when it can be tenuously connected to President Trump....

    Odumbo begged for help from Putin so Odumbo could win his election and then he would have much more "flexibility" to give Putin what Putin wanted..

    Did THAT bother you??

    Of course not... It's only a problem when the people have -Rs after their name...

    I have to give ya'all credit for ya'all's transparency..

    Ya'all don't even TRY to hid the Party bigotry and hypocrisy anymore...

    So, there is that.. :D

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i was being sarcastic ;p

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    i was being sarcastic ;p

    So was I.. :D At least in #20....

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Your problem, Michale, is that you want us to believe that you think whatever bad thing one party does the other party does exactly the same thing so we're all guilty of hypocrisy.

    Because you are..

    Let me break it down..

    If you condemn Joe for stealing an apple, but you KNOW that John ALSO stole an apple and you DON'T condemn him....

    THAT is hypocrisy..

    Is it not???

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    As you know, my frustration level is at a personal high these days. I used to read everything you wrote, bar none. Now, I have begun to just skip over most of your stuff unless it's a response to my comments and even then it has become a chore.

    The problem here is that you want us to believe that you think whatever bad thing one party does the other party does exactly the same thing so we're all guilty of hypocrisy.

    That is the nonsense I am sick of.

    You say that you don't have an opinion on the issue ... any issue.

    That's another thing I've grown tired of. You never offer a coherent opinion on an issue because that is not why you are here. Unfortunately, that's the only reason I'm here - to offer up my opinions on issues and see where everyone else stands on them and maybe, if I'm extremely lucky, have a bit of a discussion on those expressed opinions and, perhaps, engage in a bit of the vanishing art of persuasion.

    Here's an opinion of mine ... I'd like to see Trump serve two terms to test the idea of America and how strong it is and to see if the opposition party is capable of doing anything to make a bad situation better. I'm not sure anymore if America can survive that test - at least the America I love - but I think its important to put your country to that test.

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Here's an opinion of mine ... I'd like to see Trump serve two terms to test the idea of America and how strong it is and to see if the opposition party is capable of doing anything to make a bad situation better. I'm not sure anymore if America can survive that test - at least the America I love - but I think its important to put your country to that test.

    Then why support inane and bullshit accusations like this collusion crap???

    I mean if you want to condemn Trump for his anti-illegal-immigration stance, that's fine...

    If you want to condemn Trump for his Travel Ban, have at it...

    But to try and nullify a legal, fair and free election for doing nothing more than winning???

    That's utterly ridiculous..

    ESPECIALLY when it's proven beyond ANY doubt that NOT-45 did the exact same things for the exact same reasons..

    This whole collusion garbage is nothing but bullcarp...

    And anyone who says different is a moron or has a Party agenda...

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    If you condemn Joe for stealing an apple, but you KNOW that John ALSO stole an apple and you DON'T condemn him....

    THAT is hypocrisy..

    Is it not???

    But the way MOST of ya'all argue is this:

    "Well, Johnny didn't steal an apple.. He stole an orange so it's COMPLETELY different"

    Condemning Trump for this "collusion" bullshit and giving NOT-45 a pass is blatant and ideologically based hypocrisy...

    ESPECIALLY when one looks that there are FACTS to prove NOT-45's collusion and there is NOTHING in the way of facts that prove President Trump's alleged collusion..

    I can't make it any simpler than that...

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have no opinion on whether or not TrumpWorld has actively colluded with the Russians. I'm leaving all of that to the FBI investigation currently underway to determine whether that happened or not.

    I wouldn't be surprised, however, to learn that this investigation will end similarly to the investigation into Hillary's use of a private email server.

    In other words, it's quite possible that Trump and his associates have not been actively colluding - right or wrong, legal or not - but rather have been played rather well by Russia and continue to be played by a foreign adversarial government that is far superior at playing this particular game. If Don Jr's meeting doesn't prove that, then I'm at a loss to think up anything that would.

    TrumpWorld seems to believe that it has something to hide in all of this and so many of its officials have not been forthcoming - to this day - about all of all their contacts with Russians. I think Trump has hopelessly conflated Russian interference in the presidential election with his electoral college victory and this is the root of all of his problems with the Russia investigation.

    Of course, I am assuming that you actually believe all of the US intel agencies that have signed on to the fact that Russia has meddled in the 2016 election by hacking into the DNC and other Democratic entities and then exposed the hacked material by publically releasing it through WikiLeaks.

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    But the way MOST of ya'all argue is this:

    JUst so we're clear, Liz.. YOU don't argue that way..

    It's just annoying that ya don't call people who do.. :D

    But it's OK.. I am sure there are one or two things about me that annoy you...

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course, I am assuming that you actually believe all of the US intel agencies that have signed on to the fact that Russia has meddled in the 2016 election by hacking into the DNC and other Democratic entities and then exposed the hacked material by publically releasing it through WikiLeaks.

    And THERE is the problem..

    You believe the Democrat BS that "all of the US intel agencies that have signed on to the fact that Russia has meddled in the 2016 election by hacking into the DNC"...

    Would it interest you to know that the FACT is only THREE of the 17 intelligence agencies has signed off???

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    Would it interest you to know that the FACT is only THREE of the 17 intelligence agencies has signed off???

    My apologies.. It was FOUR intelligence agencies that signed off on the Russian "hacking" assessment..

    ODNI
    CIA
    FBI
    NSA

    That's it....

    The claim that ALL 17 agencies signed off on the Russian "hacking" assessment is NOTHING but Democrat Party bullshit...

    This is fact...

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course, I am assuming that you actually believe all of the US intel agencies that have signed on to the fact that Russia has meddled in the 2016 election by hacking into the DNC and other Democratic entities and then exposed the hacked material by publically releasing it through WikiLeaks.

    My apologies.. You didn't say YOU believe it..

    You assumed *I* believe it..

    So, forget what I said in 31 and 32 and let me ask you..

    Do YOU believe the bullshit claim that all 17 US intelligence organizations signed off on the Russian "hacking" assessment???

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, Michale ... I should have been more precise in the language I used ...

    All of the 16 or 17 or whatever number of US intel agencies have publically AGREED with the four or so agencies who actually signed off on the high confidence assertion that Russia interfered in your last presidential election.

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    All of the 16 or 17 or whatever number of US intel agencies have publically AGREED with the four or so agencies who actually signed off on the high confidence assertion that Russia interfered in your last presidential election.

    I'll quote James Clapper:

    Well, we didn't go through that -- that process, this was a special situation because of the time limits and my -- what I knew to be to who could really contribute to this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment (ph) to restrict it to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or -- or disagreed when it came out.

    So, no.. All 17 agencies have not publicly AGREED with the assessment..

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Do YOU agree with the US intel community with respect to Russian interference in your last presidential election and do you also agree that the Russians will likely continue this interference?

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    Regardless of even if god himself "agreed" or didn't disagree with the assessment....

    There is still the FACT that there is absolutely NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE that a SINGLE NOT-45 vote was changed to a Trump vote..

    What we DO know is that morons in the DNC fell for a phishing scam and opened up their emails to other players...

    Maybe Russians, maybe not..

    But to call that "hacking" is to call what I am doing right now "writing Shakespeare"...

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    Do YOU agree with the US intel community with respect to Russian interference in your last presidential election and do you also agree that the Russians will likely continue this interference?

    Of course I agree...

    Just as I know that the US has tried to interfere in Russian elections and Ukranian elections and Israeli elections and so on and so on and so on..

    It's what countries do...

    But I also know for a fact that NOT-45 would have been a MUCH better President for Russia that President Trump would EVER be...

    It's perfectly clear to me that Putin's wettest of wet dreams would be to have an Obama 3rd term...

    Just look how much Putin got away with under Obama...

    Even if it's a stone cold fact that Russia interfered in the election, there is absolutely NO FACTUAL evidence to support the claim that they succeeded in their desired outcome and there is absolutely NO FACTUAL evidence to support the claim that President Trump had anything to do with it..

    Basically, the entire Democrat Party's claim is that Russians interfered and Trump won, so the OBVIOUS conclusion is that Trump cheated with the Russians.

    THAT is the entire case of the Democrats...

    The problem for them, and for ya'all, incidentally, is that there is NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE to support the conclusion...

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Regardless of even if god himself "agreed" or didn't disagree with the assessment....

    Or god herself... My bust.. :D

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A couple of things, for the record ...

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

    And, I do not operate on the assumption that the Russians changed the outcome of the election. Period. Full stop.

    But, I fully agree with the assessment that has been made by all US intel agencies - the ones that were actually involved in producing that assessment AND all the rest who have agreed with that assessment - that Russia interfered with the US election in ways that were designed to facilitate the election of Trump and that these actions were directed from the highest levels of the Russian government.

    I hope there is as much attention being paid to how the US can prevent this from happening again as there is to the Trump-Russia connections.

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    And let's not forget that it was Obama, not President Trump, who promised "flexibility" to Putin.....

    Such "flexibility" that Russia was able to annex The Crimea and Obama.... flexibly.... did nothing to stop...

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    And, I do not operate on the assumption that the Russians changed the outcome of the election. Period. Full stop.

    Agreed...

    President Trump would have won without ANY Russian "hacking" or interference...

    But, I fully agree with the assessment that has been made by all US intel agencies - the ones that were actually involved in producing that assessment AND all the rest who have agreed with that assessment - that Russia interfered with the US election in ways that were designed to facilitate the election of Trump and that these actions were directed from the highest levels of the Russian government.

    Again, there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that Russia wanted Trump to win..

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA...

    One could easily make the case that if there was such blatant and obvious interference on Trump's behalf, it was designed to turn the American people AGAINST Trump and vote for NOT-45...

    There is NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE that would support the claim that Russia wanted Trump to win...

    There is PLENTY of inference and innuendo to support the claim that Russia wanted NOT-45 to win...

    As I said.. Putin got away with so much under Obama, Putin would be tickled pink (red? :D) to have an Obama 3rd term...

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Again, there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that Russia wanted Trump to win..

    Again, I have never suggested that.

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    Again, I have never suggested that.

    Then we're good :D

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There is NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE that would support the claim that Russia wanted Trump to win...

    I don't think Russia really ever knew what it wanted in terms of the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election.

    I do know that Putin hates the Clintons - for a variety of reasons that are under-reported throughout the media - and I think he assumed, like most people did - that Hillary would win the election. I think he wanted to arm himself with enough ammunition to harm her presidency.

    So, Putin was as clueless as most of the US media in this regard and I get a certain sense of satisfaction from knowing that. :)

    I'm pretty sure that Putin doesn't quite know what to make of the Trump administration but he certainly does know how to manipulate it and Trump himself is nothing if not easily manipulated.

    Anyway, here is a link to a very important piece published moments ago ...
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-survives-political-nuke-but-seeds-of-destruction_us_59683343e4b09e26b6d766e1

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Then we're good :D

    Good!

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    here's the text of the e-mail chain with annotation from npr:

    http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536670194/donald-trump-jr-s-emails-about-meeting-with-russian-lawyer-annotated

    "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin."
    ~rob goldstone

    maybe russia's actions helped donald win and maybe they didn't, but based on the e-mail chain which donald jr. released to the press, at least these two conclusions are factually supported:

    russia TRIED to help donald win.

    donald's campaign TRIED to accept russia's help to win.

    so... NOW can we have a russian travel ban?

    JL

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    “Most people would have taken that meeting.”

    President Donald Trump on last year’s Trump Tower meeting between his son, son-in-law, and campaign chairman and a Russian government representative apparently brandishing anti-Clinton intelligence.

    Yes, most people would have taken that meeting. Most people, that is, who want to be manipulated by the KGB. (The famed KGB intelligence service has been renamed, but, and I say this with respect, the KGB essentially runs the Russian Federation.)

    No...

    ANY politician who was running in an election and wanted to win would have taken that meeting...

    Again, I can't get excited about this..

    Because I know for a fact, from all the factual evidence, that this is nothing that Democrats haven't done...

    Politicians, when running for election will take ANY opposition research they can get their hands on, regardless of the source..

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    so... NOW can we have a russian travel ban?

    Yes.. You may have your unconstitutional Travel Ban...

    But the price of that is you can never complain about President Trump ever again...

    Deal??

    :D

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    i tend to agree with your assessment. the stupidest explanation, and therefore most likely to be accurate (see: trump's razor), is that putin was basically just teasing donald's campaign by hinting at potentially providing assistance, then released the information he'd gathered to do maximum damage to the US system as a whole, and was surprised as anyone when donald actually won. i doubt even he has any idea whether or not his machinations were a deciding factor in the outcome.

    JL

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Who are you quoting ... that's a bad habit, you know ... quoting someone without attribution.

    Given your relevant background, would YOU have taken a meeting as outlined in the Don Jr's email chain.

    I mean, I don't have any experience in any of the fields of expertise on any of this and even I am suspicious of the language used in these emails.

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    Who's gonna go see WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES tonight??

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    My assessments are based on the most reliable sources of information I have ever had on any subject. (see my link above)

    I don't think either of us will be surprised by how all of this shakes out!

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Who are you quoting ... that's a bad habit, you know ... quoting someone without attribution.

    I was quoting your article... I figured an attribution would be redundant...

    "In the dictionary, under 'redundant' it says, 'see redundant'..."
    -Robin Williams

    :D

    Given your relevant background, would YOU have taken a meeting as outlined in the Don Jr's email chain.

    *I* probably wouldn't because I am not a politician..

    But I can readily understand why a politician would...

    I don't BLAME NOT-45 for going to a foreign government for opposition research..

    So I wouldn't blame Team Trump if they did the same thing...

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Have you heard of any politician, currently in office or not, who have said they would have taken that meeting, based on the email chain we have all read?

    I'm looking for names, to be clear. :)

  56. [56] 
    michale wrote:

    Have you heard of any politician, currently in office or not, who have said they would have taken that meeting, based on the email chain we have all read?

    I have heard of of a politician actually DOING it... :D

    But it would be hard pressed to find someone in the past who has said, YES I WOULD DO THAT on a situation that hasn't yet occurred...

    I am very cynical when it comes to politicians...

    Which is why I say with complete confidence that ANY politician who wants to win would take opposition research from ANY source... Especially if they could be reasonably assured that it wouldn't come out..

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am very cynical when it comes to politicians...

    I know you are, to a fault. Which is why it is next to impossible to have reasonable discussion with you.

    Which is why I say with complete confidence that ANY politician who wants to win would take opposition research from ANY source... Especially if they could be reasonably assured that it wouldn't come out..

    No thinking person, pol or not, would assume it wouldn't come out. Not in the political and media culture of today.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Michale, you have heard of no politician in office today say that they would have handled this in the same way that TrumpWorld did.

    Thanks for conceding that.

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    I know you are, to a fault. Which is why it is next to impossible to have reasonable discussion with you.

    It's part of my charm..

    So, Michale, you have heard of no politician in office today say that they would have handled this in the same way that TrumpWorld did.

    And any politician who SAYS they wouldn't, I wouldn't believe them...

    No thinking person, pol or not, would assume it wouldn't come out. Not in the political and media culture of today.

    Perhaps.. But hope springs eternal... Especially when one is in a fight for their political life...

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Have you heard of any politician, currently in office or not, who have said they would have taken that meeting, based on the email chain we have all read?

    It would not be politically correct for a politician to SAY they would do that..

    But I know as much as I know the sun rises in the east and sets in the west that 99.8% of what politicians SAY is bullshit and meaningless...

    So, while politicians SAY they wouldn't do that, I have absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that they WOULD do it..

    Just like NOT-45 actually DID it...

    And THAT is documented fact...

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's part of my charm..

    You mean there's more!?

  62. [62] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [42]
    There is NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE that would support the claim {A} and there is PLENTY of inference and innuendo to support the claim {not A}.

    And this means no factual evidence for {not A} and inference and innuendo for {A}. All we know is that if it walks like a duck, it should weigh as much as a witch,

    Hope the grandkids didn't wear you out. If they did, you're doing it wrong. Tom Bodette used to sell Motel 6 to grandparents with the advice to get 'em all hyped up on sugar and new toys and then drop 'em off at their parents and go back to the motel, kick back, and relesh the payback.

    Everyone please enjoy their weekends; then comes ... well, just another week in Tales From Trumplandia. I've started to watch La Rosa de Guadalupe more and more, and Trumplandia less and less. I don't speak Spanish, so I don't understand that program either, but somehow, it just seems more real.

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    It's part of my charm..

    You mean there's more!?

    "I am as constant as the Northern Star!"
    "I'de give real money if he'd just shut up!"

    -STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

    :D

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    And this means no factual evidence for {not A} and inference and innuendo for {A}. All we know is that if it walks like a duck, it should weigh as much as a witch,

    "So, why do witches burn?"
    "Cuz they're made of... wood?"
    "Gooood."
    "So, how do we tell if she is made of wood?"
    "Build a bridge out of her!"
    "Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?"
    "Oh yeah..."
    "Does wood sink in water?"
    "No"
    "No. It floats!"
    "Let's throw her into the bog!"
    "What also floats in water?"
    "Bread"
    "Apples"
    "Very small rocks"
    "Cider"
    "Grape gravy"
    "Cherries"
    "Mud"
    "A Duck!"
    "Exactly! So, logically..."
    "If she ways the same as a duck... she's made of wood!"
    "And therefore...."
    "A witch! A witch!!!"

    -Monty Python

    Ya lose something without the visuals.. :D

    Hope the grandkids didn't wear you out. If they did, you're doing it wrong.

    It was fun.... ish... Rained most of the day Tuesday and into the night.. Our tent was NOT as waterproof as I would have hoped..

    Tom Bodette used to sell Motel 6 to grandparents with the advice to get 'em all hyped up on sugar and new toys and then drop 'em off at their parents and go back to the motel, kick back, and relesh the payback.

    Heh...

    Just speeding on sugar, thanks to your parents.
    -John McClane, DIE HARD II: DIE HARDER

    :D

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:
  66. [66] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I've started to watch La Rosa de Guadalupe more and more, and Trumplandia less and less. I don't speak Spanish, so I don't understand that program either, but somehow, it just seems more real.

    Ay, quemado!

    JL

  67. [67] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Yes, you lost the health insurance that you were PROMISED you could keep...

    The ACA did not CAUSE that to happen! That was done by the insurance providers and them, alone! And there is a huge difference in one losing their coverage completely and one being placed on a new plan.

    I expected better from you, Russ...

    First Liz and now you..

    I must have ya'all REALLY on the ropes that ya'all would stoop to such lame, discredited and wholly ineffective tactics..

    Yeah, I figured you'd enjoy someone flicking the same BS at you that you shovel to everyone else on here.

    Liz said it best:

    The problem here is that you want us to believe that you think whatever bad thing one party does the other party does exactly the same thing so we're all guilty of hypocrisy.

    That is the nonsense I am sick of.

    You say that you don't have an opinion on the issue ... any issue.

    That's another thing I've grown tired of. You never offer a coherent opinion on an issue because that is not why you are here.

    [Pausing to give Liz a Standing O!]

    Your constant attempts to use false equivalences in order to avoid having to debate Trump's actions clearly shows that you recognize the truth, you just won't admit to it.

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I appreciate it, Russ! That was my frustration bubbling over the top ...

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    6

    And you thought that NOT-45 was going to be POTUS as well..

    Your view is askew and SOLELY based on Party zealotry...

    Your obsession with my non-existent Party affiliation is well-documented and again duly noted.

    I thought Heller was a solid no based on the press conference he held which can be viewed at the link I posted, and I asked if he changed his mind, which was nicely answered by another poster.

    Again, you added NOTHING to the political conversation. :)

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    Listen,

    The ACA did not CAUSE that to happen! That was done by the insurance providers and them, alone!

    It was done by the insurance providers because they had to be in compliance with TrainWreckCare..

    Yeah, I figured you'd enjoy someone flicking the same BS at you that you shovel to everyone else on here.

    To the best of my recollection, I have never accused anyone here of racism..

    Your constant attempts to use false equivalences in order to avoid having to debate Trump's actions clearly shows that you recognize the truth, you just won't admit to it.

    Your problem with that statement is that you CLAIM they are false equivalencies yet you provide ABSOLUTELY NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up your claim..

    Hence, the ONLY conclusion is that the equivalencies are not false...

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    I thought Heller was a solid no based on the press conference he held

    And you thought NOT-45 was going to be POTUS based on the skewed polls you read...

    But what it all boils down to is that you ONLY look at the data that supports your pre-determined conclusion and ignore any facts that doesn't support said pre-determined conclusion..

    A conclusion that is pre-determined SOLELY based on Party zealotry...

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    The ACA did not CAUSE that to happen! That was done by the insurance providers and them, alone!

    That's like saying you push me over a cliff and then claim, "He fell!!"

    Of course I fell.. You pushed me! What did you expect me to do?? Fly???

    Your action of pushing me forced my action of falling..

    TrainWreckCare's action of forcing the Insurance Companies to drop customer's healthcare plans that they liked forced the insurance companies to cancel those plans...

    It's disingenuous in the extreme for you to try and claim TrainWreckCare was completely un-involved with the cancelling of the healthcare plans of millions and millions of Americans...

    And you didn't care a damn when those millions of Americans lost their healthcare plans under Odumbo..

    But NOW...

    Now yer hysterical because millions of Americans will lose their healthcare plans...

    What's the difference???

    The '-D'/'-R' that is in play.. THAT's the only difference..

    And that is blatant hypocrisy...

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    Russ,

    To the best of my recollection, I have never accused anyone here of racism..

    And I CERTAINLY never accused anyone of racism without a SINGLE FACTUAL piece of evidence to back it up...

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    71

    And you thought NOT-45 was going to be POTUS based on the skewed polls you read...

    I read all the polls, which by the way, your standard straw man argument has nothing to do with the health care bill and the subject of CW's article regarding whether or not it will pass the Senate.

    But what it all boils down to is that you ONLY look at the data that supports your pre-determined conclusion and ignore any facts that doesn't support said pre-determined conclusion..

    "What it all boils down to" is that making up LIES about posters is what you do. It's like a pathological obsession with you wherein you want to discuss posters instead of actual issues. I don't have a pre-determined conclusion regarding whether or not the health care bill will pass the Senate. CW's article was actually a discussion regarding whether or not the health care bill was on life support already, and he mentioned that Paul and Collins were "no" votes. I mentioned that I thought Dean Heller was a "no" vote also based on what he's already said in his press conference with Governor Sandoval... some definitive statements wherein he said it would be "very difficult" to get him to a "yes" vote on the bill and calling it a "lie" that it would lower premiums... and asked a question if Heller had changed his mind.

    A conclusion that is pre-determined SOLELY based on Party zealotry...

    I still don't belong to a Party and NEVER will. Do you ever get tired of the pathological lying about other posters? Rhetorical question. :)

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    I read all the polls, which by the way, your standard straw man argument has nothing to do with the health care bill and the subject of CW's article regarding whether or not it will pass the Senate.

    It goes to your credibility about what you "think" and how your thought process is skewed by your Party enslavement..

    "What it all boils down to" is that making up LIES about posters is what you do.

    No, it's what is factual and PROVEN accurate..

    You just can't handle the truth..

    I still don't belong to a Party and NEVER will.

    Yea, that's your claim..

    As with all your claims, completely unsubstantiated by ANY facts whatsoever...

  76. [76] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    75

    It goes to your credibility about what you "think" and how your thought process is skewed by your Party enslavement..

    Your incessant LYING about other posters proves your utter incredibility. I don't belong to a Party. You can LIE and LIE and LIE about that until they bury your festering carcass and you're halfway to Hell, and I STILL won't belong to any Party. :)

    No, it's what is factual and PROVEN accurate..

    No, you are LYING and a PROVEN and ADMITTED LIAR.

    You just can't handle the truth..

    Apparently it's YOU who can't handle the FACT that I don't belong to a Party and never will. You insist on lying about posters on this board in order to make them fit into your standard bigotry argument because you're seemingly not interested in discussing political issues, choosing instead to post endlessly about others on this board.

    Is that the whole idea? To interrupt or hijack people's posts to others wishing to ask questions or making comments about the political topic being discussed? You endlessly contribute very little to actual political discussion while choosing instead to rant hysterically about other posters.

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    Your incessant LYING about other posters proves your utter incredibility. I don't belong to a Party.

    Yes, that is what you continue to claim...

    But the FACTS clearly show otherwise and you offer NOTHING in the way of substantiation..

    Apparently it's YOU who can't handle the FACT that I don't belong to a Party and never will.

    Yes, again.. That's your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim..

    In other words, you are lying..

    Is that the whole idea? To interrupt or hijack people's posts to others wishing to ask questions or making comments about the political topic being discussed? You endlessly contribute very little to actual political discussion while choosing instead to rant hysterically about other posters.

    Waaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaa

    Hold on, Veronica.. Let me call you the WAAAAAAmbulance..

    "I know your speaking because I see your lips move, but I don't understand you because I don't speak whiney little bitch."
    -Demon, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    77

    Yes, that is what you continue to claim...

    But the FACTS clearly show otherwise and you offer NOTHING in the way of substantiation..

    You cannot PROVE any of your LIES so why keep repeating the bullshit over and over as if typing equals magic?

    Yes, again.. That's your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim..

    In other words, you are lying..

    No, MORON. I don't belong to a Party... NEVER have and never will.

    Waaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaaaaa

    Hold on, Veronica.. Let me call you the WAAAAAAmbulance..

    Weak and boring. Crack and book and learn some new material.

    "I know your speaking because I see your lips move, but I don't understand you because I don't speak whiney little bitch."
    -Demon, SUPERNATURAL

    This again already? Did you have anything new instead of this same lame shit? I already told you that you speak whiny little bitch just fine... almost as well as you speak ignorant fat bald bastard. :)

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    You cannot PROVE any of your LIES so why keep repeating the bullshit over and over as if typing equals magic?

    You can't prove it IS a lie...

    No, MORON. I don't belong to a Party... NEVER have and never will.

    Again, that's your claim...

    UNSUBSTANTIATED and therefore, bullshit..

    This again already? Did you have anything new instead of this same lame shit? I already told you that you speak whiny little bitch just fine...

    And you would be the expert... :D

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Tedium ad infinitum.

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Let there be light."

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    At the very least, some semblance of enlightenment. And, failing that, then silencio!

Comments for this article are closed.