Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, January 16, 2019

In a rebuke to the Trump administration on Russia, 11 Senate Republicans joined with Democrats to advance a measure Tuesday that would stop the Treasury Department from relaxing sanctions on three Russian companies with ties to oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a Kremlin ally.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

sanctions were lifted from Eric Deripaska
republican legislation..on orders from Moskva
"citizens united" enables fascist hegemonies
to wield power in america..with their ill gotten monies
we know we're in trouble..we must make it clear
Trump is a tool..it's McConnell too fear

#1 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-01-16 10:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is incorrect. CNN should be ashamed.

Bills in the senate require 50 votes plus one. Not 60 votes.

To end debate takes 60 votes. That's what the filibuster does. The Democrats needed 60 votes to end the debate and move the bill to the floor for a floor vote and they lost. Thus the sanctions will now end.

The oligarchs won.

#2 | Posted by prius04 at 2019-01-16 10:21 PM | Reply

"To end debate takes 60 votes." - #2 | Posted by prius04 at 2019-01-16 10:21 PM

But here's the thing:

They didn't need 60 votes for Gorsuch.

They didn't need 60 votes for Keganaugh.

They didn't need 60 votes for their $2.5 trillion tax give away to the wealthiest.

#3 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-16 10:27 PM | Reply

Giuliani says Trump didn't collude with Russia but can't say if campaign aides did

www.msn.com

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-16 10:32 PM | Reply

#3 Hans

During Bush the GOP considered nuking the filibuster on all POTUS nominees from cabinet to the judiciary. The latter was critical as Bush had 10 judges in limbo due to Dems' aggressive use of the filibuster. The GOP seriously contemplated nuking it but "the Gang of 14" elder statesman came to a compromise to preserve the filibuster yet allow for an up/down vote (if memory serves) 6 out of 10 of Bush's stalled nominees.

During the Obama administration, when the roles were reversed, there were virtually no elder-statesmen in the Senate to be found. Harry Reid put forth a motion to abolish all-but SCOTUS appointments (knowing that the likelihood of the GOP being able to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee during the time they had both the Senate, the WH AND a vacancy, all at the same time was next-to nil.

After 2+ decades of playing catch-up, the GOP accelerated the battle when Scallia died unexpectedly but the Dems still had the WH. Garland wasn't considered, which set yet another bad precedent and Trump won, the GOP retrained the Senate and Triump nominated Gorsuch. The Dems, playing short-ball immediately filibustered and the GOP nuked it - paving the way for a nominee who didn't change the dynamic of the court. Had the Dems not filibustered Gorsuch they might have been able to prevent Kavanaugh.

Personally, I like the filibuster. However, if it's only selectively applied I understand going around it.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-16 10:50 PM | Reply

Wonder what kompromat the Russians got when they hacked the RNC servers.

#6 | Posted by SunTzuMeow at 2019-01-17 12:30 AM | Reply

Pretty interesting game of liar's poker going on in the GOP right now.

I hope the NSA is listening. To them I mean, not me. Pay no attention to Snoofy!

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-17 12:32 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Hans,

The nominations process was changed, as outlined by JeffJ above.

The tax cuts were passed using the reconciliation process which can only be done on money issues and other complicated rules.

But this sanctions stuff clearly comes under the filibuster. The filibuster is a senate rule that can be changed by the senate. But there are rules on how to make that change and who can initiate it.

#8 | Posted by prius04 at 2019-01-17 10:47 AM | Reply

#5 | Posted by JeffJ

So Jeff, you pretend to be waiting for mueller's report to make up your mind about trump/russia.

How do you feel about the new Attorney General refusing to say if he'll let anyone see the report, whether or not he'll make alterations to it, and whether or not he'll tell anyone if he does make alterations to it?

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-17 11:04 AM | Reply

How do you feel about the new Attorney General refusing to say if he'll let anyone see the report, whether or not he'll make alterations to it, and whether or not he'll tell anyone if he does make alterations to it?

#9 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I don't like it.

Having said that, before he was even considered I had been hearing rumblings that Mueller might not release the report to the public, or if he did it would be with redactions and omissions. If it ends up being a situation that the Trump Team actively works to suppress the report I'll be right there with you on this. But until it actually happens.....

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-17 11:42 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

But until it actually happens.....

#10 | Posted by JeffJ

Each step of the way you've given trump the benefit of the doubt. Each step of the way he's proven he didn't deserve it. Do you start feeling foolish eventually?

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-17 11:50 AM | Reply

I am not going to condemn something that hasn't happened.

That's not giving the benefit of the doubt. It's simple logic.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-17 12:41 PM | Reply

I am not going to condemn something that hasn't happened.

That's not giving the benefit of the doubt. It's simple logic.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ

Trump picked a supreme court justice who said the president can't be indicted.

He picked an attorney general who said the same thing.

His campaign manager and national security advisor both turned out to be russian assets.

He and his team have repeatedly lied about contacts with russia.

He and his team have been enacting policies that putin has wanted.

These are things that HAVE happened. Can you condemn THEM?

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-17 01:17 PM | Reply

Trump picked a supreme court justice who said the president can't be indicted.
He picked an attorney general who said the same thing.

According to longstanding DOJ guidelines they are correct.

His campaign manager and national security advisor both turned out to be russian assets.

Sort of. Regardless, they are getting what they deserve.

He and his team have repeatedly lied about contacts with russia.

Correct. I condemn that.

He and his team have been enacting policies that putin has wanted.

Yes and no. Putin definitely doesn't like our current energy policy of maximum natural gas and oil extraction. This policy is harming him far more than other actions taken by this administration have helped him.

Your strongest case was regarding the people Trump surrounds himself with. In WAY too many cases they are completely unqualified for the job - this goes for the ones who aren't crooks. In WAY too many cases he has brought on crooks - Cohen, Flynn, Manafort - or people who are simply repugnant - Bannon, Gorka, Miller. These people are a reflection on Trump.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-17 01:28 PM | Reply

#5 | Posted by JeffJ

I like the filibuster - but make them actually filibuster. Make them stay up all night like they used to - then it was selectively used and things were negotiated too. This phone it in stuff is BS - too easy. I think it needs to be enshrined as part of the laws. At times both sides are right in fillibustering.

#15 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-01-17 02:04 PM | Reply

Agreed regarding actually filibustering, Pete.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-17 02:12 PM | Reply

Yes and no. Putin definitely doesn't like our current energy policy of maximum natural gas and oil extraction. This policy is harming him far more than other actions taken by this administration have helped him.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ

Trump doesnt dare fight the US pollution industry.

But he has tried in many ways to help ease the sanctions on russia. It's only congress and public scrutiny due to russiagate that has stopped him from giving putin everything he wants.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-17 03:43 PM | Reply

"This policy is harming him far more than other actions taken by this administration have helped him."

Love to see the math on that one...

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-17 03:49 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort