Speech honeymoon over; Russians are back

Sessions lied about talking to the Russians during his confirmation hearing.

Democrats escalated their demands late Wednesday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuse himself from overseeing an investigation into contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government after a disclosure that Sessions himself spoke with the Russian ambassador last year, seemingly contradicting his testimony at his confirmation hearing.

And some Democrats went further, suggesting that Sessions had perjured himself and demanding that he resign.

Just yesterday I posted the link that indicated there was still nothing but circumstantial evidence that the Kremlin influenced the 2016 election.  It's been clear for a long time that they tried to do so... but not that they succeeded in doing so.  This dribbling out of details that Trump's people have lied about what they know about the Russkies and how long they have known -- to Congress, mind you, an offense people usually go to jail over -- tightens the noose somewhat.  Once more, it's not the crime but the coverup.

At the confirmation hearing for attorney general in January, Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, asked Sessions about a CNN report that intelligence briefers had told Barack Obama, then the president, and Trump, then the president-elect, that Russian operatives claimed to have compromising information about Trump.

Franken also noted that the report indicated that surrogates for Trump and intermediaries for the Russian government continued to exchange information during the campaign. He asked Sessions what he would do if that report proved true.

Sessions replied that he was “not aware of any of those activities.” He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”

But the Justice Department acknowledged on Wednesday that Sessions had twice communicated with the Russian ambassador last year. The first time was in July, at the Republican National Convention, after he gave a speech at an event for ambassadors sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. The second time was a visit to his office by (Russian Ambassador Sergey) Kislyak in September. The Washington Post earlier reported both encounters.

Kisylak already has Michael Flynn's ass in his briefcase.  And you may recall that Elizabeth Warren was "silenced" by Mitch McConnell for "impugning the character" (sic) of Sessions when she questioned him aggressively during his hearing.

Vox gives Sessions some room to wiggle off the hook.

A word of caution: Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of the blog Lawfare, said on Twitter that there’s probably not enough for a perjury charge. He argued that there is enough ambiguity about whether Sessions, at his hearing, meant he had no communication with Russia as part of his work as a campaign surrogate versus his work as a senator. If he was speaking exclusively about his work on the behalf of the campaign, Sessions could argue that his work as a US senator was a separate matter.

“There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” Sessions spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores said. “Last year, the senator had over 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian, German and Russian ambassadors. He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign — not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.”

Sessions, for his part, made a similar argument in his statement: “I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”

Sessions seems to misunderstand the allegations in his statement. It’s not whether he met with Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign, but whether he spoke with them in any capacity despite telling Congress he had no communications with Russians. His spokesperson’s statement and his own statement only deny that he spoke with Russian officials as a campaign surrogate, but he still apparently communicated with a Russian official as a senator.

The Post report suggests that Sessions’ contact with Kislyak, even as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee at the time, was unusual. Among the 20 (of 26) members of the committee who responded to the Post, none of them met with Russia’s ambassador last year.

However this goes in the days ahead, Sessions is damaged goods.  Even if he just recuses from any Russian investigation or appoints a special investigator, he's still there to lean on it, keeping Trump's massive ass covered as best he can.

Maybe Trump will blast out some Tweets soon, make everything worse.

Update, 3 pm CST: Sessions recuses himself.  Relevant passage from The New Yorker:

At a news conference on February 16th, when Trump was asked if anyone in his campaign had been in contact with Russia, he said, “Nobody that I know of.” He also said, “I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years.” In fact, Trump spoke to Vladimir Putin less than three weeks before that—an event that the White House announced at the time, on January 28th. So how are we to understand the President’s plainly false statement? If he doesn’t acknowledge the calls that his office has announced, what are we to make of his categorical declarations that he had no contact with Russian representatives during the campaign? Now that he knows that Sessions, one of his earliest supporters, was in contact with the Russian Ambassador, will he take steps to reassure members of Congress that he is taking the matter seriously and has been honest about his own actions?

Getting your ashes on

For those of you who aren't Catholic, don't try to wipe off that schmutz you'll see on some people's foreheads today.

 -- The normalization campaign has begun.  "Softer Trump storms Capitol":

A disciplined President Trump stormed Capitol Hill late Tuesday bearing a few olive branches for Democrats, some red meat for conservatives and a softer tone that surprised members in both parties.

Republicans cheered the president both for his policy vision and an unusually restrained delivery –– one they hope marks a turning point in a presidency plagued by early missteps. Democrats, meanwhile, welcomed Trump’s calls for unity and vows to bolster civil rights, hike infrastructure spending and prioritize education.

Van Jones became a believer, but two Texas Democrats made the (nearly) ultimate sacrifice: Sheila Jackson Lee did not post up on the aisle to shake the president's hand, and Al Green wasn't in the chamber at all.  Hope he had some mudbug and daiquiris somewhere.  Resistance!

For those who did attend, the response to Trump’s message was largely a study in contrasts in the divided House chamber, where the theme was established early: Republicans stood frequently and cheered enthusiastically; Democrats sat sullenly and exuded resentment. And the disparity foreshadows the likely difficulty surrounding the fights to come as Trump and the Republicans try to enact their ambitious agenda under a unified government.

Reading quickly, Trump thrilled the Republicans with vows to bring jobs home, rejuvenate inner cities and put America first. But on those and countless other themes, the Democrats sat motionless and un-clapping. On numerous topics, the only Democrat standing was Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

I wonder if LieberManchin will have a primary opponent from his left.

'Short on specifics'.  The AP fact-checks, finds the speech long on unearned credit-taking.  Blame avoidance is the man's more practiced game, so I suppose this can be gauged an improvement.

Meanwhile, his travel ban is still being massaged to try to pass constitutional muster, but there remains no evidence that Russians hacked, conspired, or colluded to throw the election.  Trump's business relationships with Russia are the issue, which is why the Republicans in Congress don't want to force his tax returns out in the open.  But some people still need to get over November 8 and focus on the issues that will bring him down... before he brings us all down with him.

This was going to be a longer post, but I'm out of time again.

Trump's State of the Union

Maybe he'll speak some French since it's Fat Tuesday.

Lawmakers, investors and the American public want President Donald Trump to provide some much-desired clarity on his policy agenda with his first address to Congress on Tuesday.

Six weeks into his presidency, Trump is under increasing pressure to answer core questions about how he’ll deliver on his promises to bring fundamental change to U.S. health-care policy, the tax system, defense spending and immigration. Explanations have been elusive so far, and his prime-time speech could determine whether markets -- and voters -- believe Trump has a firm handle on his job.

He doesn't.  He does seem to have a tight grasp on the nether regions of 229 Republicans in the House of Representatives, though.

Trump sought to provide some answers on how his proposed budget would pay for a 10 percent increase in spending on defense without cutting “entitlement” programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which make up about two-thirds of the $4 trillion federal budget, in an interview with Fox News that aired Tuesday.

“I think the money is going to come from a revved-up economy,” Trump said. The U.S. gross domestic product will be “a little more than 1 percent and if I can get that up to 3 and maybe more that’s a whole different ballgame,” he said.

Yay trickle down!  Trump and the GOP have hit the wall on the first turn trying to yank Americans' healthcare insurance out from under them, however.

Trump has shown signs of breaking from congressional Republicans on Obamacare. Governors meeting in Washington on Saturday were presented with an analysis of a House Republican repeal bill that suggested many people may lose their insurance under the measure and states would lose billions of dollars. Trump has previously vowed that no one would lose their coverage.

There are divisions among congressional Republicans over whether a replacement plan should subsidize insurance, and if so how generously and how to finance such a policy. Trump may use his speech to push one side to compromise, particularly since it’s clear he’s getting impatient.

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the National Governors Association, said Trump asked Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price when a bill would be proposed during a meeting Monday with the governors group. Price told Trump a bill would be delivered in three or four weeks.

“Trump said, ‘I want it in two.’ Or something like that,” McAuliffe said.

Who knew this could be so complicated?  Not Trump.

In reality, I think that literally anyone who has ever worked on health care policy at the state or federal level could have told Trump that. If Trump wanted to stick to his usual aversion to experienced public servants, he alternatively could have asked anyone who’s worked in the private health insurance or hospital industries, and they would have told him that it’s complicated. 

It was a weird, somewhat inconsequential thing to say. However immediately after, Trump gave us a good example of how his general lack of knowledge of policy issues really matters. 

Referring to his own enthusiasm for tax reform, Trump explained, “I can’t do it until we do health care, because we have to know what the health care is going to cost and — statutorily — that’s the way it is. So for those people who say, ‘oh, gee, I wish we could do the tax first,’ it just doesn’t work that way. I would like to do the tax first.” 

Trump is wrong about this. There is no statutory requirement for him to do health care before he works on tax reform. What’s at issue is simply Paul Ryan’s legislative strategy. Ryan wants to pass a tax reform plan with a party-line vote, which means he needs to use the budget reconciliation process to avoid a Senate filibuster. 

America is not going to be winning more wars with a Commander-in-Chief this dense.

HCDP chair race update

There was a good crowd by all appearances at yesterday's forum, but there was scant social media coverage -- even of the cheerleading variety -- that I could find.  Only one declared candidate appears to have skipped the event (Rob Collier).

L to R: Johnathan Miller, Lillie Schechter, Chris Spellmon, DeWayne Lark, Dominique Davis, Keryl Douglas, and Eartha Jean Johnson speak at the Harris County Democratic Party's forum for chair candidates, Sunday, Feb. 26. Photo by Ken Olive (above) and Kingwood Area Democrats (below). Moderator Sherrie Matula stands behind candidates below.

These two Tweets were the most informative from my perspective:

At HCDP Chair forum, 7 candidates, only 2 spoke in specifics, 5 talked in platitudes and generalities.

— Jason P Bergman (@jpvivier) February 26, 2017

"I keep companies out of court and jail" is an interesting message for a Democratic base vote #HCDPChair

— Kris Banks (@KrisBanks) February 26, 2017

Kuff's had a few interviews, and Aubrey Taylor has posted some bios.  That's all I got on this race, with a week to go before the election.  Anybody got any links, comments, etc. to share?

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is ready to laizzes les bons temps rouler with this week's blog post roundup.

Off the Kuff looks at the bill to modify Texas' voter ID law and sees a bit of reality acceptance by the Republicans.

Libby Shaw at Daily Kos notes that we have three equal branches of government and a free press.  So far the POTUS has attacked the judiciary and has declared war on the media.  The legislative branch that should be holding the POTUS accountable looks the other way.  Meanwhile, the Russians...

SocraticGadfly takes a look at both Democratic Party post-election issues and Green Party discussion group comments, and issues his political ideas wish list for 2018 and beyond.

Easter Lemming Liberal News reports that because of slow action by Harris County and the City of Pasadena, information on election locations and hours and even district boundaries are -- so far -- available only on mayoral candidate Pat Van Houte's Facebook page Pat4Pasadena and her Pat4Pasadena.com website.  (Gary Denton works for Pat Van Houte's campaign as well as blogging as Easter Lemming.)

Bexar County commissioners have voted to oppose the transport of high-level nuclear waste through their county in response to ongoing developments associated with the expansion of the repository in Andrews, according to Texas Vox.

It was a big weekend for the Democrats as Tom Perez prevailed (barely) over Keith Ellison for the chairmanship of the DNC, and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs takes a look at what's next for the Donks.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme contributes to the ACLU to protect us against Republicans going after voters; harassing those who signed an affidavit in the last election and trying to send them to jail before the next one.

Neil at All People Have Value attended a protest at a Houston country club calling upon cowardly Houston Congressperson John Culberson to have an open town hall meeting rather than just speaking to invited Republicans.  APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

The Lewisville Texan Journal explains to its readers why it won't report on the partisan affiliations of the city's municipal candidates.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston blogs about the failure of Texas electricity deregulation in 'The Power to Lose'.

TXsharon at Bluedaze takes note of Frackmaster Chris Faulkner's arrest on felony charges.

And Stace at Dos Centavos applauds the decision of Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, who ended the county's participation in the immigration directive known as 287(g).

=====================

More Texas progressive news!

Juan Lozano at the AP, via The Statesman, reports on how missing accounts of police shootings are driving legislative changes to the law (and the record-keeping of the shootings).

The Intercept details the long history of deportation scare tactics at the US-Mexico border.

Grist describes how Mardi Gras beads make a much bigger environmental mess than you might imagine.

The Texas Observer passes along the story about how the chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court and the chair of the House Corrections Committee would like to see repeal the law that imprisons debtors of misdemeanor fines.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram writes about the bill in the Lege that would do away with Daylight Saving Time.

Insurance company profits are bigger in Texas, posts Texas Watch.

Somervell County Salon muses about First Amendment rights and recording the police.

The Rag Blog shares Cong. Lamar Smith's words about the unvarnished truth falling from the lips of President Trump.

Zachery Taylor wonders if the ongoing resistance protests signal overdue reform, or are just another Democratic Trojan horse.

And Ty Clevenger at Lawflog has news of former Dallas County DA Craig Watkins being sued for allegedly ordering the burglary of an H.L. Hunt heir's home.