When Democrats attack! Today's news for January 10th

CNN:

Booker to testify against fellow senator Sessions in unprecedented move

Democratic Sen. Cory Booker is set to testify against Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions Wednesday in an unprecedented move during his attorney general confirmation.

This would be the first time in Senate history that a sitting senator will testify against another sitting senator for a Cabinet post during a confirmation.

"I do not take lightly the decision to testify against a Senate colleague," Booker said. "But the immense powers of the attorney general combined with the deeply troubling views of this nominee is a call to conscience."

Shouldn't ALL senators be willing to testify for/against their fellow senators when they get appointed for anything? Ask yourself why this is some kind of unprecedented action. The reason is obvious: For too long, the Senate has been an old boy's club, where all senators of all parties are far too chummy with each other. When they work together, and that doesn't mean coming together during a crisis, the American people are the ultimate losers. The parties should work against each other. That means the government is working as the Founding Fathers designed it.

Having said that...

Booker called Sessions' record "concerning in a number of ways," citing his opposition to bipartisan criminal justice reform and immigration reform, criticism of the Voting Rights Act and his "failure to defend the civil rights of women, minorities, and LGBT Americans."

If Booker is calling Sessions racist or homophobic because of things he has said or done in private, then that should be revealed. But Sessions' critique of legislation, including the Voting Rights Act, should be judged for its own merits. However, if Booker is criticizing Sessions for merely daring to question a law, even the Voting Rights Act, then Booker is a totalitarian fool.

Speaking of Trump appointments...

Business Insider:

'It doesn't make sense': Questions remain after report that 

Trump team fired leaders of US nuclear weapons safety and security

As Inauguration Day draws near, thousands of US government workers tapped by the Obama administration are waiting for a pink slip from President-elect Donald Trump.

It isn't unusual for a new president to clean house across US agencies, but neither is keeping a few crucial appointed roles filled — at least until worthy successors are named. This is especially true of the leadership of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which safeguards America's stockpile of roughly 7,000 nuclear weapons.

But according to a Monday Gizmodo story by Ashley Feinberg, Trump's transition team just lopped off the top of NNSA's organization chart, effectively sending leaders Frank Klotz and Madelyn Creedon packing on January 20.

Contrary to the panty-bunching cries for help from Business Insider, please note that only the political appointees have been removed. The low level bureaucrats who actually are responsible for carrying out the agency's mandate are still in place. If anything goes wrong, it won't be political appointees heads rolling.

However, here is the main concern of the article:

If Klotz and Creedon were dismissed, it "doesn't make any sense," Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund (a global security foundation) and a nuclear policy expert, told Business Insider.

...He says that NNSA bosses like Klotz and Creedon must sign off for nuclear weapons contractors to receive payment.

If there is no one in their seats, the money can stop flowing.

"It's not as bad as not paying the guards of our nuclear weapons, but it's as bad as not paying the people who pay for the guards of our nuclear weapons," he said.

So, for an organization that may get roughly $12.9 billion this year alone to maintain "the safety, security, and effectiveness" of existing nuclear weapons, as well as oversee new projects (such as the development of tactical gravity bombs), even a few leaderless days could translate into hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of missed payments and possibly compromise essential services.

"If this goes on, you'll start seeing contracts ending and a lack of contractual oversight. You will see an impact on our vast nuclear complex," he said. "Every day, [tens] of millions of dollars are moving through the pipeline, and it's under the control of the two people [Trump] just dismissed." 

Because companies typically walk away from making tens of millions of dollars a day. Not likely. They will continue doing what they do, and then bill the government in arrears.

This is much ado about nothing.

In more substantial news...

Politics USA:

Elizabeth Warren Drops The Hammer On Trump 

With Bill To Implement the Emoluments Clause

Sen. Elizabeth Warren and a slew of Democrats are taking aim at Donald Trump with new legislation that would force him to release his tax returns and divest himself of potential financial conflicts of interest.

The legislation titled the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017 would require the president and vice president to comply with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by requiring them to release their tax returns and divest themselves of any personal financial conflicts of interest. It would also require cabinet appointees to recuse themselves if any potential presidential conflicts of interest came before their agencies.

This is a great idea! In fact, it should be extended to both houses of Congress AND the Supreme Court! Let us return to the concept of legislators and judges being true "public servants", and not just financially conflicted whores ruling us.

And then I wake up.

Finally:

The Huffington Post:

Kellyanne Conway Says 

Donald Trump Shouldn’t Be Held Accountable For The Things He Says

Kellyanne Conway, a key adviser to Donald Trump who ran his 2016 campaign, defended the president-elect’s behavior by saying that journalists should “look at what’s in his heart.”

CNN “New Day” host Chris Cuomo called out Trump for mocking a disabled New York Times reporter during a 2015 rally. But Conway insisted that’s not what he was doing.

“That is not what he did and he has said that 1,000 times,” she said Monday morning. “Why can’t you give him the benefit of the doubt?”

Cuomo shot back, “He can say it a million times but look at the video... he’s making a disgusting gesture on video.”

“Why is everything taken at face value?” she asked. “You can’t give him the benefit of the doubt on this and he’s telling you what was in his heart, you always want to go with what’s come out of his mouth rather than look at what’s in his heart.”

This sounds like the kind of feel-good crap a Democrat might say to defend the indefensible.

Regarding the incident in question:

The incident from the 2015 rally came up again Sunday night after Meryl Streep lambasted him during her Golden Globes speech.

“The person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter, someone he outranked in privilege, power and the capacity to fight back,” she said. “It kind of broke my heart.”

Trump responded to Streep on Twitter, saying, “I never ‘mocked’ a disabled reporter (would never do that) but simply showed him ‘groveling’ when he totally changed a 16 year old story that he had written in order to make me look bad.”

So what was in Trump's heart? Watch:


Trump could have easily attacked the reporter without bringing up the disability. but he didn't because he is thin-skinned when it comes to any criticism. And when Trump attacks, he hits you with everything in his verbal arsenal, including mockery. The only reason to go overboard like that is because he lacks self-confidence. He has to build himself up, even if it comes at the expense of others.

Thanks Kellyanne! It is a useful exercise to look into Trump's heart instead of just taking him at his word.