crooksandliars--2020-09-26--Amy Coney Barrett Claimed To Care About Maintaining The 'Balance Of Power' On The Court Back In 2016

We all know there 's no penalty for Republicans being huge flaming hypocrites and talking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to packing the courts with right-wing judges , but maybe one of the Democrats can ask Trump 's likely SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett about this during the upcoming hearings .
Here 's Barrett back in 2016 following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia being asked to weigh in on the Republicans blocking President 's Obama 's replacement by CBS News ' Elaine Quijano : We 're talking about Justice Scalia , you know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we 're talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power on the court .
It 's not a lateral move .
BARRETT : Kennedy is a moderate Republican , and he replaced a moderate Republican , Powell .
And finally , the reality is we live in a different time .
[ … ] Confirmation hearings have gotten far more contentious , and so I just do n't think we live in the same kind of times .
I think in sum , the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate has the power to act or not and I do n't think either one of them can claim that there 's a rule governing one way or the other .
Here 's some of the response to her blatant hypocrisy on Twitter '' So this change of philosophy since 2016 should give you some insight into her mindset .
Not thinking her religious beliefs will get in the way unless she chooses to allow this .
Because her prior comments flipped so easily , honesty and integrity don ’ t appear to @ @ @ @ @

We all know there's no penalty for Republicans being huge flaming hypocrites and talking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to packing the courts with right-wing judges, but maybe one of the Democrats can ask Trump's likely SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett about this during the upcoming hearings.
Here's Barrett back in 2016 following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia being asked to weigh in on the Republicans blocking President's Obama's replacement by CBS News' Elaine Quijano:
We're talking about Justice Scalia, you know, the staunchest conservative on the court, and we're talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power on the court. It's not a lateral move.
BARRETT: Kennedy is a moderate Republican, and he replaced a moderate Republican, Powell. And finally, the reality is we live in a different time. […] Confirmation hearings have gotten far more contentious, and so I just don't think we live in the same kind of times. I think in sum, the president has the power to nominate and the Senate has the power to act or not and I don't think either one of them can claim that there's a rule governing one way or the other.
Here's some of the response to her blatant hypocrisy on Twitter"
So this change of philosophy since 2016 should give you some insight into her mindset. Not thinking her religious beliefs will get in the way unless she chooses to allow this. Because her prior comments flipped so easily, honesty and integrity don’t appear to be her strong suit. — Reno4 (@Reno40000) September 26, 2020
Looks like they're all reading from the same hypocrisy playbook. pic.twitter.com/dzDtmeKyFU — Mark Hernandez (@MSprk1375) September 24, 2020
Every single @SenateDems should question Barrett on her contributor opinion from 2016 when McConnell blocked Garland. Why is she accepting a nomination that creates a dramatic flip in balance of power in an election year if she believes it's completely inappropriate to do so? — 🦋🐘🐋Fionna 🐋🐘🦋 (@FionnaGlenanne) September 26, 2020
So is anyone surprised she's a hypocrite? If so, here's some news for you, some guidance and a rule of thumb you can apply from here on: pic.twitter.com/D1WjXG8LzH — Eloriel (@Eloriel) September 25, 2020
First question at her possible confirmation hearing should include this quote. — Shelley (@berriesandblood) September 26, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-09-26--Elie Mystal Absolutely Levels Amy Coney Barrett's Judicial Reputation On AM Joy

Poor Tiffany Cross .
She was looking for some kind of hope that there was something Democrats could do to stop the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the vacant Supreme Court seat , now open since the passing of legend Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Elie Mystal had nothing for her , as according to him , confirmation hearings do n't matter , and process-wise , there are no mechanisms available to Democrats .
All they can do is send someone to question her in their place , and refuse to attend the hearings to join the people outside protesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , expound on all the reasons why Amy Coney Barrett is an absolutely atrocious choice for a Supreme Court Seat , and it has nothing to do with her dogmatic alleged devotion to Catholicism .
It 's her hypocrisy , and that 's why she is the perfect choice for the Republicans .
He laid out that case with laser-precision , absolutely leveling her reputation in the process .
MYSTAL : The problem is not that Amy Coney Barrett is particularly Catholic .
The problem is that she 's a HYPOCRITE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I could live with the Catholic judge .
I could live with a judge who devoutly applied their faith to issues of the law .
But it is not Catholic , it is not devout to turn away thy neighbor who is need of assistance as Amy Coney Barrett did in 2020 when she was the lone judge to uphold Donald Trump 's public charge rule which denied green cards to people who might need public assistance .
It is not devoutly Christian or Catholic to praise the deliberate indifference of human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 when she was the lone judge to tell a group of prisoners they had no 8th Amendment protections , when prison guards shot loaded guns into a crowded cafeteria .
It is not devoutly Catholic to take away people 's health care , as Amy Coney Barrett has repeatedly said she will .
It is not devoutly Catholic to apply the death penalty , which Amy Coney Barrett has written that a good Catholic judge should recuse themselves from situations implying the death penalty , but she has not written and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she has not written that a good Catholic judge should recuse themselves on issues involving abortion or a women 's right to choose .
So what we 're left with is a hypocrite who will insert her judicial opinion between a woman and a woman 's doctor , but will not insert her moral opinion between the executioner and the prisoner on the chopping block .
Now , that kind of hypocrisy is something I ca n't deal with .
He nailed it with that last point .
The GOP is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But after that ?
They 're pro-white male supremacy , and that 's it .

Poor Tiffany Cross. She was looking for some kind of hope that there was something Democrats could do to stop the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the vacant Supreme Court seat, now open since the passing of legend Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Elie Mystal had nothing for her, as according to him, confirmation hearings don't matter, and process-wise, there are no mechanisms available to Democrats. All they can do is send someone to question her in their place, and refuse to attend the hearings to join the people outside protesting Coney Barrett's nomination.
Mystal did, however, expound on all the reasons why Amy Coney Barrett is an absolutely atrocious choice for a Supreme Court Seat, and it has nothing to do with her dogmatic alleged devotion to Catholicism. It's her hypocrisy, and that's why she is the perfect choice for the Republicans. He laid out that case with laser-precision, absolutely leveling her reputation in the process.
MYSTAL: The problem is not that Amy Coney Barrett is particularly Catholic. The problem is that she's a HYPOCRITE. I would -- I'm Catholic. I could live with the Catholic judge. I could live with a judge who devoutly applied their faith to issues of the law. But it is not Catholic, it is not devout to turn away thy neighbor who is need of assistance as Amy Coney Barrett did in 2020 when she was the lone judge to uphold Donald Trump's public charge rule which denied green cards to people who might need public assistance. It is not devoutly Christian or Catholic to praise the deliberate indifference of human life, which Amy Coney Barrett did in 2018 when she was the lone judge to tell a group of prisoners they had no 8th Amendment protections, when prison guards shot loaded guns into a crowded cafeteria. It is not devoutly Catholic to take away people's health care, as Amy Coney Barrett has repeatedly said she will. It is not devoutly Catholic to apply the death penalty, which Amy Coney Barrett has written that a good Catholic judge should recuse themselves from situations implying the death penalty, but she has not written and here's the elephant in the room, she has not written that a good Catholic judge should recuse themselves on issues involving abortion or a women's right to choose. So what we're left with is a hypocrite who will insert her judicial opinion between a woman and a woman's doctor, but will not insert her moral opinion between the executioner and the prisoner on the chopping block. Now, that kind of hypocrisy is something I can't deal with.
I mean...
He nailed it with that last point. The GOP is not pro-life. They are pro-zygote. Pro-birth. But after that? They're pro-white male supremacy, and that's it.


crooksandliars--2020-09-26--Does Biden Have A Shot...In TEXAS?

Does Biden Have A Shot...In TEXAS?

It does n't look as if Joe Biden can quite overcome Donald Trump 's lead in Texas -- Trump is up by 1.9 according to FiveThirtyEight , and up by 3.6 according to Real Clear Politics .
On the other hand , there 's this : A little less than three weeks before early voting is due to begin , Texans are already making election year history , setting new records for voter registration ... .
Jeremy Wallace covers politics for the Houston Chronicle .
He told Texas Standard the state has a bit over 16.6 million registered voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election .
“ Even since the pandemic hit , we ’ ve added 400,000 , ” Wallace said .
Just for the record , Beto O'Rourke lost to Ted Cruz in 2018 by 214,921 votes ( out of 8,371,655 cast ) .
Of the new voters registered , one-third come from Harris County , Bexar County and Travis County , all home to large cities that tend to vote for Democratic candidates .
There have also been higher-than-usual increases in the number of voters registered in suburban counties like Hays and Williamson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ southeast Texas .
Republicans hope those voters will be more likely to support their candidates .
Harris County ( which includes Houston ) , Bexar County ( San Antonio ) , and Travis County ( Austin ) all voted for O'Rourke by comfortable margins -- but O'Rourke won Hays and Williamson counties , too , after Trump won both in 2016 .
Will Texas surprise us ?
Maybe it 'll just be close , but who knows ?
Meanwhile , here are a couple of possible surprises : Biden leads Trump in Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll that was released this week , and he 's ahead of Trump by 5 in Ohio in a just-released Fox poll .
Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 9 in Iowa and by 8 in Ohio .
Midwestern appeal ?
Maybe Biden really was the right candidate for this election .
Republished with permission from No More Mister Nice Blog .

It doesn't look as if Joe Biden can quite overcome Donald Trump's lead in Texas -- Trump is up by 1.9 according to FiveThirtyEight, and up by 3.6 according to Real Clear Politics. On the other hand, there's this:
A little less than three weeks before early voting is due to begin, Texans are already making election year history, setting new records for voter registration....
Jeremy Wallace covers politics for the Houston Chronicle. He told Texas Standard the state has a bit over 16.6 million registered voters, with 1.5 million added since the 2016 presidential election.
“Even since the pandemic hit, we’ve added 400,000,” Wallace said.
Just for the record, Beto O'Rourke lost to Ted Cruz in 2018 by 214,921 votes (out of 8,371,655 cast).
Of the new voters registered, one-third come from Harris County, Bexar County and Travis County, all home to large cities that tend to vote for Democratic candidates. There have also been higher-than-usual increases in the number of voters registered in suburban counties like Hays and Williamson near Austin, and Montgomery County in southeast Texas. Republicans hope those voters will be more likely to support their candidates.
Harris County (which includes Houston), Bexar County (San Antonio), and Travis County (Austin) all voted for O'Rourke by comfortable margins -- but O'Rourke won Hays and Williamson counties, too, after Trump won both in 2016.
Will Texas surprise us? Maybe it'll just be close, but who knows?
Meanwhile, here are a couple of possible surprises: Biden leads Trump in Iowa by 3 in the New York Times/Siena poll that was released this week, and he's ahead of Trump by 5 in Ohio in a just-released Fox poll. Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 9 in Iowa and by 8 in Ohio.
Midwestern appeal? Maybe Biden really was the right candidate for this election.
Republished with permission from No More Mister Nice Blog.


crooksandliars--2020-09-26--Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis Lifts COVID Restrictions On Businesses

Florida 's Ron DeSantis again moves into the lead as the dumbest , and during a pandemic , the most dangerous of Republican Governors .
Yesterday , nearly 3000 new cases and 120 deaths were reported in Florida , but apparently they can do better than that , hence DeSantis 's new rules .
According to the IHME projections , DeSantis ' latest moves will result in nearly 11,000 more deaths in Florida by the end of 2020 .
Laura Ingraham referred to DeSantis as `` the man on the side of safety and freedom , '' Insane , dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a darling of the alt-right , who live in their own reality .
The problem is , the rest of us have to pay the price .
Gov .
Ron DeSantis lifted all restrictions on restaurants and other businesses in Florida on Friday , and banned local fines against people who refuse to wear masks as he seeks to reopen the state ’ s economy despite the spread of the coronavirus .
The Republican governor ’ s order unleashed fresh debate in the politically divided state , where pandemic responses have become intertwined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a major ally of President Donald Trump , acknowledged that the pandemic is far from over , but he said the threat has eased and the time has come to reopen for business after six months of “ people twisting in the wind.
” The governor ’ s announcement Friday allows restaurants across the state to immediately reopen at full capacity — and prevents cities and counties from ordering them to close or operate at less than half-capacity , unless they can justify a closure for economic or health reasons .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Meanwhile , more ominous signs for the Fall ... .

Florida's Ron DeSantis again moves into the lead as the dumbest, and during a pandemic, the most dangerous of Republican Governors. Yesterday, nearly 3000 new cases and 120 deaths were reported in Florida, but apparently they can do better than that, hence DeSantis's new rules. According to the IHME projections, DeSantis' latest moves will result in nearly 11,000 more deaths in Florida by the end of 2020.
Laura Ingraham referred to DeSantis as "the man on the side of safety and freedom," Insane, dangerous, and against public health, but a darling of the alt-right, who live in their own reality. The problem is, the rest of us have to pay the price.
Source: Associated Press
Gov. Ron DeSantis lifted all restrictions on restaurants and other businesses in Florida on Friday, and banned local fines against people who refuse to wear masks as he seeks to reopen the state’s economy despite the spread of the coronavirus. The Republican governor’s order unleashed fresh debate in the politically divided state, where pandemic responses have become intertwined with the upcoming presidential election. DeSantis, a major ally of President Donald Trump, acknowledged that the pandemic is far from over, but he said the threat has eased and the time has come to reopen for business after six months of “people twisting in the wind.” The governor’s announcement Friday allows restaurants across the state to immediately reopen at full capacity — and prevents cities and counties from ordering them to close or operate at less than half-capacity, unless they can justify a closure for economic or health reasons.
A few tweets that sum up this foolishness:
Florida's Coronavirus Record:
#1 in Covid deaths today (120)
#3 in Covid cases today (2,847)
#3 in total Covid cases (695,887)
#5 in total Covid deaths (13,915)https://t.co/fWBEv9WxSa — Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) September 26, 2020
This decision by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis will kill many people.
It is lethal violence against his own constituents. pic.twitter.com/2znTx5OpAR — Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) September 25, 2020
One reason Seniors may be finally turning on Republicans is that Republicans keep trying to kill them https://t.co/KnGshSgpIV — LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) September 25, 2020
Meanwhile, more ominous signs for the Fall....


crooksandliars--2020-09-26--You Know How Trump Was Whining About Discarded Military Ballots In PA?

Do you remember Thursday , when the freakin ' Department of Justice put out a statement about discarded military ballots @ @ @ @ @ said how unusual it was ?
( Because it is . )
But oh , @ @ @ @ @ as Republicans insist it is when accusing Democrats of fraud .
( And by the @ @ @ @ @ DoJ announce who the voters voted for ?
That 's pretty outrageous .
We 're @ @ @ @ @ ! )
According to Talking Points Memo , a temp ( who has since been @ @ @ @ @ ballots by mistake and it was caught .
It was the local U.S. Attorney David @ @ @ @ @ sinister , and passed it along to Bill Barr .
Claire McCaskill sums it up @ @ @ @ @ wrote about this the same day .
It was REPUBLICAN LAWYERS FOR TRUMP who insisted @ @ @ @ @ envelope be tossed , and the state Supreme Court ruled in their favor .
Ha @ @ @ @ @ it when they shoot themselves in the foot .

Do you remember Thursday, when the freakin' Department of Justice put out a statement about discarded military ballots in Pennsylvania? And everyone said how unusual it was? (Because it is.)
An unusual statement from the US Attorney in the Middle District of Pennsylvania says a “small number” of military ballots were “discarded,” and nine ballots cast for president Trump have been recovered. https://t.co/SSZnDExdT6 pic.twitter.com/3R2npXDYLC — southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) September 24, 2020
its cool how the department of justice is an arm of the trump campaign and we won't even register a formal complaint about it https://t.co/BmyuflBhDG — Oliver Willis (@owillis) September 25, 2020
But oh, it's never as simple as Republicans insist it is when accusing Democrats of fraud. (And by the way, why did the DoJ announce who the voters voted for? That's pretty outrageous. We're supposed to have secret ballots!)
After going viral with an unusual press release saying they found 9 discarded military ballots and all 9 were cast for Trump, the Department of Justice has deleted the release and issued a new one saying it's 7 for Trump and they dunno about the other 2. https://t.co/N3bFo6LtNu — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) September 24, 2020
According to Talking Points Memo, a temp (who has since been fired) threw out the ballots by mistake and it was caught. It was the local U.S. Attorney David Freed who decided it was sinister, and passed it along to Bill Barr.
Claire McCaskill sums it up for us:
Ok pay attention here. Big deal yesterday of 7 ballots discarded in PA.Turns out they were not in secrecy envelope (hence how they knew they were for Trump) & that it is what Trump wanted! Trump is in court fighting to make sure all ballots not in secrecy envelope are thrown out. https://t.co/T5Uu2OKJTz — Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) September 25, 2020
I just wrote about this the same day. It was REPUBLICAN LAWYERS FOR TRUMP who insisted any ballot without a security envelope be tossed, and the state Supreme Court ruled in their favor.
Ha, ha! I love it when they shoot themselves in the foot.


crooksandliars--2020-09-27--BOMBSHELL: Trump's Taxes Are A Nesting Doll Of Scams, Lies And Sleight Of Hand

BIG NEWS .
The New York Times has Trump 's tax returns and wow - they absolutely eviscerate any claim that Trump has made about being rich or successful or a good businessman .
To be clear - this article is really dense and well sourced .
There is a lot of historical data , going back roughly 20 years .
I am going to try to hit the high points , but I encourage you to read the article itself to really take a deep dive in .
The article opens with this one-two punch : Donald Trump apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large enough losses ) that he did n't even pay taxes .
He has `` hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due that he has personally guaranteed '' which is probably driving his push to have the federal government pay HIM to protect HIM and his family , thereby making the government pay his debt ... eventually .
Oh , and Trump may end up owing the IRS over $ 100 million in back payments and penalties related to a tax refund of $ 72.9M he claimed ( possibly illegitimately ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NYT has pull the curtain back on Trump 's blatant lies about how successful he and his businesses actually are .
In fact , they consistently show losses , deficiencies and shuffling of debt and profits to make it look like he is doing better than he really is .
The data they reviewed came from Trump himself and `` hundreds of companies that make up his business organization , including detailed information from his first two years in office .
It does not include his personal returns for 2018 or 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are shockingly non-profitable .
In fact , their taxes filings report `` losing millions , if not tens of millions , of dollars year after year . ''
That is staggering , though the tax code is structured to reward developers for owning property and using loopholes for tax avoidance .
Donald Trump claims to be a billionaire with many successful hotels , golf courses and other businesses .
How much did he pay in taxes ?
In 2017 he paid $ 750 while he paid significantly more to other countries where he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , $ 145,400 to India and $ 156,824 to the Philippines ( home of strongman Duterte ) .
What does the future hold ?
The Times reports that the businesses reported more than $ 100 million over the last TWO YEARS prior to his run for office in June 2015 .
His run for office may have been a last ditch effort to revive his brand , suggesting that he was n't as interested in winning as he was in burnishing the brand for better TV deals after he lost in 2016 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 .
The New York Times reports that in 2012 , Trump took a $ 100 MILLION DOLLAR MORTGAGE on space in Trump Tower .
He took it at a straight payout .
The full amount , with interest , is due in 2022 .
Additionally , he is `` personally responsible for loans and other debts totaling $ 421 million , with most of it coming due within four years '' Like the Wizard of Oz , after the curtain was pulled back .
Donald Trump is a scammer who is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheat and a grifter .
Reminder , the whole story is here .
UPDATE : Watch his pathetic dodge during a press conference HE called right when this story dropped .

BIG NEWS. The New York Times has Trump's tax returns and wow - they absolutely eviscerate any claim that Trump has made about being rich or successful or a good businessman.
To be clear - this article is really dense and well sourced. There is a lot of historical data, going back roughly 20 years. I am going to try to hit the high points, but I encourage you to read the article itself to really take a deep dive in.
The article opens with this one-two punch:
Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750. He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.
Donald Trump apparently made so little money (or manufactured large enough losses) that he didn't even pay taxes. He has "hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due that he has personally guaranteed" which is probably driving his push to have the federal government pay HIM to protect HIM and his family, thereby making the government pay his debt...eventually. Oh, and Trump may end up owing the IRS over $100 million in back payments and penalties related to a tax refund of $72.9M he claimed (possibly illegitimately) in 2010.
The tax information the NYT has pull the curtain back on Trump's blatant lies about how successful he and his businesses actually are. In fact, they consistently show losses, deficiencies and shuffling of debt and profits to make it look like he is doing better than he really is. The data they reviewed came from Trump himself and "hundreds of companies that make up his business organization, including detailed information from his first two years in office. It does not include his personal returns for 2018 or 2019."
Their analysis:
Ultimately, Mr. Trump has been more successful playing a business mogul than being one in real life.
Trump's hotels and golf courses are shockingly non-profitable. In fact, their taxes filings report "losing millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars year after year."
That is staggering, though the tax code is structured to reward developers for owning property and using loopholes for tax avoidance.
Donald Trump claims to be a billionaire with many successful hotels, golf courses and other businesses. How much did he pay in taxes? In 2017 he paid $750 while he paid significantly more to other countries where he had businesses -- $15,598 to Panama, $145,400 to India and $156,824 to the Philippines (home of strongman Duterte).
What does the future hold? The Times reports that the businesses reported more than $100 million over the last TWO YEARS prior to his run for office in June 2015. His run for office may have been a last ditch effort to revive his brand, suggesting that he wasn't as interested in winning as he was in burnishing the brand for better TV deals after he lost in 2016.
Now he faces even more danger in 2020. The New York Times reports that in 2012, Trump took a $100 MILLION DOLLAR MORTGAGE on space in Trump Tower. He took it at a straight payout. The full amount, with interest, is due in 2022. Additionally, he is "personally responsible for loans and other debts totaling $421 million, with most of it coming due within four years"
Like the Wizard of Oz, after the curtain was pulled back. Donald Trump is a scammer who is now being outed as a liar, a cheat and a grifter.
Reminder, the whole story is here.
UPDATE: Watch his pathetic dodge during a press conference HE called right when this story dropped.
"It's fake news ... actually I paid tax ... it's under audit" -- Trump denies a New York Times report that he only paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and '17, but doesn't present any evidence to the contrary pic.twitter.com/RkosMUQpES — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 27, 2020
UPDATE 2:


crooksandliars--2020-09-27--Watch As Democratic Congresswoman Rips Republican’s Empty Healthcare Promises To Pieces

Former external affairs official for ICE and television anchor Paul Junge is running to unseat Michigan ’ s newest House representative , Democrat Elissa Slotkin .
Slotkin was one of the many Democratic and progressive candidates to shake the world during the 2018 blue wave elections .
Slotkin won Michigan ’ s 8th district , one that had gone comfortably to both Mitt Romney and Donald Trump in 2012 and 2016 , respectively .
On Sunday morning , the two candidates had a debate on local TV station WDIV Channel 4 .
One of the biggest issues facing Americans and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s constituents are worried about is the continued rising cost of health care and , more specifically , health insurance .
The exchange that took place just hours ago is one that is taking place nationally in every race as we speak .
It will be a focus at some point during whatever it is we end up calling the debates between Joe Biden and Trump .
Hopefully Democratic candidates and incumbents will take note of how you deal with the marble-mouthed , content-free lip service that Republicans give to the need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up absolutely nothing in terms of concrete policy .
Rep. Slotkin has a very personal story about health insurance : Her mother , who had had a bout with cancer decades earlier , continued to get gouged by insurance companies because of her “ preexisting condition.
” This led to her mother ’ s premiums becoming unaffordable and her need to lapse in paying them when evaluating what she was actually getting in return .
When asked about her campaign to make sure Michigan residents could receive affordable health insurance , Slotkin highlighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clause—one that Republicans are hoping will be destroyed by the Supreme Court .
Then , the moderator handed the question over to Junge .
Like most Republican candidates or soon-to-be-squatting presidents , Junge ’ s solution to rising healthcare costs and premiums is to get rid of “ undue burdens and regulations ” —you know , like the way it was before .
Before , when skyrocketing healthcare costs and premiums helped lead to President Obama passing the Affordable Care Act because everyone—even the racists that voted for President Obama—understood that bigotry aside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in regulating the insurance industry .
It is here that Rep. Slotkin made sure to circle back to remind the audience what exactly was being asked and highlight the answers being given by both candidates .
This is something that every person running for office must do in the next few weeks every time a conservative obfuscates a direct question about preexisting conditions and health care .
REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN : With all due respect , if you talk about my mother 's case , you should n't talk about it without knowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case was n't she could n't afford insurance because of undue regulation .
It ’ s because she had a preexisting cancer she had 30 years ago , and forever and ever and ever , every insurance company thought they could gouge her , and charge her $ 1,000 a month , and a $ 10,000 deductible .
Please do n't speak about my mother as if you understand what made her health care unaffordable to her .
And I think it ’ s crazy that every time we ask you specific details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that they ’ re going to be protected , their kids are going to be protected , you deflect and start attacking me and raising my mother ?
Come on , Paul , this is about being a big guy and running for Congress .
If you ’ re going to do it , do it right and tell people how you 're going to protect them—not some throwaway talking point , but a real plan .
Paul ’ s response is to say he wasn ’ t talking about her mother—he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t technically responding to the direct question about preexisting conditions that was because Paul wasn ’ t talking about anything at all .
He was just saying words that he hopes will make it sound like he gives a shit about people ’ s health insurance .
Because Republicans like Junge can not offer up anything resembling a solution , they sidestep the question of preexisting conditions every time it comes up .
Donald Trump is such a liar that he is willing to just say “ there will ” be “ something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t care about lying .
His base doesn ’ t seem to recognize that they are continuing to get screwed by his candidacy .
But there are people on the ground that get it , and hopefully come November , we can begin the process of making America a democracy again .

Former external affairs official for ICE and television anchor Paul Junge is running to unseat Michigan’s newest House representative, Democrat Elissa Slotkin. Slotkin was one of the many Democratic and progressive candidates to shake the world during the 2018 blue wave elections. Slotkin won Michigan’s 8th district, one that had gone comfortably to both Mitt Romney and Donald Trump in 2012 and 2016, respectively. On Sunday morning, the two candidates had a debate on local TV station WDIV Channel 4.
One of the biggest issues facing Americans and something that both sides of the aisle’s constituents are worried about is the continued rising cost of health care and, more specifically, health insurance. The exchange that took place just hours ago is one that is taking place nationally in every race as we speak. It will be a focus at some point during whatever it is we end up calling the debates between Joe Biden and Trump. Hopefully Democratic candidates and incumbents will take note of how you deal with the marble-mouthed, content-free lip service that Republicans give to the need to “lower premiums” while offering up absolutely nothing in terms of concrete policy.
Rep. Slotkin has a very personal story about health insurance: Her mother, who had had a bout with cancer decades earlier, continued to get gouged by insurance companies because of her “preexisting condition.” This led to her mother’s premiums becoming unaffordable and her need to lapse in paying them when evaluating what she was actually getting in return. When asked about her campaign to make sure Michigan residents could receive affordable health insurance, Slotkin highlighted the absolute need for a preexisting conditions clause—one that Republicans are hoping will be destroyed by the Supreme Court. Then, the moderator handed the question over to Junge.
Like most Republican candidates or soon-to-be-squatting presidents, Junge’s solution to rising healthcare costs and premiums is to get rid of “undue burdens and regulations”—you know, like the way it was before. Before, when skyrocketing healthcare costs and premiums helped lead to President Obama passing the Affordable Care Act because everyone—even the racists that voted for President Obama—understood that bigotry aside, we need to take steps forward in regulating the insurance industry.
It is here that Rep. Slotkin made sure to circle back to remind the audience what exactly was being asked and highlight the answers being given by both candidates. This is something that every person running for office must do in the next few weeks every time a conservative obfuscates a direct question about preexisting conditions and health care.
REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN: With all due respect, if you talk about my mother's case, you shouldn't talk about it without knowing anything about it. My mother's case wasn't she couldn't afford insurance because of undue regulation. It’s because she had a preexisting cancer she had 30 years ago, and forever and ever and ever, every insurance company thought they could gouge her, and charge her $1,000 a month, and a $10,000 deductible. Please don't speak about my mother as if you understand what made her health care unaffordable to her. And I think it’s crazy that every time we ask you specific details about the thing that really helps people know that they’re going to be protected, their kids are going to be protected, you deflect and start attacking me and raising my mother? Come on, Paul, this is about being a big guy and running for Congress. If you’re going to do it, do it right and tell people how you're going to protect them—not some throwaway talking point, but a real plan.
Paul’s response is to say he wasn’t talking about her mother—he was, and when he wasn’t technically responding to the direct question about preexisting conditions that was because Paul wasn’t talking about anything at all. He was just saying words that he hopes will make it sound like he gives a shit about people’s health insurance.
Because Republicans like Junge cannot offer up anything resembling a solution, they sidestep the question of preexisting conditions every time it comes up. Donald Trump is such a liar that he is willing to just say “there will” be “something” for preexisting conditions, because he doesn’t care about lying. His base doesn’t seem to recognize that they are continuing to get screwed by his candidacy. But there are people on the ground that get it, and hopefully come November, we can begin the process of making America a democracy again.
Posted with permission from Daily Kos.


crooksandliars--2020-09-27--GOP Senator Attacks Dems Over Concern Barrett Will Overturn The ACA: 'Sell Crazy Somewhere Else'

The big wigs over at Fox `` news '' must be at least somewhat concerned about their viewers looking unfavorably on losing their health insurance , or protections for those with preexisting conditions going away , because they 're working the refs awfully hard to convince them that Trump 's choice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court wo n't do what just about everyone else assumes she will do when the case on the Affordable Care Act comes before the court shortly after the presidential election .
An article from Vox this weekend explained why most believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ACA : In 2017 , Barrett wrote a lengthy review of Our Republican Constitution , a deeply radical book by libertarian law professor Randy Barnett , which argues that huge swaths of American law are unconstitutional and should be struck down by judges .
To her credit , Barrett largely rejected Barnett ’ s proposal to turn much of American governance over to heavy-handed judges .
While Barnett “ offers a fulsome explanation of why we should mistrust legislatures , ” the future Supreme Court nominee wrote , “ he spends less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts.
” Toward the end of her review , however , Barrett does single out two cases — NFIB v. Sebelius ( 2012 ) and King v. Burwell ( 2015 ) — and suggests the courts should have taken a more aggressive approach in those decisions .
Both NFIB and King largely rejected partisan attacks on the Affordable Care Act .
In NFIB , Judge Barrett writes , “ Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.
” Likewise , Barrett appears to endorse Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which attacks the majority for its supposed willingness to “ rewrite ” Obamacare in order to save it .
“ For Justice Scalia and those who share his commitment to uphold text , the measure of a court is its fair minded application of the rule of law , which means going where the law leads , ” Barrett writes .
“ By this measure , it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result.
” Many fair-minded lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority in King — would no doubt take issue with Barrett ’ s suggestion that King distorted the text of Obamacare .
But if Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court , it won ’ t really matter what those lawyers think .
If Barrett is a justice , she ’ ll be free to vote against Obamacare even if her reading of the statute is idiosyncratic .
Barrett is unlikely to follow past decisions upholding Obamacare simply out of loyalty to precedent .
In a 2013 article , she suggested that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they strongly disagree with .
“ I tend to agree with those who say that a justice ’ s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it , ” Barrett wrote in that piece .
Thus , if Barrett concludes that a decision like NFIB is “ clearly ” in conflict with the Constitution , she is likely to ignore it .
On this weekend 's Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was working the refs hard during every single interview on the show trying to convince his audience that they have nothing to fear from Barrett , and tried to downplay Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow 's warnings about the threat Barrett represents to the ACA .
Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy made an appearance on the show immediately following Stabenow and was asked by Hume about her remarks .
Kennedy , as we 've come to expect from him , played the game of calling Stabenow a `` friend '' and then immediately lobbing childish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me get your reaction -- we can now see I think pretty clearly the outlines of the case , at least a part of the case that 's going to be made by Democrats against Judge Barrett , which is that she will be an inevitable vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act is that now exists .
What 's your reaction to that ?
KENNEDY : Senator Stabenow is my colleague and I consider Debbie a friend , so I say this gently .
Sell crazy somewhere else .
We 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clairvoyant , I do n't think she knows how the nominee is going to vote or any other member of the United States Supreme Court , but Debbie makes the point , the difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of the role of the Supreme Court , my Democratic friends think the Supreme Court ought to be a mini Congress , they 're politicians without robes .
They do n't even need to hear cases .
They already know how they 're going to vote .
And that 's part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I view the appropriate role of the Supreme Court , and I do n't think that is how it operates .
You 're going to see a lot of evidence-free accusations .
There are a whole lot of `` evidence-free accusations being lobbed by members of Congress , but they 're coming from the likes of Kennedy and his fellow Republicans .
There 's plenty of evidence -- as the Vox article and others have laid out -- for everyone who would like to see the ACA remain intact to have concerns about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrapped things up by twisting himself in knots trying to defend their blatant hypocrisy with moving forward with this nomination in the first place given the lies they told justifying holding up Obama 's nominee for ten months and using the upcoming election as an excuse back in 2016 .
HUME : Let me just ask you this about the very process and the fact of the nomination .
You of course were around when the nomination was made of Merrick Garland and the Senate simply refused to take it up in any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Mitch McConnell , the Senate Majority leader that the American people in an election year , which that was , back when President Obama nominated Judge Garland , should have a say in the Supreme Court nomination made that close to an election .
Now it seems that the roles are reversed .
The president has made a nomination .
It is an election year , indeed it is very close to the election and the view and the other Republicans are prepared to move forward with this , which is distinct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years or so ago .
You 're being accused of hypocrisy and double standards .
How do you answer ?
KENNEDY : Well , let me finish my last first , to Debbie and my colleagues in the Senate .
I hope they let us have a respectful process .
We do n't need another freak show .
I hope they wo n't get into the foothills of kinky and bring back Michael Avenatti all about other stuff .
Let us focus on the nominee .
Now to answer your question , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I have read it .
Its provisions about filling a supreme court vacancy are unaffected by the electoral calendar .
I realize that on both sides , Brit , there 's been a lot of circumlocution and attempted Churchillian rhetoric about the precedent to be followed during an election year to fill a vacancy .
Here 's as best as I can tell , here 's the rule .
When the Democrats are in charge of the process , they do what they think is right , consistent with the Constitution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process , they do what they think is right .
And I think that 's what our founders intended .
I think our founders intended elections to have consequences and when they send people to Washington of a particular party , they expect them to represent their voters .
And I think that 's been the tradition and the precedent .
I wonder what Senator John Kennedy is going to tell his Louisiana constituents after Barrett does actually vote to take health care away from millions of Americans in the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I await the revisionist history that 's sure to come .

The big wigs over at Fox "news" must be at least somewhat concerned about their viewers looking unfavorably on losing their health insurance, or protections for those with preexisting conditions going away, because they're working the refs awfully hard to convince them that Trump's choice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court won't do what just about everyone else assumes she will do when the case on the Affordable Care Act comes before the court shortly after the presidential election.
An article from Vox this weekend explained why most believe Amy Coney Barrett is likely to undercut the ACA:
In 2017, Barrett wrote a lengthy review of Our Republican Constitution, a deeply radical book by libertarian law professor Randy Barnett, which argues that huge swaths of American law are unconstitutional and should be struck down by judges. To her credit, Barrett largely rejected Barnett’s proposal to turn much of American governance over to heavy-handed judges. While Barnett “offers a fulsome explanation of why we should mistrust legislatures,” the future Supreme Court nominee wrote, “he spends less time defending the institutional capacity of the courts.” Toward the end of her review, however, Barrett does single out two cases — NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) and King v. Burwell (2015) — and suggests the courts should have taken a more aggressive approach in those decisions. Both NFIB and King largely rejected partisan attacks on the Affordable Care Act. In NFIB, Judge Barrett writes, “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.” Likewise, Barrett appears to endorse Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in King, which attacks the majority for its supposed willingness to “rewrite” Obamacare in order to save it. “For Justice Scalia and those who share his commitment to uphold text, the measure of a court is its fair minded application of the rule of law, which means going where the law leads,” Barrett writes. “By this measure, it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result.” Many fair-minded lawyers — including the six justices who joined the majority in King — would no doubt take issue with Barrett’s suggestion that King distorted the text of Obamacare. But if Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, it won’t really matter what those lawyers think. If Barrett is a justice, she’ll be free to vote against Obamacare even if her reading of the statute is idiosyncratic. Barrett is unlikely to follow past decisions upholding Obamacare simply out of loyalty to precedent. In a 2013 article, she suggested that justices should not feel bound by precedents that they strongly disagree with. “I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it,” Barrett wrote in that piece. Thus, if Barrett concludes that a decision like NFIB is “clearly” in conflict with the Constitution, she is likely to ignore it.
On this weekend's Fox News Sunday, guest host Brit Hume was working the refs hard during every single interview on the show trying to convince his audience that they have nothing to fear from Barrett, and tried to downplay Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow's warnings about the threat Barrett represents to the ACA.
Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy made an appearance on the show immediately following Stabenow and was asked by Hume about her remarks. Kennedy, as we've come to expect from him, played the game of calling Stabenow a "friend" and then immediately lobbing childish insults at her.
HUME: Let me get your reaction -- we can now see I think pretty clearly the outlines of the case, at least a part of the case that's going to be made by Democrats against Judge Barrett, which is that she will be an inevitable vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act is that now exists. What's your reaction to that? KENNEDY: Senator Stabenow is my colleague and I consider Debbie a friend, so I say this gently. Sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here. Unless Debbie is clairvoyant, I don't think she knows how the nominee is going to vote or any other member of the United States Supreme Court, but Debbie makes the point, the difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of the role of the Supreme Court, my Democratic friends think the Supreme Court ought to be a mini Congress, they're politicians without robes. They don't even need to hear cases. They already know how they're going to vote. And that's part of the problem. That's not how I view the appropriate role of the Supreme Court, and I don't think that is how it operates. You're going to see a lot of evidence-free accusations.
There are a whole lot of "evidence-free accusations being lobbed by members of Congress, but they're coming from the likes of Kennedy and his fellow Republicans. There's plenty of evidence -- as the Vox article and others have laid out -- for everyone who would like to see the ACA remain intact to have concerns about her appointment to the court.
Kennedy wrapped things up by twisting himself in knots trying to defend their blatant hypocrisy with moving forward with this nomination in the first place given the lies they told justifying holding up Obama's nominee for ten months and using the upcoming election as an excuse back in 2016.
HUME: Let me just ask you this about the very process and the fact of the nomination. You of course were around when the nomination was made of Merrick Garland and the Senate simply refused to take it up in any way, and the case was made by Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority leader that the American people in an election year, which that was, back when President Obama nominated Judge Garland, should have a say in the Supreme Court nomination made that close to an election. Now it seems that the roles are reversed. The president has made a nomination. It is an election year, indeed it is very close to the election and the view and the other Republicans are prepared to move forward with this, which is distinct obviously from the course you took just four years or so ago. You're being accused of hypocrisy and double standards. How do you answer? KENNEDY: Well, let me finish my last first, to Debbie and my colleagues in the Senate. I hope they let us have a respectful process. We don't need another freak show. I hope they won't get into the foothills of kinky and bring back Michael Avenatti all about other stuff. Let us focus on the nominee. Now to answer your question, I'm rather fond of the Constitution. I have read it. Its provisions about filling a supreme court vacancy are unaffected by the electoral calendar. I realize that on both sides, Brit, there's been a lot of circumlocution and attempted Churchillian rhetoric about the precedent to be followed during an election year to fill a vacancy. Here's as best as I can tell, here's the rule. When the Democrats are in charge of the process, they do what they think is right, consistent with the Constitution. When the Republicans are in charge of the process, they do what they think is right. And I think that's what our founders intended. I think our founders intended elections to have consequences and when they send people to Washington of a particular party, they expect them to represent their voters. And I think that's been the tradition and the precedent.
I wonder what Senator John Kennedy is going to tell his Louisiana constituents after Barrett does actually vote to take health care away from millions of Americans in the middle of a pandemic shortly after the presidential election. I await the revisionist history that's sure to come.


crooksandliars--2020-09-27--CBS Host Smacks Down Mark Meadows For Vaccine 'Interference': 'You're Not A Doctor'

Trump administration Chief of Staff Mark Meadows insisted on Sunday that there is no reason for the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) to adopt additional rigorous testing guidelines for the COVID-19 vaccine candidates being quickly developed .
`` The FDA is supposed to be issuing these stricter guidelines , '' CBS host Margaret Brennan explained to Meadows on Sunday .
`` But then you reportedly called the FDA commissioner and really challenged him on trying to justify doing that . ''
`` You 're not a doctor , '' the CBS host continued .
`` Why insert yourself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns about interference ? ''
`` So , Margaret , your producer obviously did n't do a good job of informing you , '' Meadows shot back .
`` What we actually have is new guidance that 's coming out .
My question is , why would that new guidance come out after we 've already spent $ 30 billion in doing that . ''
`` And my challenge to the FDA is just make sure it 's based on science and real numbers , '' he said .
`` Why would the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? ''
Brennan wondered .
`` Well , why would you think that we would need new guidance after we 've developed vaccines and drugs for decades ? ''
Meadows replied .
`` And then all of the sudden we 're going to change something in the last two weeks .
The question is why , Margaret ?
I mean , why would we do that ? ''
`` I 'm optimistic that guidance will come out based on good science and ultimately our FDA guidelines will make sure all people who take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of assurance that the process is meted out properly , '' he added .

Trump administration Chief of Staff Mark Meadows insisted on Sunday that there is no reason for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to adopt additional rigorous testing guidelines for the COVID-19 vaccine candidates being quickly developed.
"The FDA is supposed to be issuing these stricter guidelines," CBS host Margaret Brennan explained to Meadows on Sunday. "But then you reportedly called the FDA commissioner and really challenged him on trying to justify doing that."
"You're not a doctor," the CBS host continued. "Why insert yourself politically into this, which feeds these concerns about interference?"
"So, Margaret, your producer obviously didn't do a good job of informing you," Meadows shot back. "What we actually have is new guidance that's coming out. My question is, why would that new guidance come out after we've already spent $30 billion in doing that."
"And my challenge to the FDA is just make sure it's based on science and real numbers," he said.
"Why would the FDA not be basing it on science?" Brennan wondered.
"Well, why would you think that we would need new guidance after we've developed vaccines and drugs for decades?" Meadows replied. "And then all of the sudden we're going to change something in the last two weeks. The question is why, Margaret? I mean, why would we do that?"
"I'm optimistic that guidance will come out based on good science and ultimately our FDA guidelines will make sure all people who take a vaccine can do that with some kind of assurance that the process is meted out properly," he added.


crooksandliars--2020-09-27--CNN's Tapper Tells Sen. Tom Cotton He Told A Pack Of Lies, But Only Fact-Checks One Of Them

I do n't know what it 's going to take to get our corporate media to either quit putting known liars like Sen. Tom Cotton on the air in the first place , or to fact check every single lie they tell in real time , but it does n't appear that day is coming anytime soon after watching Jake Tapper in action during an interview with the Arkansas senator this Sunday .
While pressing Cotton on Trump 's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power , Cotton just flat out lied about what Trump has said about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wo n't concede ahead of time .
He doubled down on his lies about mail-in voting and once again accused the Democrats of trying to steal the election .
Cotton also repeated the lie that Hillary Clinton told Biden not to concede under any circumstances .
She did n't .
Cotton also served up a big heaping helping of pure projection , accusing Democrats of being the ones who will refuse to accept the results of the election , when Trump is the one out there suing everyone and their grandmother in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term .
Tapper did at least fact-check Cotton on the lie that the Obama administration `` sicced the FBI '' on Trump , but it 's just unacceptable to let this much go and end the interview with all these lies just hanging out there .
TAPPER : You are not at all disturbed by what he 's saying if the ballots are n't counted -- it 's really quite alarming to a lot of Republicans , his refusal to say , of course , if I lose , I will abide by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Well , Jake , what the president was saying is that he is not going to concede in advance , especially when you have so many states changing the rules at the very last minute for mail-in balloting .
He has since said that if there is a clear winner , if the court settles the contested election , then of course he will , but the premise of the question you just played me Jake is the president 's going to lose .
I do n't think the president is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win .
This is just another case where the Democrats are projecting some of their own intentions onto Donald Trump .
It was n't Donald Trump who sicked the FBI on his opponent .
That was Barack Obama and Joe Biden in 2016 .
Hillary Clinton is the one that said Joe Biden should concede under no conditions , and it was Hillary Clinton 's former campaign chairman who projected that if Joe Biden loses , he would recommend that California and Oregon and Washington threaten to secede from the union to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ones who should be pressed on whether or not they will accept a loss in November , because it does n't sound to me like they will .
TAPPER : There 's a lot to fact-check in what you just said .
I will just say on the first item that the FBI investigation began because of George Papadopoulos talking to an Australian diplomat .
It had nothing to do with Biden or Obama , but Senator Tom Cotton from the great state of Arkansas , we thank you for joining us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on and gaslighting our audience for the entire interview .
Too bad we ran out of time before we had time to explain to them what all the lies are that you just told .
Pathetic .

I don't know what it's going to take to get our corporate media to either quit putting known liars like Sen. Tom Cotton on the air in the first place, or to fact check every single lie they tell in real time, but it doesn't appear that day is coming anytime soon after watching Jake Tapper in action during an interview with the Arkansas senator this Sunday.
While pressing Cotton on Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, Cotton just flat out lied about what Trump has said about conceding. He didn't say he won't concede ahead of time. He doubled down on his lies about mail-in voting and once again accused the Democrats of trying to steal the election.
Cotton also repeated the lie that Hillary Clinton told Biden not to concede under any circumstances. She didn't. Cotton also served up a big heaping helping of pure projection, accusing Democrats of being the ones who will refuse to accept the results of the election, when Trump is the one out there suing everyone and their grandmother in an effort to cheat his way into another term.
Tapper did at least fact-check Cotton on the lie that the Obama administration "sicced the FBI" on Trump, but it's just unacceptable to let this much go and end the interview with all these lies just hanging out there.
TAPPER: You are not at all disturbed by what he's saying if the ballots aren't counted -- it's really quite alarming to a lot of Republicans, his refusal to say, of course, if I lose, I will abide by a peaceful transfer of power. COTTON: Well, Jake, what the president was saying is that he is not going to concede in advance, especially when you have so many states changing the rules at the very last minute for mail-in balloting. He has since said that if there is a clear winner, if the court settles the contested election, then of course he will, but the premise of the question you just played me Jake is the president's going to lose. I don't think the president is going to lose. The president is going to win. This is just another case where the Democrats are projecting some of their own intentions onto Donald Trump. It wasn't Donald Trump who sicked the FBI on his opponent. That was Barack Obama and Joe Biden in 2016. Hillary Clinton is the one that said Joe Biden should concede under no conditions, and it was Hillary Clinton's former campaign chairman who projected that if Joe Biden loses, he would recommend that California and Oregon and Washington threaten to secede from the union to change the results. The Democrats are the ones who should be pressed on whether or not they will accept a loss in November, because it doesn't sound to me like they will. TAPPER: There's a lot to fact-check in what you just said. I will just say on the first item that the FBI investigation began because of George Papadopoulos talking to an Australian diplomat. It had nothing to do with Biden or Obama, but Senator Tom Cotton from the great state of Arkansas, we thank you for joining us today.
Yeah, thanks for coming on and gaslighting our audience for the entire interview. Too bad we ran out of time before we had time to explain to them what all the lies are that you just told. Pathetic.


crooksandliars--2020-09-27--Jill Biden Derails Jake Tapper's 'Gaffe Question: 'You Can’t Even Go There After Donald Trump'

Dr. Jill Biden told CNN host Jake Tapper that it is unfair to criticize her husband 's so-called `` gaffes @ @ @ @ @ lies so often .
During an interview that aired on Sunday 's State of the @ @ @ @ @ Tapper immediately when he brought up the word `` gaffe . ''
`` Your husband @ @ @ @ @ the occasional gaffe , '' Tapper said .
Biden interrupted : `` You ca n't @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump , you can not even say the word gaffe . ''
`` I @ @ @ @ @ word gaffe , '' Tapper smiled .
`` But ... '' '' Nope , '' @ @ @ @ @ host down .
`` Done .
It 's gone . ''
`` The gaffe issue @ @ @ @ @ asked .
`` Over , so over , '' Biden replied .

Dr. Jill Biden told CNN host Jake Tapper that it is unfair to criticize her husband's so-called "gaffes" when President Donald Trump lies so often.
During an interview that aired on Sunday's State of the Union program, Biden stopped Tapper immediately when he brought up the word "gaffe."
"Your husband has been known to make the occasional gaffe," Tapper said.
Biden interrupted: "You can't even go there! After Donald Trump, you cannot even say the word gaffe."
"I can't even say the word gaffe," Tapper smiled. "But..."
"Nope," Biden said, shutting the host down. "Done. It's gone."
"The gaffe issue is over?" Tapper asked.
"Over, so over," Biden replied.


crooksandliars--2020-09-27--'Help Me': Lindsey Graham Again Begs For Money On Fox News After Poll Shows Him Losing To Dem

Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) on Sunday again appeared on Fox News to ask for money to fund his struggling campaign .
During an interview on the Sunday Morning Futures program , Graham blamed his financial woes on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
`` Democrats try to destroy Judge Barrett at their own peril , '' Graham said .
`` Their base is going nuts .
They 've raised $ 300 million , ActBlue has , since the passing of Justice Ginsburg . ''
`` I 'm being out-raised 2-to-1 , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate is being hit hard with all this money coming in from ActBlue .
So if you want to help me , LindseyGraham.com .
Five or ten bucks goes a long way . ''
Graham returned to the subject several moments later .
`` I know the amount of money coming in since the death of Justice Ginsburg tells me there 's a lot of energy out there to take out Judge Barrett , '' he said .
`` Help me and others -- LindseyGraham.com -- I hate to keep saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
The plea for donations comes after Graham made a similar appeal on Fox News last week .
`` I am being killed financially , ” he said at the time .
“ This money is because they hate my guts.
” A poll commissioned by Democrats showed over the weekend that Graham is trailing challenger Jaime Harrison by two points , which is within the margin of error .

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Sunday again appeared on Fox News to ask for money to fund his struggling campaign.
During an interview on the Sunday Morning Futures program, Graham blamed his financial woes on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
"Democrats try to destroy Judge Barrett at their own peril," Graham said. "Their base is going nuts. They've raised $300 million, ActBlue has, since the passing of Justice Ginsburg."
"I'm being out-raised 2-to-1," he continued. "Every Republican running in the Senate is being hit hard with all this money coming in from ActBlue. So if you want to help me, LindseyGraham.com. Five or ten bucks goes a long way."
Graham returned to the subject several moments later.
"I know the amount of money coming in since the death of Justice Ginsburg tells me there's a lot of energy out there to take out Judge Barrett," he said. "Help me and others -- LindseyGraham.com -- I hate to keep saying that but just the money is overwhelming."
The plea for donations comes after Graham made a similar appeal on Fox News last week.
"I am being killed financially,” he said at the time. “This money is because they hate my guts.”
A poll commissioned by Democrats showed over the weekend that Graham is trailing challenger Jaime Harrison by two points, which is within the margin of error.


crooksandliars--2020-09-27--CNN Host Hits Trump For 'Trying To Have It Both Ways' On Masks At MAGA Rallies

While Fox chose to highlight Trump mocking Biden for social distancing at his events during yet another one of these super-spreader rallies in Middletown , Pennsylvania this Saturday -- as though his behavior is somehow humorous or something to be proud of -- the reporters over at CNN were appropriately appalled by the behavior .
While reporting on the rally , anchor Ana Cabrera and field reporter Ryan Nobles hit Trump for the fact that the only people wearing masks at the event were the people on camera standing directly behind him .
Cabrera also hit Trump for the lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rose Garden event earlier that same day , where he announced his pick of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court : CABRERA : A crowd in Middletown , Pennsylvania , watching on a big screen as they awaited the president 's trip there .
He was making his way from Washington for tonight 's rally .
Now , any Supreme Court nomination is historic but few are as immediately consequential as this one .
President Trump wants Judge Barrett to get confirmed quickly , as in before Election Day , for one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the right would settle any election disputes .
As if a contentious election were n't enough , there 's the pandemic .
But you would n't know it from today 's historic Rose Garden event , few masks , no social distancing , even Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar not practicing what he 's been preaching about taking coronavirus precautions .
After Nobles discussed Trump touting his SCOTUS pick at the rally , Cabrera asked him to weigh in on the fact that they did see people wearing masks standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crowds .
We saw very few masks at the Rose Garden ceremony earlier .
We see a few masks behind the president .
But what are you seeing out there in the crowd , because , clearly , there is n't any social distancing ?
CABRERA : As you wear your mask reminding us all about the pandemic that 's still going on .
NOBLES : You know , Ana , this is like every single one of these campaign events for President Trump , there is little to almost no regard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are thousands and thousands of people out here .
They are packed in shoulder to shoulder .
There are hardly any masks being worn .
And I should point out , Ana , you 're right to make note of the fact that all of the people sitting behind President Trump are wearing masks .
They 're basically the only ones at this rally aside from those of us on the press riser that are wearing masks .
And that is a strategic ploy for the most part that 's put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand out those masks , they ask the people sitting behind the president to wear them .
It does not reflect the rest of the crowd .
So you can -- it shows that the campaign realizes that there 's a problem in terms of the optics of these crowds taking place .
But yet they still attempt to at least show some sort of symbol of it happening , even though in reality that 's not what 's happening at all .
CABRERA : It 's like they 're trying to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thank you for your reporting .
I 'm not sure why they 're even bothering , because they 're not fooling anyone who is n't already planning on voting for Trump and the death cult just does n't care .

While Fox chose to highlight Trump mocking Biden for social distancing at his events during yet another one of these super-spreader rallies in Middletown, Pennsylvania this Saturday -- as though his behavior is somehow humorous or something to be proud of -- the reporters over at CNN were appropriately appalled by the behavior.
While reporting on the rally, anchor Ana Cabrera and field reporter Ryan Nobles hit Trump for the fact that the only people wearing masks at the event were the people on camera standing directly behind him.
Cabrera also hit Trump for the lack of social distancing and masks at the Rose Garden event earlier that same day, where he announced his pick of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court:
CABRERA: A crowd in Middletown, Pennsylvania, watching on a big screen as they awaited the president's trip there. He was making his way from Washington for tonight's rally. Now, any Supreme Court nomination is historic but few are as immediately consequential as this one. President Trump wants Judge Barrett to get confirmed quickly, as in before Election Day, for one reason, his helping a court skewed to the right would settle any election disputes. As if a contentious election weren't enough, there's the pandemic. But you wouldn't know it from today's historic Rose Garden event, few masks, no social distancing, even Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar not practicing what he's been preaching about taking coronavirus precautions.
After Nobles discussed Trump touting his SCOTUS pick at the rally, Cabrera asked him to weigh in on the fact that they did see people wearing masks standing directly behind Trump, but not in the crowds.
We saw very few masks at the Rose Garden ceremony earlier. We see a few masks behind the president. But what are you seeing out there in the crowd, because, clearly, there isn't any social distancing? CABRERA: As you wear your mask reminding us all about the pandemic that's still going on. NOBLES: You know, Ana, this is like every single one of these campaign events for President Trump, there is little to almost no regard for the spread of the coronavirus pandemic. There are thousands and thousands of people out here. They are packed in shoulder to shoulder. There are hardly any masks being worn. And I should point out, Ana, you're right to make note of the fact that all of the people sitting behind President Trump are wearing masks. They're basically the only ones at this rally aside from those of us on the press riser that are wearing masks. And that is a strategic ploy for the most part that's put out by the Trump campaign. They hand out those masks, they ask the people sitting behind the president to wear them. It does not reflect the rest of the crowd. So you can -- it shows that the campaign realizes that there's a problem in terms of the optics of these crowds taking place. But yet they still attempt to at least show some sort of symbol of it happening, even though in reality that's not what's happening at all. CABRERA: It's like they're trying to have it both ways. Ryan Nobles, thank you for your reporting.
I'm not sure why they're even bothering, because they're not fooling anyone who isn't already planning on voting for Trump and the death cult just doesn't care.


crooksandliars--2020-09-27--REPORT: No Durham Report Or Indictments Prior To Presidential Election

Just two weeks ago there was flurry of reports predicting that John Durham would would drop a report regarding his Russia investigation before the election - an October surprise .
People assumed this would lead to indictments and arrests of everyone and anyone , from Obama to Hillary to Comey .
FOX Business is now reporting that that may not happen .
Host Maria Bartiromo stated on Sunday that her sources are telling her that there will be no report prior to the election .
`` It is unlikely that we will get a John Durham interim report or any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just 37 days away , a debate has begun within the Department of Justice , as the timing of John Durham 's criminal investigation conclusions .
I 'm being told by sources it is now too close to the election and could be seen as politically motivated . ''
But , she continued to beat the drum on Trump 's behalf , kissing the ring and singing her praises .
Oh , and she threw in a mention of Hillary , saying that the Clinton Foundation is `` under investigation . ''
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tweet , calling him disgraceful , weak and not smart ?
Karoli adds : With the unexpected opportunity for an illegitimate Supreme Court pick , it 's more likely they 'd like to keep everyone focused on that , rather than their pack of lies about Biden .

Just two weeks ago there was flurry of reports predicting that John Durham would would drop a report regarding his Russia investigation before the election - an October surprise. People assumed this would lead to indictments and arrests of everyone and anyone, from Obama to Hillary to Comey.
FOX Business is now reporting that that may not happen. Host Maria Bartiromo stated on Sunday that her sources are telling her that there will be no report prior to the election.
She said:
"It is unlikely that we will get a John Durham interim report or any indictments before the election. Now, just 37 days away, a debate has begun within the Department of Justice, as the timing of John Durham's criminal investigation conclusions. I'm being told by sources it is now too close to the election and could be seen as politically motivated."
But, she continued to beat the drum on Trump's behalf, kissing the ring and singing her praises. Oh, and she threw in a mention of Hillary, saying that the Clinton Foundation is "under investigation."
How long until Donald Trump attacks Durham in a tweet, calling him disgraceful, weak and not smart?
Karoli adds: With the unexpected opportunity for an illegitimate Supreme Court pick, it's more likely they'd like to keep everyone focused on that, rather than their pack of lies about Biden.


crooksandliars--2020-09-27--Civil Rights Attorney Reveals 'Amy Coney Barrett Is Sitting In A Stolen Judicial Seat Right Now'

Civil rights attorney Leslie Proll -- an adviser to the NAACP -- revealed over the weekend that President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ , Amy Coney Barrett , is current occupying a `` stolen '' seat on the @ @ @ @ @ know Amy Coney Barrett is sitting in a stolen judicial seat right now ? ''
@ @ @ @ @ on Saturday .
`` In May 2017 , Trump nominated Barrett to IN seat on @ @ @ @ @ Indiana , Illinois & Wisconsin .
This is same seat to which President Obama nominated @ @ @ @ @ woman , in 2016 . ''
`` But Republican Senators blocked Selby ’ s confirmation @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump , '' she continued .
`` After Trump was elected Seventh Circuit lost @ @ @ @ @ retirement .
The Shelby appointment would have retained diversity on this court .
Proll added @ @ @ @ @ appointed four white individuals to Seventh Circuit , including Amy Barrett .
The Seventh Circuit @ @ @ @ @ federal appellate court in the country . ''

Civil rights attorney Leslie Proll -- an adviser to the NAACP -- revealed over the weekend that President Donald Trump's latest Supreme Court pick, Amy Coney Barrett, is current occupying a "stolen" seat on the bench.
"Did you know Amy Coney Barrett is sitting in a stolen judicial seat right now?" Proll asked in a tweet on Saturday. "In May 2017, Trump nominated Barrett to IN seat on Seventh Circuit, which covers Indiana, Illinois & Wisconsin. This is same seat to which President Obama nominated Myra Selby, a Black woman, in 2016."
"But Republican Senators blocked Selby’s confirmation and saved the seat for Donald Trump," she continued. "After Trump was elected Seventh Circuit lost its only Black judge to retirement. The Shelby appointment would have retained diversity on this court.
Proll added: "Instead, Trump appointed four white individuals to Seventh Circuit, including Amy Barrett. The Seventh Circuit is now the only all-white federal appellate court in the country."
Read the tweets below.
Did you know Amy Coney Barrett is sitting in a stolen judicial seat right now? In May 2017, Trump nominated Barrett to IN seat on Seventh Circuit, which covers Indiana, Illinois & Wisconsin. This is same seat to which President Obama nominated Myra Selby, a Black woman, in 2016. — Leslie Proll (@LeslieProll) September 26, 2020
But Republican Senators blocked Selby’s confirmation and saved the seat for Donald Trump. After Trump was elected Seventh Circuit lost its only Black judge to retirement. The Shelby appointment would have retained diversity on this court. 2/ — Leslie Proll (@LeslieProll) September 26, 2020


crooksandliars--2020-09-28--Sen. Roy Blunt: ACA Repeal No Big Deal, And By The Way, No Virus Relief Anytime Soon

On Press The Meat yesterday , Chuck Todd asked Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt what Republicans would do if the Affordable Care Act is overturned .
`` Is it your hope that if Justice Barrett -- if Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett -- that it leads to the overturn , the ruling of the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional ? ''
he said .
`` No , that 's not my hope .
My hope is that on any case she deals with , she looks at the facts of the case , applies it to the Constitution and the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And I do n't know how you can predict any of that in advance , '' he said .
( Even though she was vetted for exactly that , but okay . )
Todd asked if Blunt wants to see the ACA ruled unconstitutional and totally thrown out No big deal , it wo n't happen for months !
Plenty of time for a brain trust like the Republican caucus figure out what to do , he says .
( Although odds are slim they will do anything at all , since as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know how to do is cut taxes . )
`` I think a lot of the Affordable Care Act is now baked into the system .
The one provision in the Affordable Care Act that I authored , so we filed about nine or ten bills , was keeping people on insurance , their parents ' insurance until they 're 26 -- sure do n't see that being reversed .
I do n't see preexisting conditions being protected being reversed , '' he said .
( Even though the real issue , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preexisting conditions to the average consumer . )
`` No matter what the court decides , a lot of that discussion has already been had .
The American people have accepted that as a basic part of the ongoing system .
And we 'll have that happen . ''
`` But if they throw out the law , it does n't , it doesn ’ t matter , you guys have to pass a new one .
Very quickly , you guys are rushing to confirm a Supreme Court justice .
Where 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` If they throw out the law -- a November hearing does n't throw out the law .
They wo n't do that until sometime in the late , late spring or early summer before you even know what their ruling is .
And we 'll have time to deal with this , '' he said .
`` On virus relief , I think we 're doing some really innovative things .
There are going to be as many tests produced in October as people have taken up until now -- about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests produced in October , more testing , vaccines that work .
We 're -- '' '' But no virus relief from Congress , '' Todd said .
`` Oh , on COVID , I think , I think that is a huge mistake , Chuck .
I think to get back to school , to get back to work , to get back to better health , we need a bill .
We 're in very near agreement on all the COVID things that matter .
What we 're not in agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other things , '' Blunt said .
In other words , we 're not doing anything for suffering people anytime soon .
Remember that as you fill out your ballots !

On Press The Meat yesterday, Chuck Todd asked Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt what Republicans would do if the Affordable Care Act is overturned.
"Is it your hope that if Justice Barrett -- if Judge Barrett becomes Justice Barrett -- that it leads to the overturn, the ruling of the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional?" he said.
"No, that's not my hope. My hope is that on any case she deals with, she looks at the facts of the case, applies it to the Constitution and the law, and then makes a decision. And I don't know how you can predict any of that in advance," he said. (Even though she was vetted for exactly that, but okay.)
Todd asked if Blunt wants to see the ACA ruled unconstitutional and totally thrown out
No big deal, it won't happen for months! Plenty of time for a brain trust like the Republican caucus figure out what to do, he says. (Although odds are slim they will do anything at all, since as we know, the only thing they know how to do is cut taxes.)
"I think a lot of the Affordable Care Act is now baked into the system. The one provision in the Affordable Care Act that I authored, so we filed about nine or ten bills, was keeping people on insurance, their parents' insurance until they're 26 -- sure don't see that being reversed. I don't see preexisting conditions being protected being reversed," he said. (Even though the real issue, of course, is the cost of covering preexisting conditions to the average consumer.)
"No matter what the court decides, a lot of that discussion has already been had. The American people have accepted that as a basic part of the ongoing system. And we'll have that happen."
"But if they throw out the law, it doesn't, it doesn’t matter, you guys have to pass a new one. Very quickly, you guys are rushing to confirm a Supreme Court justice. Where's the urgency on virus relief?"
"If they throw out the law -- a November hearing doesn't throw out the law. They won't do that until sometime in the late, late spring or early summer before you even know what their ruling is. And we'll have time to deal with this," he said.
"On virus relief, I think we're doing some really innovative things. There are going to be as many tests produced in October as people have taken up until now -- about a million and a half -- 150 million tests produced in October, more testing, vaccines that work. We're --"
"But no virus relief from Congress," Todd said.
"Oh, on COVID, I think, I think that is a huge mistake, Chuck. I think to get back to school, to get back to work, to get back to better health, we need a bill. We're in very near agreement on all the COVID things that matter. What we're not in agreement on is about $1 trillion worth of other things," Blunt said.
In other words, we're not doing anything for suffering people anytime soon. Remember that as you fill out your ballots!


crooksandliars--2020-09-28--Senator Amy Klobuchar Tears Lyin' Ted Cruz To Shreds

During a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Thursday , Senator Amy Klobuchar ripped into Texas Senator Ted Cruz for his usual @ @ @ @ @ topic o'the day , which was the pending attempt to ram through a right-wing extremist @ @ @ @ @ , great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Demonstrating her formidable rhetorical skills and her willingness @ @ @ @ @ Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) lit into Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Tex . )
this @ @ @ @ @ mocking Democrats ’ concern about the Supreme Court and attempting to disentangle the Republicans ’ @ @ @ @ @ .
Klobuchar would have none of it .
“ No , Senator Cruz , this @ @ @ @ @ , ’ ” she said in response to his accusation that Democrats were playing politics @ @ @ @ @ This is about people ’ s lives — their health care , their rights , @ @ @ @ @ she said indignantly .
She was just getting warmed up :

During a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Thursday, Senator Amy Klobuchar ripped into Texas Senator Ted Cruz for his usual pack of lies about the topic o'the day, which was the pending attempt to ram through a right-wing extremist justice to replace the late, great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post writes:
Demonstrating her formidable rhetorical skills and her willingness to suffer fools, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) lit into Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) this week, lambasting him for mocking Democrats’ concern about the Supreme Court and attempting to disentangle the Republicans’ power grab from the election. Klobuchar would have none of it. “No, Senator Cruz, this isn’t ‘theater,’” she said in response to his accusation that Democrats were playing politics with a nominee. “This is about people’s lives — their health care, their rights, and their future,” she said indignantly. She was just getting warmed up:


crooksandliars--2020-09-28--Sen. Mike Lee Really Doesn't Want To Talk About The Impact Of Ripping Healthcare Away From Millions

Utah Sen. Mike Lee was more than happy to weigh in on his opinion of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett , but really did n't want to say anything about what it would mean for the lives of millions of Americans if the law is repealed .
During an interview this Sunday on ABC 's This Week , Lee was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about a backlash over their push to push the nomination through prior to the election .
Lee responded that `` Trump campaigned in 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , promising to appoint judges to federal courts and justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who are textualists and who are originalists '' and that he was simply `` fulfilling that promise '' with the nomination of Barrett .
Never mind that Trump has also been promising since he first started campaigning for president that he was going to give the American people a “ terrific , ” “ phenomenal ” and “ fantastic ” new health care plan to replace the ACA , and that he and his party have delivered on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law they 've been attempting to repeal for years on end .
After Stephanopoulos asked Lee on what her nomination would mean for the future of Roe vs Wade , Lee dismissed those concerns as well , saying you ca n't look at the confirmation of a justice and `` boil down that jurist 's contribution to the law , past and future , to what they might do with a single case , '' which no one is trying to do .
People who have concerns about Barrett are worried on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host off issues from abortion , to LBGTQ rights , to worker 's rights , to environmental issues , to the Affordable Care Act .
When Lee was asked if he was concerned , as Sen. Dick Durbin had just discussed in an earlier interview , that `` if Judge Barrett is confirmed , the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions will go down as well . ''
Lee was ready to discuss anything other than the fact that the repeal of the ACA could potentially strip coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact that decision would have on his constituents that he 's supposed to be representing 's lives .
And so the fact that Congress chose to enact an unconstitutional law should n't tarnish Judge Barrett in this .
Her job is to figure out whether it 's unconstitutional or not .
I do n't believe it is .
John Roberts ' re-wrote it twice in order to make it appear constitutional , which it is not .
LEE : Look , the patient protection and Affordable Care Act was , I believe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was unconstitutional when it was litigated in 2012 .
It was unconstitutional when Chief Justice Roberts , writing for a narrow five member majority , re-wrote the Affordable Care Act in two critical ways in order to render an otherwise inevitably unconstitutional law constitutional .
STEPHANOPOULOS : You 've got a very forthright opinion there on the Affordable Care Act .
A lot of your colleagues are concerned that that forthright opinion is going to cost you on November 3rd ?
LEE : OK , well , look , Judge Barrett , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we 're talking about constitutionality .
Judge Barrett would look at this , not on the basis of what 's politically expedient .
She 'd look at it on the basis of constitutionality .
Now , I do n't purport to speak for what Judge Barrett might say or might think .
You asked me for my opinion on the constitutionality on the Affordable Care Act .
I do n't believe it is .
I have no idea how she would rule on this particular case .
They know exactly how she 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's one of the reasons she was selected and why dark money groups like the Judicial Crisis Network have been pushing so hard to get her on the court .

Utah Sen. Mike Lee was more than happy to weigh in on his opinion of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, but really didn't want to say anything about what it would mean for the lives of millions of Americans if the law is repealed.
During an interview this Sunday on ABC's This Week, Lee was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about a backlash over their push to push the nomination through prior to the election. Lee responded that "Trump campaigned in 2016, and he's campaigning again this time, promising to appoint judges to federal courts and justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who are textualists and who are originalists" and that he was simply "fulfilling that promise" with the nomination of Barrett.
Never mind that Trump has also been promising since he first started campaigning for president that he was going to give the American people a “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “fantastic” new health care plan to replace the ACA, and that he and his party have delivered on exactly nothing when it comes to replacing the law they've been attempting to repeal for years on end.
After Stephanopoulos asked Lee on what her nomination would mean for the future of Roe vs Wade, Lee dismissed those concerns as well, saying you can't look at the confirmation of a justice and "boil down that jurist's contribution to the law, past and future, to what they might do with a single case," which no one is trying to do. People who have concerns about Barrett are worried on how she'll rule on a whole host off issues from abortion, to LBGTQ rights, to worker's rights, to environmental issues, to the Affordable Care Act.
When Lee was asked if he was concerned, as Sen. Dick Durbin had just discussed in an earlier interview, that "if Judge Barrett is confirmed, the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions will go down as well." Lee was ready to discuss anything other than the fact that the repeal of the ACA could potentially strip coverage from 23 million Americans and the real impact that decision would have on his constituents that he's supposed to be representing's lives.
And so the fact that Congress chose to enact an unconstitutional law shouldn't tarnish Judge Barrett in this. Her job is to figure out whether it's unconstitutional or not. I don't believe it is. John Roberts' re-wrote it twice in order to make it appear constitutional, which it is not. LEE: Look, the patient protection and Affordable Care Act was, I believe, unconstitutional when it was enacted. It was unconstitutional when it was litigated in 2012. It was unconstitutional when Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a narrow five member majority, re-wrote the Affordable Care Act in two critical ways in order to render an otherwise inevitably unconstitutional law constitutional. STEPHANOPOULOS: You've got a very forthright opinion there on the Affordable Care Act. A lot of your colleagues are concerned that that forthright opinion is going to cost you on November 3rd? LEE: OK, well, look, Judge Barrett, we're talking about Judge Barrett here and we're talking about constitutionality. Judge Barrett would look at this, not on the basis of what's politically expedient. She'd look at it on the basis of constitutionality. Now, I don't purport to speak for what Judge Barrett might say or might think. You asked me for my opinion on the constitutionality on the Affordable Care Act. I don't believe it is. I have no idea how she would rule on this particular case.
They know exactly how she's going to rule on the case. It's one of the reasons she was selected and why dark money groups like the Judicial Crisis Network have been pushing so hard to get her on the court.