Jump to content

Senate confirmation of Biden's nominees

Mrs Whiggins

By Mrs Whiggins
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted

@immamac

Since only 1 of Biden's nominees have been confirmed, and there will be a lot of news with regards to most, like Austin's waiver, Neera Tandem, etc., can we merge them into a catchall "Senate confirmation of Biden's nominees" thread? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 42519

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

@immamac

Since only 1 of Biden's nominees have been confirmed, and there will be a lot of news with regards to most, like Austin's waiver, Neera Tandem, etc., can we merge them into a catchall "Senate confirmation of Biden's nominees" thread? 

sure, can someone get me links - I've been super covered up at work due to 2021 planning and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • immamac changed the title to Senate confirmation of Biden's nominees
Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted

Just a reminder of where we are:

  • Tom Cotton dropped his hold on Avril Haines for DNI, who was confirmed 84-10 last night.  She is the only confirmed Cabinet nominee so far. 
  • Hawley still has a hold on Mayorkas for DHS, which is preventing a quick confirmation vote, because of his border wall answers
  • Austin requires a waiver before confirmation - Pelosi is pushing for this to be done today and TBD on the Senate vote
  • Yellen's committee vote is scheduled for tomorrow but no one has indicated any holds - should be approved easily
  • TBD on Blinken's committee vote, though it appears he should sail through as well
  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20707

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Here is someone who believes Pete needs to answer some questions; if you click on his tweet, there is a long thread to read.

 

Ah, Jonathan Larsen. Haven't thought about him in a while.

As someone who followed Buttigieg's presidential run more than most, let me elaborate. Larsen is an "investigative reporter" for The Young Turks. His sole assignment - for almost a year - was to try and dig up dirt on Pete. He made countless trips to South Bend, spoke only to people that disliked Pete, and wrote tons and tons of articles with questionable sourcing. Everything was a total hit piece. 

All you need to know is there wasn't another reputable journalist/reporter that took Larsen's work seriously. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
  • Author
Posted
49 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Ah, Jonathan Larsen. Haven't thought about him in a while.

As someone who followed Buttigieg's presidential run more than most, let me elaborate. Larsen is an "investigative reporter" for The Young Turks. His sole assignment - for almost a year - was to try and dig up dirt on Pete. He made countless trips to South Bend, spoke only to people that disliked Pete, and wrote tons and tons of articles with questionable sourcing. Everything was a total hit piece. 

All you need to know is there wasn't another reputable journalist/reporter that took Larsen's work seriously. 

 

Thanks for the tip. Did not investigate the investigator so my bad on that one.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Serak The Preparer

Serak The Preparer 3424

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Ah, Jonathan Larsen. Haven't thought about him in a while.

As someone who followed Buttigieg's presidential run more than most, let me elaborate. Larsen is an "investigative reporter" for The Young Turks. His sole assignment - for almost a year - was to try and dig up dirt on Pete. He made countless trips to South Bend, spoke only to people that disliked Pete, and wrote tons and tons of articles with questionable sourcing. Everything was a total hit piece. 

All you need to know is there wasn't another reputable journalist/reporter that took Larsen's work seriously. 

 

I stanned Warren and definitely was wary of the McKinsey stink on Pete, so even before your reply I admit that I eagerly clicked the tweet to check for dirt.

I was ... underwhelmed. I am still not crazy about a future President Pete (although things can certainly change) but if this is the deep dirt, then I think he's gonna be ok through nomination.

Edited by Serak The Preparer
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34444

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

What is Hawley's issue on Mayorkas?

Also, fuck the birder wall.

Josh Hawley is horrible.

The stated complaint about Mayorkas is an IG report from his time at Citizen and Immigration Services that dinged him for the appearance of favoritism when processing investor visas for politically connected companies and applicants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19093

Posted
Posted
The stated complaint about Mayorkas is an IG report from his time at Citizen and Immigration Services that dinged him for the appearance of favoritism when processing investor visas for politically connected companies and applicants. 
I believe he already addressed that, correct? If so, Hawley is just being a shithead. Also, those in glass houses. Last I saw, Mayorkas didn't help perpetuate election fraud lies that sparked an insurrection and then attempt to fundraise during said insurrection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29258

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I previously was under the impression that Sen. Johnson had some level of reasonableness about him. Obviously I was way off on that. He's a nut.

By now it should be more than obvious that there are no good Republicans. Not even Mitt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted (edited)

I may keep tracking of this, because I'm curious. 

DNI:

Coates (Trump's first pick) - 85-12

Haines (Biden's pick) - 84-10

 

Defense:

Mattis (Trump's first pick) - 98-1

Austin (Biden's pick) - 93-2

 

Nothing egregious in the "no" votes yet. 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted

Yellen's nomination by the Finance Committee approved by unanimous vote and goes to the Senate - should be confirmation #3

Mnuchin was confirmed 53-47 but Yellen should likely have more bipartisan support. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted

Updates for this week:

  • Full Senate confirmation vote on Yellen today
  • Senate Foreign Relations committee vote on Blinken tonight - probably Tuesday full Senate vote
  • First hearing for Raimando (Commerce) tomorrow morning
  • Senate Homeland Security committee vote on Mayorkas tomorrow morning - probably Tuesday night or Wednesday full Senate vote
  • First hearing for Granholm (Energy) Wednesday morning
  • First hearing for Thomas-Greenfield (UN) on Wednesday morning
  • First hearing for Fudge (HUD) on Thursday morning

By the end of the week, we should have Haines, Austin, Yellen, Blinken and Mayorkas on the job.   Pete should be up for a vote soon-ish, as he had his hearing. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 10977

Posted
Posted
On 1/21/2021 at 11:27 AM, Js1 said:

Just a reminder of where we are:

  • Tom Cotton dropped his hold on Avril Haines for DNI, who was confirmed 84-10 last night.  She is the only confirmed Cabinet nominee so far. 
  • Hawley still has a hold on Mayorkas for DHS, which is preventing a quick confirmation vote, because of his border wall answers
  • Austin requires a waiver before confirmation - Pelosi is pushing for this to be done today and TBD on the Senate vote
  • Yellen's committee vote is scheduled for tomorrow but no one has indicated any holds - should be approved easily
  • TBD on Blinken's committee vote, though it appears he should sail through as well

 

 

Can we get a wreath fund going to pay for Rand's neighbor to move to Missouri?

 

 

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:


Virginia, actually.

4365168fc1b6974f2127865188fa6d85.jpg
e5fced07d1292575de4874a1d543220e.jpg
b4860a4857f19e4bbc24f9f060b818b7.jpg

To be honest, I don't care much about elected officials residing in DC while voting in their home state.  I'd grant their spouses the same leeway.  They were elected specifically to represent their state or constituents in DC.  But adult offspring that follow the gravy train should be residents of the location where they choose to live, whether DC/MD/VA.  Same for staff, appointees, or bureaucrats.

But also, once elected, you should be required to maintain your absentee residence in the same state where you resided when elected.  You should not be able to randomly choose other states for residence or even change "official" residency addresses within your state.  Your "official" residence on the date of your election should remain your "official" residence until you are no longer in office.  Even if you are President and supposedly representing everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted

Looks like the GOP is going to try to slow play Mayorkas and Beccerra. 

Because of course, the domestic terrorists are going to delay Homeland Security and the guy who sued the Trump Admin for trying to take away healthcare from people. 

BUT since you can't filibuster executive branch nominees anymore, they are just wasting time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 42519

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Js1 said:

And as his first official act as Senate Majority Leader, Schumer is filing cloture on Mayorkas' nomination. 

So a fuck you to Hawley and the others trying to delay DHS confirmation. 

did cloture rules change? need 2/3 for cloture If they drop it to 50% that basically gets rid of the filibuster as I mentioned in the filibuster thread. Points immamac

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85110

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

did cloture rules change? need 2/3 for cloture If they drop it to 50% that basically gets rid of the filibuster as I mentioned in the filibuster thread. Points immamac

2013 for executive branch nominations.  You only need 51 for cloture to end debate on a Cabinet nomination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19151

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, immamac said:

did cloture rules change? need 2/3 for cloture If they drop it to 50% that basically gets rid of the filibuster as I mentioned in the filibuster thread. Points immamac

 

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

2013 for executive branch nominations.  You only need 51 for cloture to end debate on a Cabinet nomination. 

Hahahahahahaha... in yo face, aggy.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...