Democrats Boycott Confirmation Of Trump Nominees, Blocking Mnuchin, Price Votes

Tyler Durden's picture

Full out war between Democrats and the White House broke out today when Senate Democrats on Tuesday refused to attend a committee vote on two President Trump’s more controversial nominees, effectively delaying their consideration. Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee boycotted votes to advance Tom Price, Trump’s pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services, and Steven Mnuchin, his selection to head the Treasury Department.

Since at least one democrat must be on present for the vote to be held, the move will effectively delay and potentially prevent the confirmation votes on Mnuchin and Price.  The duo is among some of the more contentious selections to join Trump’s Cabinet.

Democrats walked out of the Senate Finance Committee hearing room, arguing that Mnuchin and Price misled senators in their testimony before the panel, and saying they could not allow a vote to proceed without more information. Minutes before the scheduled vote on the pair, democrats said they refused to enter the hearing room until they get answers to their questions about Price's stock purchase in an Australian biotechnology company.

"At a minimum, I believe the committee should postpone this vote" and have an opportunity to talk to officials at the biotech company, Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the committee, told reporters. He said they'll be willing to move forward on Price and Treasury nominee Steven Mnuchin only after their questions are answered, especially on Price, whom Wyden suggested hasn't been "straight" with the committee.

Both Price and Mnuchin had been targeted fiercely by Democrats on a range of ethical issues. Price was pressed on his investment activity in various medical companies, and whether he improperly mixed his political activity with his personal portfolio. Mnuchin’s time at the head of OneWest Bank, and whether it treated homeowners facing foreclosure fairly, was central to his testimony.

"He misled Congress and he misled the American people," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the panel, said of Price.

According to The Hill, republicans expressed outrage at the move, while Democrats gathered outside the Senate Finance Committee hearing room to outline their gripes with the selections.

“I can’t understand why senators, who know we’re going to have these two people go through, can’t support the committee,” said Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).  “I’m very disappointed in this kind of crap. … Some of this is because they just don’t like the president.”

“This is the most pathetic thing I’ve seen in my whole time in the United States Senate,” Hatch said, adding he would try to hold a vote on the nominees later today.

Expect a furious Trump tweet slamming Democratic opposition momentarily.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Rinauldi's picture

As the dig their own graves deeper and deeper...

jcaz's picture

Good plan, girls- that will show him..... Idjits.....

Will be even funnier when their constituency remembers this come re-election time.

AllTimeWhys's picture

can we get some adults to sit on the left side please? (Actually, scratch that, let them sink their own boat)

mtl4's picture

What a bunch of hyprocites........seems to me Geithner "forgot" to pay taxes and still got into office?!

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) mtl4 Jan 31, 2017 10:55 AM

Eff 'em.  Go nuclear.  Change the rules and put everyone through.

Kina's picture

Indeed go nuclear, get all the picks in. Those few hundred days are going to pass quickly and Trump and the GOP need to get their agenda done some time before the Mid terms.

The longer policy has been implemented the more the public get used to it and forget any of the negative stuff - so long as it doesn't cost them an arm like Obama 'care;

The Saint's picture
The Saint (not verified) Kina Jan 31, 2017 11:03 AM

Got to give it to the Democraps.  They really know how to shrink their base and alienate the American voter.


nuubee's picture

Fools, don't they realize that by not doing their job, they're forcing Someone to do it by executive order? Morans. You may not like the president, but fucking do your job.

FreezeThese's picture
FreezeThese (not verified) xythras Jan 31, 2017 11:25 AM

Ohhh you guys thought only the GOP was allowed to be pricks, professionally?


Hope it was worth blocking O'bama's SCOTUS nominee ... the shoe's on the other foot now

Il Dottore's picture
Il Dottore (not verified) FreezeThese Jan 31, 2017 11:50 AM

Lol you all are a bunch of fucktards

Steven Mnuchin was asked about passing Glass Steagall, and he said NO.

Let the Democrats to do something properly you wankers.

Between, fuck Israel

Dancing Disraeli's picture

Are Dems in favor of re-implementing Glass-Steagall?

Il Dottore's picture
Il Dottore (not verified) Dancing Disraeli Jan 31, 2017 12:07 PM

Who said that I want a Democrat in the Treasury?

I want another guy from Trump supporting GLASS STEAGALL, for gods sake

Chris88's picture

Glass-Steagall isn't the issue the Fed and FDIC are.  The repeal of that had no bearing in the financial crisis, the only people who think are clueless.

The Wizard's picture

Without a Glass-Steagall the FED and FDIC watered down issues. They are all important and his opposition to Glass-Steagall says a lot.

jeff montanye's picture

indeed it does.  i am ok with the democrats holding trump's feet to the fire on all ethics issues within vague reason.

and i want trump to attack the clintons like genghis fucking khan.  drain the swamp, both sides of the aisle.

oh and fuck israel -- let's have a new investigation after the 9-11 families get to depose the saudis and everyone else at whom the saudis point their fingers.

trump is the real reform candidate and do we ever need him.

shivura's picture

this is the most reasoned thing i've heard from any trump supporter on here in a long time, but after his first week doesn't it seem to you like he has absolutely no interest in doing anything you mentioned?

divingengineer's picture

Gotta go with il dottore on this one.
Munching is a shitbag GS squid tentacle.

Publicus_Reanimated's picture

Bad reading of history, Freezy.  The SCOTUS nomination block was when the GOP finally put its foot down after 7 years of being shit on by Harry Reid.

On the side of the aisle you support, it only took 9 days before the Speaker of the House used the "T" word.

As your hero King Barack I once said, "Elections have consequences."

chubbar's picture

Regardless of what the Dems do to Trump, it was DEFINITELY worth it to block Obama's supreme court pick! The court lost a strict constitutionalist and was going to be replaced by some typical libtard that would have trashed the constitution. The country, the thinking % that voted Trump in, supports the decision to block him. Other than libtards, the country wants the constitution enforced and interpreted as it was written. Most federal laws should go back to the states, including abortion, which I'm agnostic on. With Trump in office we will hopefully get to replace a couple of the far left bench sitters that have managed to fuck up federal laws by their ridiculous interpretation of the constitution. So yes, it was worth it!

Insurrector's picture

What federal laws were fucked up?  What ridiculous consitutional interpretations can you cite to support your broad stroke of criticism?

Rants supported with credible facts get attention and demonstrate intellect.

State governance is polluted by gerrymandering.  Without federal oversight we would still have the evils of the past

jeff montanye's picture

chubbar: scalia voted in citizens united to give corporations constitutional protections for campaign contributions as the free speech of citizens.  where the fuck in a strictly constructed constitution is that crazy ass and violently destructive of democracy idea?

robobbob's picture

where does it say that corporate persons even exist? if you dont like it, then lead the charge to undo it and make ceo's etc personally liable for corporate actions. I will gladly support you.

until then, logical consistancy requires that all legal rights extend to all legally recognized entities.

TuPhat's picture

Minority rights for starters.  The constitution does not give any special interest groups their own special rights and favoritism over others.  The rights of the people belong to all the people and are not and cannot be granted by the government.  The constitution does not give the federal government authority to change anyones rights.  There are many more.  If you have actually read and understand the constitution you would not need to ask.

Yog Soggoth's picture

How about telling States that they have no right to enforce illegal immigration laws even though they are responsible for the well being of their citizens? Tenth amendment; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion. If aliens entering into a State from a foreign country constitute an invasion, then the federal government is constitutionally mandated by this provision to intervene and protect the State. Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, the States have the power to engage war when actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit delay. I could go on and on, but you are sitting in front of a computer, and could just look this stuff up on your own. God bless Sheriff Joe.

shivura's picture

did you know 64% of Trump supporters are in favor of reinstituting the 3/5ths compromise.

the other 34% don't know what that is.

any trump nominee will first and foremost be someone who is willing to dismantle the bill of rights---no right to assembly, religion, press, to think he cares about anything besides the 2nd amendment is a little naive.

in4mayshun's picture

Chubbar, you're "agnostic" on abortion? How bout being alive? Are you agnostic about that? I'm sure you're happy your parents weren't agnostic because it worked out pretty good for you. I don't care whether a baby is 6 months in the womb or 6 days- it is going to be a living breathing human being.(unless it's liberal, in which case it's just living and breathing...) Liberals claim they're all about giving a voice to the voiceless. What's more voiceless than an unborn child? Start being a man and take a side, hopefully you pick the side or morality and life.

greenskeeper carl's picture

Funny how their ethics weren't bothered when Timmy turbo tax 'forgot' to pay his taxes a while back. Oh, right, wrong team this time.

jeff montanye's picture

that's why they need to expose each other's ethical transgressions, even if this seems time and again like professional wrestling.

maybe it will take a few kicks in the balls from democrats to really get trump et. al. mad enough to take down the clintons.  c'mon bushes, pile on so he'll also try busting 9-11.

we need transparency all around.  the sheeple have started combing the wool back over their eyes that the election fisticuffs had temporarily blown back.

ejmoosa's picture

Drag those asshatz in.  Where is the Sargent at Arms?


wren's picture

We need to start recalling these people.

Bastiat's picture

All that "wet work" for nothing, eh?

Gazooks's picture

liz likes difficult positions..


for the kids she consumes

Il Dottore's picture
Il Dottore (not verified) Gazooks Jan 31, 2017 11:48 AM


Il Dottore's picture
Il Dottore (not verified) xythras Jan 31, 2017 11:49 AM


Paper Mache's picture

Uk''s main news corporate conspiritor''s, the BBC,  hate President Trump. Just as they hate Brexit. They just regurgitate what CNN and the other media filth outlets write.  My UK family really love and admire Trump and will be there cheering him on when he comes to visit. 

EddieLomax's picture

Thinking here of taking a day off too to see him, it will be the first time I have done so for a monarch or politician if I do.

EddieLomax's picture

I have a hunch the queen will be quite happy to meet Trump, certainly Prince Philip who has a reputation for speaking his mind will likely get on very well with Trump.

The lefty media will no doubt try and paint it in some sort of negative light.  The queen walks a difficult line here as she is supposed to be impartial politically, so expect her impartial diplomacy to be painted as some sort of snub, I expect behind the scenes she will be quite enjoying the experience of meeting someone who is both geniunely successful, who loves their country (her favourite hymn is "I vote to thee my country" which speaks of her patriotism) and is honest, much more agreeable than Tony Blair and his kind.

Getting ready for some more garbage though from the mainstream media, and anything praiseworthy from the Queen will no doubt elicit a howl of calls for republicanism or for her to abdicate on health grounds...

not dead yet's picture

Not. Prince Phillip is a huge man made climate change believer and spouts off on the subject regularly. He will most likely try to rip Trump a new one for condemning the planet to runaway global warming and the death of all humans.

SilverRhino's picture

A Quorum in the Senate is 51 Senators.   

Democrats are about to truly fuck themselves as they are giving the GOP all the ammo they need to invoke the nuclear option, change the rules, confirm the cabinet and a Supreme Court Justice all in one day.  

.... and the Left MELTS DOWN. 


Manthong's picture

Yeah, they could change the rules, but wouldn’t it be more satisfying to see Democrat Senators dragged back in cuffs to witness their handiwork?

brianshell's picture

Since I'm fine with outlawing political parties, I wonder what rule requires demos to be present? What if it was the nazi party? Isn't a quorom sufficient?

SokPOTUS's picture

The *current* and long standing rules of the Senate require one member of the minority party(ies) be present in committee for the committee to take a vote, in order to prevent 'secret meetings' by the majority party in control of the committees to ram votes through unanimously with just majority party committee members present.

Going nuclear on that rule is actually much more consequential than ending the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. Just think of the closed door mischief that would occur.

brianshell's picture

I wonder if anyone has run this by the supreme court? Political parties aren't given power in the constitution. They have been the cause of more mischief than any other part of government IMO.

EddieLomax's picture

I think they need to amend the rules here, a minority party should not be given power of veto.  As the rule states the idea is that all discussions should always be shared, so in this case a maximum of 7 day limit should be given for the democrats to attend before a vote without them may be held.

And they will then meltdown, and they will then look very stupid and unreasonable.

chubbar's picture

The next thing that Trump needs to do is enact country wide conceal carry, except felons, with mandatory gun safety course prior. He needs to arm the people who are continually assaulted for their views so that the little snowflake bullies can no longer count on pulling that bullshit even though they are with a gang of likeminded pussies. Let's see how many of those fuckers go around hitting people who don't agree with them when there is a good chance they will be shot for the effort.

Insurrector's picture

Yes, let's kill the opposition!

Orwell foresaw this:

  • The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.
  • Then the face of Big Brother faded away again and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals: