Snippet (it’s not a long piece, and it’s full of info.)
Let’s be clear about what Kansas Republican legislative leaders are doing with their planned overhaul of budgeting: They are launching a personal and political power grab against Gov. Laura Kelly.
They have never accepted or respected her mandate. Despite Kelly winning a second term and having two years left to go, they have continually attempted to usurp the executive branch’s authority. They have tried a constitutional amendment and prohibiting her ability to negotiate Medicaid contracts. Now they’re going after her yearly state budget proposal.
Usually, the Legislature begins its yearly budget process with a proposal from the governor. Her office submits it when lawmakers arrive for the annual session, in January. Now an interim committee wants to start the process earlier, as soon as October of the previous year.
In this new process, the governor’s budget would be a suggestion, not a starting point.
And never mind that it’s a direct attack on Kelly. House Speaker Dan Hawkins, R-Wichita, assured the audience that these changes had nothing to do with the governor.
“This process has nothing to do with the governor,” he said at the meeting earlier this month, according to Kansas Reflector reporter Tim Carpenter. “If you’re going to focus on the governor, probably not the wisest thing to do, because this process has happened over time with many, many different governors.”
He was contradicted by Senate President Ty Masterson, R-Andover, who let the proverbial cat out of the figurative bag.
“You’ll have a Republican governor, for example, or somebody you trust, and you trust the administration to build the budgets, and then you kind of rubber stamp stuff,” Masterson said. “And, then, you switch, and you have (the) opposition party and then there’s all that same power.”
Oh. So it’s like that, then.
(snip-More; also a vid of the sausage becoming sausage)
I’m reading through the Morning Memo from TPM (yeah, it’s 4PM; so what?🌞) and see a bit about an Atlantic article written by Elaina Plott Calabro. It’s a profile of Kash Patel. I’ve used up my Atlantic freebies, but am providing links here, plus a copy-paste of a thread that’s available for free. The link to the thread is just below the one for the Morning Memo, both beneath the copy-paste. Either the event detailed has somehow slipped my mind, or this is yet another example of how the Don’s administration was dangerous to US national security.
=====================
In the course of reporting on Patel, and the threat that he and other loyalists like him would pose to the country in a second Trump term, I struggled to shake what I learned about a series of events that took place on October 30, 2020. I want to share them with you here.
(snip-embedded tweet visible on the page)
On that Friday, according to multiple reported accounts, SEAL Team 6 was awaiting the green light on a rescue mission in West Africa. The admin had recently learned where gunmen were holding an American who had been kidnapped that week from his farm near the Niger/Nigeria border.
As multiple agencies coordinated on final details for the evening operation, the State Department worked to resolve the last outstanding task: securing airspace permission from Nigerian officials.
Around noon, Patel called the Pentagon with an update: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, he said, had gotten the approval. The mission was a go.
The SEALs were close to landing in Nigeria when DOD discovered that State had not, in fact, secured the clearance, as Patel had claimed. The aircraft were quickly diverted, and flew in circles for the next hour as officials scrambled to alert the Nigerian gov’t to their position.
With the operation window narrowing, Esper and Pompeo called the Situation Room to put the decision to the president: Either they abort the mission and risk their hostage being killed, or they proceed into foreign airspace and risk their soldiers being shot down.
But then, suddenly, the deputy secretary of state was on the line, Esper later wrote in his memoir: They’d been cleared, and the rescue operation was ultimately a success. But back in Washington, the celebration was checked by anger. How to make sense of Patel’s bad report?
Two people familiar with the exchange told me that Tony Tata, the Pentagon official and retired Army general to whom Patel had originally given the green light, confronted Patel in a rage. “You could’ve gotten these guys killed!” he shouted. “What the fuck were you thinking?”
Patel’s response: “If nobody got hurt, who the fuck cares?”
Through a spokesperson, Patel denied saying this, or making up the approval story. But three former senior administration officials independently cited the near catastrophe in West Africa as one of their foremost recollections from Patel’s tenure.
They remain unsettled by Patel’s actions, they told me, in large part because they have no clue what motivated them. If Patel had in fact just invented the story, as Esper’s team concluded, then why?
Was it because the election was in four days, and Patel was simply that impatient to set in motion a final potential victory for Trump, whatever the risk — was it as darkly cynical as that? Did his lack of experience mean he just had no grasp of the consequences?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. But three months of reporting later, they’re the questions I can’t stop thinking about it — particularly as Patel, in a second Trump term, could very well assume remarkable power atop America’s national security establishment.
Anyway, if you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll read the whole story, from our October issue, here:
Scottie's Playtime 