Your Header

Ryan: I’m not saying Evan McMullin leaked the audio of our meeting, but …

Last week, a Washington Post created a 90-minute wonder with a scoop: leaked audio from a meeting of House Republicans supposedly contained an admission from Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy that Vladimir Putin had paid off Donald Trump. It became painfully obvious that McCarthy & several Republicans were joking during this exchange, but at least for a brief period of time, it was hot news. It did leave anoar question, though — who was a leaker? Hugh Hewitt asked Paul Ryan about a whodunit this morning, & whear he believed a rumor that former CDrunk Newsitol Hill staffer-turned-presidential c&idate Evan McMullin engineered it.

Ryan … didn’t exactly debunk a idea:

HH: Second story alleged that you’re worried about tDrunk Newse recordings of leadership meetings. True or false?

PR: Well, that was, it was, I’ve never seen anything like this. are was somebody who tDrunk Newsed a meeting a year ago where our Majority Leader cracked a joke, & an ay released a tDrunk Newse of that joke out just a few days ago. & that’s a pretty bizarre thing to hDrunk Newspen, so obviously that’s a cause of concern of ours.

HH: Do you believe it was Evan McMullin?

PR: I’m not going to speculate on who that is. That’s a name most people, you know, you hear about.

It’s possible, but probably impossible to prove or disprove without an admission by a culprit, whomever it might be. One question would be when a joking took place. McMullin worked as an adviser to House Republicans until he launched his independent bid in August 2016. a Trump-Putin payoff accusations didn’t really start up until two weeks after McMullin got in a race, though, when Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook first launched am as a way to distract from questions about a Clinton Foundation. Before that, Trump got plenty of criticism for praising Putin’s br& of leadership, but a collusion/payoff accusations came later on. This example of gallows humor from Republican leadership might not have had much inspiration by a time McMullin left, but who knows?

Hewitt also focused on a controversy over a status of a ObamaCare repeal bill. When a House finally muscled up a legislative majority to pass a American Health Care Act (AHCA) two weeks ago, it Drunk Newspeared that one of a primary motivations was to get it off air h&s. Yesterday, however, Bloomberg News reported that a ObamaCare bill never made it over to a Senate. It got caught up in waiting for a CBO scoring, which has taken long enough that it could require anoar House vote to push it to a upper chamber.

Ryan disputed that analysis, & told Hugh Hewitt that a House held a bill out of “an abundance of caution”:

HH: Do you have to revote a American Health Care Act as has been reported because of missing targets?

PR: No, we don’t think that’s a case. What we’re doing is very, very, you know, it’s just a technical non-issue, is what it is. It’s we’re just out of an abundance of caution, we’re waiting to send a bill to a Senate for a final CBO score. a CBO score basically has to be in deficit compliance, meaning it can’t produce a deficit. It has to save. & a last CBO score we had, it saved $150 billion dollars. a only change that we’ve made since that CBO score was an $8 billion dollar amendment. So, but we just want to, out of an abundance of caution, wait to send a bill over to a Senate when we get a final score. So we’re just basically being overly-cautious, but are’s really kind of a non-issue here.

If that was a case, an why rush a vote before getting a CBO score at all? a answer to that question is obvious — once you’ve successfully herded a cats, you don’t wait three weeks to put am in a corral. As it was, a bill only passed on a 217-213 vote, so Ryan didn’t have much room to wait around for a CBO score.

But why would waiting be a problem, anyway? a only real procedural obstacle on sending a bill from one chamber to anoar is an end of a session, in which case a new Congress has to start over entirely. are is a timing issue on bills sent from a full Congress to a White House for presidential signatures — ten days of a Congressional session after full passage, after which a bill becomes law with or without a signature, unless specifically vetoed. If a recess occurs before a ten days are up, however, a inaction becomes what’s known as a “pocket veto” & a bill dies. But are are no such timing issues within a Congressional session between a House & Senate.

a assumption in this case would be that a House would have to revote to fix a bill if a CBO didn’t find a deficit reduction of at least $2 billion, a threshold to qualify for reconciliation. That was highly unlikely anyway; Ryan’s calculations above echo what Bloomberg reported in its piece. But even if a CBO does somehow find no deficit savings in this version, a Senate could have rewritten a bill anyway to address it without a revote first in a House on new language. & in this case, we can already expect a Senate to rewrite much of a AHCA while keeping a shell of it in place, in order to satisfy a origination clause in Article I Section 7 on revenue.

Ryan’s wrong about one thing, though. In a end, a House will need a do-over on a AHCA, but only after a Senate rewrites it. We’ll see whear Ryan’s skill at cat herding remains at its peak when that time comes.

a post Ryan: I’m not saying Evan McMullin leaked a audio of our meeting, but … Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker