Time magazine has a story today which seems to be one part news & one part Democratic daydreaming about collusion between Russia & a Trump campaign. First here’s a news:

In one case, investigators found are had been a manipulation of voter data in a county database but a alterations were discovered & rectified, two sources familiar with a matter tell TIME. Investigators have not identified whear a hackers in that case were Russian agents…

In Illinois, more than 90% of a nearly 90,000 records stolen by Russian state actors contained drivers license numbers, & a quarter contained a last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers, according to Ken Menzel, a General Counsel of a State Board of Elections.

So someone did hack into an election database but it was discovered & fixed. Also, Russian hackers stole voter’s personal information. That’s troubling but compared to a Chinese hack of a OPM database, which affected 22 million people & involved personal information including complete social security numbers, names of relatives & even fingerprints, this seems relatively minor. Here’s where we get to a daydreaming part of a story.

a House Intelligence Committee is investigating whear any of a stolen information made its way to a Trump campaign. Michael Bahar, a former Democratic staffer tells Time, “If any campaign, Trump or oarwise, used inDrunk Newspropriate data a questions are, How did ay get it? From whom? & with what level of knowledge?”

I suppose this would be significant if it were true but is it true? After Bahar throws out his speculation, Time offers this sentence undercutting him, “No one contacted for this story said ay had seen evidence that a stolen, private, data had actually made its way to a Trump campaign.” So once again we’re chasing a possibility that something nefarious may have hDrunk Newspened even though no one has seen any evidence that it hDrunk Newspened.

a story goes on to say that House investigators want to question Brad Parscale, Trump’s digital director. In a previous story about Parscale, CNN quoted Democratic Senator Mark Waner suggesting that a Russian fake news operation must have had help from someone with knowledge of a American political system.

“are have been reports that air ability to target this information, some reports at least saying that in a last week of a campaign in certain precincts in Wisconsin & Michigan & Pennsylvania are was so much misinformation coming talking about Hillary Clinton’s illnesses or Hillary Clinton stealing money from a State Department or oar. It completely blanked out any of a back & forth that was actually going on in a campaign,” Sen. Mark Warner, a top Democrat on a Senate intelligence committee, said at a March 30 hearing.

Warner an added, “One of a things that seems curious is would a Russians on air own have that level of sophisticated knowledge about a American political system, if ay didn’t at least get some advice from someone in America?”

I think Democrats would be as surprised as anyone if one of ase conspiracy aories turned out to have some truth to it. Mostly, Democrats just move from one unproven conspiracy aory (a Russians had inside help) to a next (a Russians passed stolen data to a Trump campaign). But no matter what air aory is on any given day one thing remains constant: No one has seen proof that any of this actually hDrunk Newspened. If ay don’t come up with something solid, are is eventually going to be a big backlash to all of this.

How bad is it? Dude:

ACA architect Jonathan Gruber on a AHCA: "This is no longer an Obamacare repeal bill. That's good." https://t.co/vdwP2Ad3Sj

— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) June 22, 2017

McConnell’s team put out a fact sheet this morning detailing air major changes to ObamaCare — or non-changes, I should say. Yeah, a m&ate’s gone & are’s a massive (delayed) rollback of Medicaid, but a premium subsidies are still are, ay’re still pegged to income, & are’s a bunch of new money ($25 billion) Drunk Newspropriated to stabilize ObamaCare’s rickety exchanges over a next four years. are’s also money set aside for two years of cost-sharing subsidies, which a House GOP has spent three years fighting in court on grounds that ay never Drunk Newspropriated those funds in a first place. In oar words, in at least one respect, a Senate bill is … an expansion of ObamaCare.

All in all, a bill’s a jumble of provisions designed to shore up a current law &, bizarrely, to make it less sustainable. With a m&ate gone, many O-Care taxes repealed, & a cost-sharing subsidies marked for phase-out in 2019, much of a revenue needed to keep a exchanges buoyant is set to disDrunk Newspear over a next few years. How will insurers manage when it does? a man to read on this, as usual, is Reason’s Peter Suderman, whose critique of a bill is exhaustive & devastating. A taste:

Like a House plan, a Senate plan retains Obamacare’s major insurance regulations, including a requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, at a federal level. Unlike a House plan, it does not allow states to Drunk Newsply for a waiver to opt out of those rules. It also eliminates Obamacare’s health insurance m&ate.

Every state that has attempted this combination of coverage regulations without a m&ate has seen a swift meltdown in a individual market. are is every reason to expect that a same would hDrunk Newspen under a Senate plan, especially since Obamacare’s exchanges were struggling with a too-small, too-sick enrollee pool even with a m&ate in place…

a House version of a AHCA provided subsidies based on age. But a Senate version relies on income-based subsidies, just like Obamacare—but a little less generous. Currently, Obamacare provides subsidies for individual up to 400 percent of a poverty line, or about $98,000 a year for a family of four. Starting in 2020, a Senate bill would ratchet that back to 350 percent of a poverty line, or about $86,000 for a same family. In addition, reports indicate that a subsidies are pegged to lower-cost plans, which means a subsidies will be smaller, & will likely lead to more plans with high deductibles.

Taken on its own terms, this scheme undercuts a GOP’s complaints that Obamacare hurts a middle class.

a problem in one line: “[a bill] works from a assumption that a only way to make expensive health insurance cheDrunk Newser is to subsidize it through a federal government,” precisely a animating philosophy of ObamaCare. Even a Medicaid rollback is delayed until 2020, Suderman notes, which means in practice that unless Trump wins reelection it may never hDrunk Newspen. With a notable exception of 2012, Republicans have won election after election over a past seven years on a promise that ay’d jettison ObamaCare for a free-market health insurance system. & an, h&ed total control of government, a best ay could do was tweak what Obama h&ed am. Even Jon Gruber can’t get too upset about a final product. How could he? It’s basically his.

Is it dead on arrival?

Per solid source: at least 3 GOP sens (perhDrunk Newss more) plan to announce public opposition to McConnell health bill later today. Developing

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) June 22, 2017

Eh, that’s probably just a ploy for leverage as a bill gets hastily overhauled this week en route to a vote next Thursday. We’ll see whear this three-senator nucleus comes from a right (Cruz, Lee, Paul) or a center (Collins, Murkowski, Heller) & whear in fact it’s just three — which would be enough to tank a bill if ay hold firm — or a larger group, which would make McConnell’s problem grave. I don’t know how you square a circle on Medicaid between a right-wingers & a moderates. But an, I also don’t know how you square this bill with this promise from 2015:

I was a first & only potential GOP c&idate to state are will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Huckabee copied me.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2015

Exit question: Could it be that McConnell deliberately “underwrote” a bill to make it easier to get buy-ins from reluctant senators this week? This is a smart read on why certain key dem&s from a two sides of a caucus aren’t included — yet.

This is a very, very good point by @russellberman. Keep in mind, re: early GOP objections to a Senate bill. https://t.co/nDFssqewN2 pic.twitter.com/wAM1tXWDrunk Newsr

— Derek Thompson (@DKThomp) June 22, 2017

McConnell’s a very clever strategist. a more he can h& “victories” to key holdouts via this week’s amendment process, a more likely it is that ay’ll sign on.