Total topics: 15
I think either US party's true advocates should be repulsed and horrified.
Within those pretending to support your cause are people voting in men in need of geriatric care on both sides, twice now, neither of whom are true to the actual ideals the parties uphold.
Biden is barely a Democrat if you analyse his life and policies and right now can't walk off the right side of a stage or make coherent strings of 3 sentences.
Trump is a manwhore that has no idea what family values and sanctity of marriage even mean. He's no conservative at all and tried to upheave an election, he's anti people choosing their leader.
Both sides have enemies within bringing your worst candidates to the forefront.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Who is your top rated politician? Currently serving politician only, please.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Beat to Loop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZYSGLH915o
Trump is the greatest, to hate him is defeatist,
Why you bitter 'bout the mean guy? He's gotta be cutthroat to elitists,
Born into wealth, profiting off inheritance, his aura screams good work ethic and 'realness',
He's only joking when he talks about molesting women,he's got that well-disciplined penis,
He's so loyal, wife is spoiled, as in all 3 of them and of course he hires strippers but his zipper's fastened and he aint seen tits,
He's so good at managing businesses that he intentionally had 13 fumbles to seem humble as he professes he's a genius.
North Korea and Iran are shitholes that he ought to burn,
What's the matter if blood splatters? He's a badass and they'll learn,
We're the US, after all and he has a Jew-blessed stash of objects that he earned.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
THBT: DEMOCRATS should NOMINATE LIZ CHENEY for SPEAKER of the HOUSE TOMORROW
- The rules do not require the Speaker to be a current member of Congress.
- If all Democrats voted for Cheney, only 6 Republicans would be needed and I'm pretty sure there's more than 6 Republicans who would support Cheney.
- She was recently third ranking member in the Republican Caucus so she is familiar with the position and its responsibilities.
- Cheney would be a complete end-run around BOTH feckless McCarthyites and dangerous insurrectionists but pleasing to Conservatives.
- Cheney would absolutely know how to manage and support the Conservative Republican agenda but she would have no truck with the insurrectionists or MAGA and she would likely block any frivolous investigations into the Jan 6th committee or its findings.
- As a non House Member, Cheney would not have a vote but she would represent true Republicanism and be a serious, patriotic stand-in if both the President and VP were unexpectedly unable to lead.
- Nobody would be really happy with Cheney, which suggests a good compromise for a split parliament.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
George Anthony Devolder Santos (born July 22, 1988) is an American politician and businessman from the state of New York. A member of the Republican Party, Santos was elected to represent New York's 3rd congressional district in 2022, a district covering part of northern Long Island and northeast Queens. Both Santos and his 2022 opponent, Robert Zimmerman, are openly gay, a first for a U.S. congressional election. He is the first openly gay non-incumbent Republican and the first Brazilian-American elected to Congress. Santos is a pro-Trump right-wing extremist who has appeared with MTG speaking to neo-Nazi political parties like Freedom Party of Austria and Alternative for Germany. Santos attended Trump's Jan 6th rally and claims to have bailed out some Jan 6th arrestees although that has not been verified.
After Santos was elected to Congress, and before he took office, reporting by The New York Times and later other news outlets revealed significant issues with Santos' biographical claims.
- Santos claims to have been living as openly gay and married to a man for the last decade
- but according to public records, Santos was a married to a woman until they divorced in 2019.
- Santos moved out of his Queens address in August but never changed his address and was still falsely registered at that address at the time of the election. New York mailed Santos' certificate of electoral victory to this old address, where the landlord was throwing out his mail.
- Santos claimed to have graduated from Baruch College in 2010, earning a bachelor's degree in finance and economics. Santos also claimed to have received a Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree from New York University, but NYU has no record of his attendance.
- After, obtaining a high school equivalency at the age of 21, Santos moved with his nurse mother to Rio de Janiero until he was caught stealing from his mother's patients and fled back to America before his court date.
- There's no indication Santos actually attended any higher education.
- Santos claimed to be of Jewish descent, his family fleeing Ukraine ahead of the Nazis.
- In fact, his family immigrated from Belgium in 1863. No evidence of Jewish or Ukrainian ancestry can be found.
- Santos claimed that his mother was the first female executive at a major financial institute in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Santos claimed his mother barely survived 9/11.
- Actually, his mother was a nurse with no known connection to the 9/11 attacks beyond living in Queens at the time.
- Santos claimed to have made his money as a Wall St. financier and investor at CitiGroup, Goldmans Sachs, MetGlobal, and LinkBridge.
- None of these companies ever employed Santos in any capacity.
- Santos clearly has access to million of dollar, he spent much of it on his campaign, but there's now no indication of how Santos actually made his millions.
- Not honestly, apparently.
- Santos ran a charity from 2013 to 2018, claiming to raise money for rescue animals.
- No application for tax-exempt status was ever filed.
- All indications now are that Santos simply kept the money.
- According to his financial disclosures, Santos was sole owner and managing member of the Devolder Organization, which he said was a family-owned company that managed $80 million in assets. On financial disclosure forms, Santos called Devolder a "capital introduction consulting" firm. Although based in New York, the company was registered in Florida (Santos claimed to be a Fla resident), where it was dissolved in 2022 for failing to file annual reports. During his 2022 campaign for Congress, Santos lent his campaign more than $700,000, and reported receiving a salary of $750,000 and dividends of between $1 million and $5 million from Devolder, even though he also listed the company's estimated value as in the same range. Despite the claims about the company's size, Santos's financial disclosure forms did not list any clients using the company's services.
- Santos claimed that one of his companies lost four employees in the Pulse Nightclub Shooting.
- But this claim, too, appears to be entirely untrue.
- Santos has made no public appearance since the NYTimes broke this story three days ago and his whereabouts are unknown.
- It is not known whether Brazil will ask for extradition.
- It is not known whether police will investigate the source of Santos' wealth.
- The Republican Party majority is slim and McCarthy is counting on Santos' support for his election to Speaker. No Republicans are calling for Santos to step down although some are calling for further fact-finding.
- It is not known how many other Republican candidates won seats without any apparent vetting or background check.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
In late June, Republicans in Texas published two resolutions emerging from their 2022 party convention.
1. 2020 Election:
We believe that the 2020 election violated Article 1 and 2 of the US Constitution, that various secretaries of state illegally circumvented their state legislatures in conducting their elections in multiple ways, including by allowing ballots to be received after November 3, 2020. We believe that substantial election fraud in key metropolitan areas significantly affected the results in five key states in favor of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. We reject the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States.
No evidence supports this claim. Most of Trump's closest advisors have now testified under oath that Trump deliberately manufactured and propagandized this false claim entirely aware of the absence of evidence and entirely aware of the illegal, unconstitutional, unpatriotic and anti-American nature of manufacturing such a claim. That Texas Republicans choose to promote the Big Lie in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary demonstrates that Texas Republicans remain supplicant to Trump's will and are therefore disqualified from any position of political leadership.
2. Resolution against the Gang of 20 Gun Control bill:
Whereas those under 21 are most likely to be victims of violent crime and thus most likely to need to defend themselves. Whereas “red flag laws” violate one’s right to due process and are a pre-crime punishment of people not adjudicated guilty. Whereas waiting periods on gun purchases harm those who need to acquire the means of self defense in emergencies such as riots. Whereas all gun control is a violation of the Second Amendment and our God given rights. We reject the so called “bipartisan gun agreement”, and we rebuke Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
According to the GOP, Jesus wants us to make sure we are putting machine guns in the hands of those under 21 years of age, especially in the middle of a riot.
Both of these strike me as signaling loyalty to powers entirely unaffiliated with the truth, common sense, or American prosperity.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Per Politico:
- It is my great honor to be speaking tonight at the nation’s most distinguished superspreader event. Did none of you learn anything from the Gridiron dinner? … The second someone offers you a free dinner you all turn into Joe Rogan.
- I’m not doing this just for the attention. All right? I’m a comedian, not Kyrsten Sinema. … By the way, give it up for Kyrsten Sinema. Whoever thought we’d see the day in American politics when a senator could be openly bisexual, but closeted Republican? That’s progress.
- We all saw what happened at the Oscars. I’ve actually been a bit worried about tonight. I’m not going to lie. What if I make a really mean joke about Kellyanne Conway, and her husband rushes up on the stage and thanks me?
- I’ve just got to say, this is so exciting. To be at this swanky party full of Washington’s most powerful people. It’s not as exciting as Madison Cawthorn made it sound, but it’s still very sexy.
- Trump said he won the election, but everyone was just able to look at the numbers and see that he was wrong. That’s why Ron DeSantis is one step ahead — first you ban the math textbooks, then nobody knows how to count the votes. Boom. My man!
- The great chef José Andrés is here tonight. … Whenever there’s a disaster anywhere in the world, chef José is there, which I guess is why he’s sitting at the CNN table tonight.
- The real reason that it’s such an honor to be here tonight is that we all get to be in the same room as the most powerful man in the United States. So let’s give it up for Joe Manchin, everybody.
- Even as first lady, Dr. Biden continued her teaching career. The first time a presidential spouse has done so, ever. Congratulations. Now, you might think it’s because she loves teaching so much, but it’s actually because she’s still paying off her student debt. I’m sorry about that, Jill. I guess you should’ve voted for Bernie.
- I think everyone will agree that it’s actually nice to once again have a president who’s not afraid to come to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, and hear jokes about himself. I’ll be honest, if you didn’t come, I totally would have understood because these people have been so hard on you, which I don’t get. I really don’t. And I think ever since you’ve come into office, things are really looking up. You know, gas is up, rent is up, food is up, everything.
- President Biden’s lack of a filter does get him into hot water sometimes. Last month, he caused a huge international incident saying that Vladimir Putin should be removed from power. It was very, very upsetting to Russia until someone explained to them that none of the stuff Biden wants actually gets done.
- What about Maggie Haberman? For four years, it was exclusives on the Russia investigation, corruption, the president doesn’t read his daily briefings, on and on. Now look at her. She spends all day fighting with random people on Twitter like a common POLITICO reporter. You’ve ruined her Mr. President.
- Jen [Psaki], it’s nice that you’re willing to come over here and risk getting Covid for like, what, the 10th time now? Let me ask, how do you keep getting Covid, Jen? Like your boss hooked us all up with free tests. Does he not have your address? What’s going on there?
- I’m really excited because the kings of cable are here. Fox News in the house … I know Fox has a bad reputation — I can even feel you tense up now when I talk about them. They really do crush it. You know, I think they get a bad rap. Because it’s a mixed bag. They actually have really good journalists, it just depends on when you watch. Fox News is sort of like a Waffle House. Yeah, it’s relatively normal in the afternoon, but as soon as the sun goes down, there’s a drunk lady named Jeanine threatening to fight every Mexican who comes in.
- Apparently, Jeff [Zucker] got fired after he tried to keep his workplace relationship secret, which is weird because if he really didn’t want anyone to know about it, he could have just made a show about it on CNN+. … It’s so sad. CNN+, gone but forgotten. You know who I blame? You know who I blame, CNN? John King … your magic wall can predict how every person in the country is going to vote in every county, but it couldn’t give you a heads up that nobody wanted more CNN?
- Please be careful leaving tonight, we all know this administration doesn’t handle evacuations well.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
AP FACT CHECK: NRA speakers distort gun and crime statistics
By AMANDA SEITZ
WASHINGTON (AP) — Speakers at the National Rifle Association annual meeting assailed a Chicago gun ban that doesn’t exist, ignored security upgrades at the Texas school where children were slaughtered and roundly distorted national gun and crime statistics as they pushed back against any tightening of gun laws.
A look at some of the claims:
By AMANDA SEITZ
WASHINGTON (AP) — Speakers at the National Rifle Association annual meeting assailed a Chicago gun ban that doesn’t exist, ignored security upgrades at the Texas school where children were slaughtered and roundly distorted national gun and crime statistics as they pushed back against any tightening of gun laws.
A look at some of the claims:
TEXAS SEN. TED CRUZ: “Gun bans do not work. Look at Chicago. If they worked, Chicago wouldn’t be the murder hellhole that it has been for far too long.”
THE FACTS: Chicago hasn’t had a ban on handguns for over a decade . And in 2014, a federal judge overturned the city’s ban on gun shops. Big supporters of the NRA, like Cruz, may well know this, given that it was the NRA that sued Chicago over its old handgun ban and argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled the ban unconstitutional in 2010.
___
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: “Classroom doors should be hardened to make them lockable from the inside and closed to intruders from the outside.”
THE FACTS: As commonsensical as that might sound, it could backfire in a horrific way, experts warn. A lock on the classroom door is one of the most basic and widely recommended school safety measures. But in Uvalde, it kept victims in and police out.
Nearly 20 officers stood in a hallway outside of the classrooms school for more than 45 minutes before agents used a master key to open the classroom’s locked door.
And Trump’s proposal doesn’t take into account what would happen if class members were trapped behind a locked door and one of the students was the aggressor in future attacks.
___
CRUZ: “The rate of gun ownership hasn’t changed.”
THE FACTS: This is misleading. The percentage of U.S. households with at least one gun in the home hasn’t significantly changed over the past 50 years. But the number of assault-type rifles, like the one used in the Uvalde school shooting and dozens of other school shootings, has skyrocketed since legislators let a 1994 ban on such weapons expire in 2004.
In the years leading up to and following that ban, an estimated 8.5 million AR-platform rifles were in circulation in the United States. Since the ban was lifted, the rifles — called “modern sporting rifles” by the industry — have surged in popularity. The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated there were nearly 20 million in circulation in 2020.
___
CRUZ: “Had Uvalde gotten a grant to upgrade school security, they might have made changes that would have stopped the shooter and killed him there on the ground, before he hurt any of these innocent kids and teachers.”
THE FACTS: This claim overlooks the fact that Uvalde had doubled its school-security budget and spent years upgrading the protections for schoolchildren. None of that stopped the gunman who killed 19 pupils and two teachers.
Annual district budgets show the school system went from spending $204,000 in 2017 to $435,000 for this year . The district had developed a safety plan back in 2019 that included staffing the schools with four officers and four counselors. It had installed a fence and invested in a program that monitors social media for threats and purchased software to screen school visitors.
The grant that Cruz claims would have been life-saving was from a failed 2013 bill that planned to help schools hire more armed officers and install bulletproof doors. Uvalde’s school did have an officer but the person wasn’t on the campus at the time the shooter entered the building. And, Cruz’s call for bulletproof doors might not have worked in this case, given that police were unable to breech the locked door of the classroom where the shooter murdered children and teachers.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Opinion: The Republican blueprint to steal the 2024 election
Opinion by J. Michael Luttig
Wed April 27, 2022
Editor’s Note: J. Michael Luttig, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, formerly served on the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for 15 years. He advised Vice President Mike Pence on January 6.
Nearly a year and a half later, surprisingly few understand what January 6 was all about.
Fewer still understand why former President Donald Trump and Republicans persist in their long-disproven claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Much less why they are obsessed about making the 2024 race a referendum on the “stolen” election of 2020, which even they know was not stolen.
January 6 was never about a stolen election or even about actual voting fraud. It was always and only about an election that Trump lost fair and square, under legislatively promulgated election rules in a handful of swing states that he and other Republicans contend were unlawfully changed by state election officials and state courts to expand the right and opportunity to vote, largely in response to the Covid pandemic.
The Republicans’ mystifying claim to this day that Trump did, or would have, received more votes than Joe Biden in 2020 were it not for actual voting fraud, is but the shiny object that Republicans have tauntingly and disingenuously dangled before the American public for almost a year and a half now to distract attention from their far more ambitious objective.
That objective is not somehow to rescind the 2020 election, as they would have us believe. That’s constitutionally impossible. Trump’s and the Republicans’ far more ambitious objective is to execute successfully in 2024 the very same plan they failed in executing in 2020 and to overturn the 2024 election if Trump or his anointed successor loses again in the next quadrennial contest.
The last presidential election was a dry run for the next.
From long before Election Day 2020, Trump and Republicans planned to overturn the presidential election by exploiting the Electors and Elections Clauses of the Constitution, the Electoral College, the Electoral Count Act of 1877, and the 12th Amendment, if Trump lost the popular and Electoral College vote.
The cornerstone of the plan was to have the Supreme Court embrace the little known “independent state legislature” doctrine, which, in turn, would pave the way for exploitation of the Electoral College process and the Electoral Count Act, and finally for Vice President Mike Pence to reject enough swing state electoral votes to overturn the election using Pence’s ceremonial power under the 12th Amendment and award the presidency to Donald Trump.
The independent state legislature doctrine says that, under the Elections and the Electors Clauses of the Constitution, state legislatures possess plenary and exclusive power over the conduct of federal presidential elections and the selection of state presidential electors. Not even a state supreme court, let alone other state elections officials, can alter the legislatively written election rules or interfere with the appointment of state electors by the legislatures, under this theory.
The Supreme Court has never decided whether to embrace the independent state legislature doctrine. But then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in separate concurring opinions said they would embrace that doctrine in Bush v. Gore, 20 years earlier, and Republicans had every reason to believe there were at least five votes on the Supreme Court for the doctrine in November 2020, with Amy Coney Barrett having just been confirmed in the eleventh hour before the election.
Trump and the Republicans began executing this first stage of their plan months before November 3, by challenging as violative of the independent state legislature doctrine election rules relating to early- and late-voting, extensions of voting days and times, mail-in ballots, and other election law changes that Republicans contended had been unlawfully altered by state officials and state courts in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Michigan.
These cases eventually wound their way to the Supreme Court in the fall of 2020, and by December, the Supreme Court had decided all of these cases, but only by orders, either disallowing federal court intervention to change an election rule that had been promulgated by a state legislature, allowing legislatively promulgated rules to be changed by state officials and state courts, or deadlocking 4-4, because Justice Barrett was not sworn in until after those cases were briefed and ready for decision by the Court. In none of these cases did the Supreme Court decide the all-important independent state legislature doctrine.
Thwarted by the Supreme Court’s indecision on that doctrine, Trump and the Republicans turned their efforts to the second stage of their plan, exploitation of the Electoral College and the Electoral Count Act.
The Electoral College is the process by which Americans choose their presidents, a process that can lead to the election as president of a candidate who does not receive a majority of votes cast by the American voters. Republicans have grown increasingly wary of the Electoral College with the new census and political demographics of the nation’s shifting population.
The Electoral Count Act empowers Congress to decide the presidency in a host of circumstances where Congress determines that state electoral votes were not “regularly given” by electors who were “lawfully certified,” terms that are undefined and ambiguous. In this second stage of the plan, the Republicans needed to generate state-certified alternative slates of electors from swing states where Biden won the popular vote who would cast their electoral votes for Trump instead.
Congress would then count the votes of these alternative electoral slates on January 6, rather than the votes of the certified electoral slates for Biden, and Trump would be declared the reelected president.
The Republicans’ plan failed at this stage when they were unable to secure a single legitimate, alternative slate of electors from any state because the various state officials refused to officially certify these Trump-urged slates.
Thwarted by the Supreme Court in the first stage, foiled by their inability to come up with alternative state electoral slates in the second stage, and with time running out, Trump and the Republicans began executing the final option in their plan, which was to scare up illegitimate alternative electoral slates in various swing states to be transmitted to Congress. Whereupon, on January 6, Vice President Pence would count only the votes of the illegitimate electors from the swing states, and not the votes of the legitimate, certified electors that were cast for Biden, and declare Donald Trump’s reelection as President of the United States.
The entire house of cards collapsed at noon on January 6, when Pence refused to go along with the ill-conceived plan, correctly concluding that under the 12th Amendment he had no power to reject the votes that had been cast by the duly certified electors or to delay the count to give Republicans even more time to whip up alternative electoral slates.
Pence declared Joe Biden the 46th President of the United States at 3:40 a.m. on Thursday, January 7, roughly 14 hours after rioters stormed the US Capitol, disrupting the Joint Session and preventing Congress from counting the Electoral College votes for president until late that night and into the following day, after the statutorily designated day for counting those votes.
Trump and his allies and supporters in Congress and the states began readying their failed 2020 plan to overturn the 2024 presidential election later that very same day and they have been unabashedly readying that plan ever since, in plain view to the American public. Today, they are already a long way toward recapturing the White House in 2024, whether Trump or another Republican candidate wins the election or not.
Trump and Republicans are preparing to return to the Supreme Court, where this time they will likely win the independent state legislature doctrine, now that Amy Coney Barrett is on the Court and ready to vote. Barrett has not addressed the issue, but this turns on an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and Barrett is firmly aligned on that method of constitutional interpretation with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, all three of whom have written that they believe the doctrine is correct.
Only last month, in a case from North Carolina the Court declined to hear, Moore v. Harper, four Justices (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) said that the independent state legislature question is of exceptional importance to our national elections, the issue will continue to recur and the Court should decide the issue sooner rather than later before the next presidential election. This case involved congressional redistricting, but the independent state legislature doctrine is as applicable to redistricting as it is to presidential elections.
The Republicans are also in the throes of electing Trump-endorsed candidates to state legislative offices in key swing states, installing into office their favored state election officials who deny that Biden won the 2020 election, such as secretaries of state, electing sympathetic state court judges onto the state benches and grooming their preferred potential electors for ultimate selection by the party, all so they will be positioned to generate and transmit alternative electoral slates to Congress, if need be.
Finally, they are furiously politicking to elect Trump supporters to the Senate and House, so they can overturn the election in Congress, as a last resort.
Forewarned is to be forearmed.
Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine (thus allowing state court enforcement of state constitutional limitations on legislatively enacted election rules and elector appointments) and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress’ own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency.
Although the Vice President will be a Democrat in 2024, both parties also need to enact federal legislation that expressly limits the vice president’s power to be coextensive with the power accorded the vice president in the 12th Amendment and confirm that it is largely ceremonial, as Pence construed it to be on January 6.
Vice President Kamala Harris would preside over the Joint Session in 2024. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have any idea who will be presiding after that, however. Thus, both parties have the incentive to clarify the vice president’s ceremonial role now.
As it stands today, Trump, or his anointed successor, and the Republicans are poised, in their word, to “steal” from Democrats the presidential election in 2024 that they falsely claim the Democrats stole from them in 2020. But there is a difference between the falsely claimed “stolen” election of 2020 and what would be the stolen election of 2024. Unlike the Democrats’ theft claimed by Republicans, the Republicans’ theft would be in open defiance of the popular vote and thus the will of the American people: poetic, though tragic, irony for America’s democracy.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
GAP in TRUMP CALL LOGS on JAN. 6 'suspiciously tailored,' RASKIN SAYS
By Amy B Wang
The gap in phone logs in the official White House records on Jan. 6, 2021, is of “intense interest” to the House select committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Jamie B. Raskin said Sunday.
In an interview on CBS News’s “Face the Nation,” Raskin (D-Md.) noted that a 7½-hour gap in the phone logs for President Donald Trump’s communications that day covers the period when the Capitol assault was taking place.
Raskin said he and other Jan. 6 committee members have been able to piece together some of Trump’s activities during that time frame based on other people’s interviews and depositions, but holes remain.
“It’s a very unusual thing for us to find that suddenly everything goes dark for a seven-hour period in terms of tracking the movements and the conversations of the president,” Raskin said.
When asked if the gap could possibly be due to incompetence rather than conspiracy, Raskin said the committee was taking that into account. He added, however, that “the gaps are suspiciously tailored to the heart of the events” of Jan. 6, including when several lawmakers later said they were pleading with Trump to intervene. Raskin noted that the committee was aware that the president took part in calls during that time, “but we have no comprehensive, fine-grained portrait of what was going on during that period, and that’s obviously of intense interest to us.”
The bipartisan Jan. 6 panel is investigating the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob that tried to stop the confirmation of Joe Biden’s electoral college win. The attack led to five deaths and left some 140 members of law enforcement injured.
Trump has tried to assert executive privilege to withhold documents from the committee, which last year ordered the former president to provide records of all his actions and activities on Jan. 6. President Biden has rejected Trump’s claims of executive privilege.
Earlier this year, the National Archives and Records Administration turned over to the committee 11 pages of White House records from that day, including the president’s official daily diary and the White House switchboard call logs.
As first reported by The Washington Post and CBS News, those records did not include any documentation of calls placed to or by Trump from 11:17 a.m. to 6:54 p.m. on Jan. 6, 2021.
Raskin added that the committee’s mission is to get “a complete picture” of everything that took place on Jan. 6, as well as what needs to be done “to fortify democratic institutions and processes against future insurrections and coups and attempts to destabilize and overthrow our elections.”
Raskin said he hoped the committee would be able to begin holding long-delayed public hearings in May and was looking for connections between the violent insurrection at the Capitol and what he called the “attempt at an inside coup” orchestrated by Trump against the Constitution.
“I do feel confident we’re going to be able to tell that story,” Raskin said, adding, “Obviously, we’re up against a lot of obstruction now.”
Last week, the committee voted to hold two more former Trump aides — former trade and manufacturing director Peter Navarro and former communications chief Daniel Scavino Jr. — in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoenas. Raskin said the House probably would vote this week on whether to refer Navarro and Scavino to the Justice Department for prosecution.
Like Trump and a raft of other former aides, Navarro and Scavino have tried to claim they are protected by executive privilege and that the subpoenas were an overreach by the committee. They are among the latest in high-profile Trump White House officials facing repercussions for refusing to comply with the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoenas.
Last year, former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon was indicted on charges of contempt of Congress, which prompted warnings from some Republicans of “payback” that they could do the same to Democrats if they retake control of the House majority in November.
Mark Meadows, a former chief of staff in the Trump White House, also refused to cooperate with the committee, leading to the House voting to hold him in contempt of Congress as well in December.
Separately, a federal judge ruled last week that Trump “more likely than not” committed federal crimes in attempting to stop the confirmation of Biden’s electoral college win.
Asked about the judge’s comments Sunday, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who has defended Trump frequently and who voted to acquit Trump during his impeachment trials, was noncommittal.
“Well, federal judges say a lot of things and we’ll see how that comes through the process,” Blunt said on ABC News’s “This Week.” “I think the Justice Department has a job to do and they should do it and people who were involved in the planning or execution of illegal activities on Jan. 6 should be prosecuted.”
Bob Woodward and Robert Costa contributed to this report.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
WILL THERE be PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES in 2024?
Republicans cast doubt on the prospect
David Jackson
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – The Republican Party took a step closer Thursday to eliminating presidential debates in the fall of 2024, voting to stop working with the foundation that has organized such debates since 1987.
"The Commission on Presidential Debates is biased and has refused to enact simple and commonsense reforms to help ensure fair debates," said Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.
The move underscores how former President Donald Trump reshaped and continues to reshape the GOP, with his complaints about debates in 2016 and 2020 laying the groundwork for the possible withdrawal of Republican candidates in the future.
McDaniel and other party members who voted unanimously to withdraw from cooperation with the commission said they want "freer and fairer debate platforms." But it is unclear who might organize a new set of debates and whether the Democrats and their presidential candidate would agree to a new sponsor.
The RNC is also requiring Republicans to state in writing that they will only participate in party-sanctioned debates.
The Republicans are responding in part to complaints by Trump, who protested microphone muting and other aspects of his two debates against President Joe Biden in 2020. Trump refused to participate in one scheduled debate because the commission decided to hold it virtually instead of in-person because of the COVID pandemic.
And before the series of debates in 2016, Trump said he would prefer to face Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton without moderators because they were apt to "rig" the set-up against him.
McDaniel said the party would continue to sanction debates among GOP candidates competing in party primaries. This decision applies only to general elections sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Democrats said Republicans are just looking for excuses to avoid a presidential debate.
Jaime Harrison, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement that "after years of having their toxic policies exposed on the national stage, the RNC has decided they would rather hide their ideas and candidates from voters."
In recent negotiations, Republicans said they wanted the first debates of 2024 to be held before the start of early voting periods. They also sought more say-so over the appointment of debate moderators, claiming past ones have been biased against Republicans.
The commission said it was set up in 1987 "to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates between or among the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States are a permanent part of the electoral process."
Prior to Thursday's vote, the Republicans have sought to discourage corporate contributions to the commission.
When the Republicans threatened to withdraw from the process in February, the Commission on Presidential Debates said its "plans for 2024 will be based on fairness, neutrality and a firm commitment to help the American public learn about the candidates and the issues."
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
BIRX TESTIFIES that TRUMP's WHITE HOUSE FAILED to TAKE STEPS to PREVENT MORE VIRUS DEATHS.
By Michael D. Shear
- Oct. 26, 2021, 12:28 p.m. ET
Dr. Deborah Birx, who helped run the coronavirus pandemic response for former President Donald J. Trump, told congressional investigators earlier this month that Mr. Trump’s White House failed to take steps that could have prevented tens of thousands of deaths.In closed-door testimony before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Dr. Birx said that tens of thousands of deaths could have been prevented after the initial phase of the pandemic if Mr. Trump had pushed mask-wearing, social distancing and other efforts to slow the spread of the virus.“I believe if we had fully implemented the mask mandates, the reduction in indoor dining, the getting friends and family to understand the risk of gathering in private homes, and we had increased testing, that we probably could have decreased fatalities into the 30 percent less to 40 percent less range,” Dr. Birx testified, according to excerpts provided by the committee.The committee’s interview with Dr. Birx was conducted on Oct. 12 and 13. In her testimony, she also lashed out at Dr. Scott Atlas, a former Stanford neuroradiologist who became an adviser to Mr. Trump and advocated for allowing the virus to spread through much of the population in order to let otherwise healthy people build up immunity against it.
She told the committee that Dr. Atlas had relied on incomplete information to draw dangerous conclusions that she felt could have long-term consequences for people who were infected with the virus and got sick.“I was constantly raising the alert in the doctors’ meetings of the depth of my concern about Dr. Atlas’ position, Dr. Atlas’ access, Dr. Atlas’ theories and hypothesis, and the depths and breadths of my concern,” she said, referring to a group of doctors involved in the White House response who gathered regularly.Dr. Atlas did not immediately respond to an email sent Tuesday morning. But in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece last December, he continued to argue against lockdowns and other measures for containing the virus.“Lockdown policies had baleful effects on local economies, families and children, and the virus spread anyway,” he wrote.During her testimony, Dr. Birx said she repeatedly pushed Mr. Trump and others in the White House to do more to embrace efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus, especially in the fall of 2020. That was a period when Dr. Atlas was at the White House and Dr. Birx spent most of her time on the road, traveling from state to state to urge them to embrace prevention measures.Asked whether Mr. Trump did everything he should have to counter the pandemic, she said: “No. And I’ve said that to the White House in general, and I believe I was very clear to the president in specifics of what I needed him to do.”
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
OCTOBER 07, 2021
Following 8 Month Investigation, Senate Judiciary Committee Releases Report on Donald Trump's Scheme to Pressure DOJ & Overturn the 2020 Election
WASHINGTON – Following an eight-month investigation, the Senate Judiciary Committee today released new testimony and a staff report,
“Subverting Justice: How the Former President and his Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 Election.”
The report and testimony reveal that we were only a half-step away from a full blown constitutional crisis as President Donald Trump and his loyalists threatened a wholesale takeover of the Department of Justice (DOJ). They also reveal how former Acting Civil Division Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark became Trump’s Big Lie Lawyer, pressuring his colleagues in DOJ to force an overturn of the 2020 election.
The report sheds new light on Trump’s relentless efforts to coopt DOJ into overturning the 2020 election and Clark’s efforts to aid Trump. The Committee’s interim report is the first comprehensive accounting of those efforts, which were even more expansive and troubling than previously reported.
Based on findings from the investigation so far, the Committee has asked the D.C. Bar to open an investigation into Jeffrey Clark’s compliance with applicable rules of professional conduct. These rules include Rule 1.2, which prohibits attorneys from assisting or counseling clients in criminal or fraudulent conduct, and Rule 8.4, which among other things prohibits conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice. The Committee is withholding potential findings and recommendations about criminal culpability until the investigation is complete.
U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement on today’s report release:
“Today’s report shows the American people just how close we came to a constitutional crisis. Thanks to a number of upstanding Americans in the Department of Justice, Donald Trump was unable to bend the Department to his will. But it was not due to a lack of effort. Donald Trump would have shredded the Constitution to stay in power. We must never allow this unprecedented abuse of power to happen again.”
Key takeaways from the Committee’s investigation include:
- Previously-unreleased transcripts of the Committee’s closed-door interviews with three key former senior DOJ officials: former Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen, former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, and former U.S. Attorney BJay Pak. These witnesses cooperated with the Committee, and although their testimony was not under oath, they were obligated by 18 U.S.C. § 1001 to tell the truth.
- New details of Donald Trump’s relentless, direct pressure on DOJ’s leadership. This includes at least nine calls and meetings with Rosen and/or Donoghue starting the day former Attorney General Bill Barr announced his resignation and continuing almost until the January 6 insurrection—including near-daily outreach once Barr left DOJ on December 23.
- New details of then-Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division Jeffrey Clark’s misconduct, including his attempt to induce Rosen into helping Trump’s election subversion scheme by telling Rosen he would decline Trump’s offer to install him in Rosen’s place if Rosen agreed to aid that scheme.
- New details around Trump forcing the resignation of U.S. Attorney Pak because he believed Pak was not doing enough to support his false claims of election fraud in Georgia—and then went outside the line of succession to appoint Bobby Christine as Acting U.S. Attorney because he believed Christine would “do something” about his election fraud claims.
- New details of how, at Barr’s direction, DOJ deviated from decades-long practice meant to avoid inserting DOJ itself as an issue in the election—and instead aggressively pursued false claims of election fraud before votes were certified.
- Confirmation that Mark Meadows asked Rosen to initiate election fraud investigations on multiple occasions, violating longstanding restrictions on White House intervention in DOJ law enforcement matters—and new details about these requests, including that Meadows asked Rosen to meet with Trump’s outside lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Based on these findings, the interim report makes the following recommendations:
- Congress should strengthen longstanding DOJ and White House policies restricting the circumstances under which DOJ and White House officials can communicate with one another about specific law enforcement matters.
- DOJ should strengthen its longstanding election non-interference policy, which is meant to avoid inserting DOJ as an issue into a pending election.
- The D.C. Bar should scrutinize Clark’s compliance with applicable bar rules.
- The Committee is withholding potential recommendations about criminal culpability and criminal referrals until the investigation is complete.
In January 2021, following a report from The New York Times that detailed a plot between Trump and Clark to use DOJ to further Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election, Durbin led the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in a letter to then-Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson calling on him to preserve and produce all relevant materials in the DOJ’s possession, custody, or control related to this plot. This kicked off the Committee’s eight-month investigation. The Committee continues to seek records requested from the National Archives and Records Administration, which have not yet been supplied, and continues to pursue interviews with relevant individuals as part of this ongoing investigation.
A link to today’s report is available here.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
The best document thus far showing the scope and nature of the Jan 6th attack is from NYT Visual Investigations. I'd encourage anybody to watch it before drawing conclusions. The section relevant to Ashli Babbitt's shooting starts at 25:39 - 28:40.
- We should note that the small vanguard Babbitt was in had an opportunity to threaten House members because AZ -R Paul Gosar continued speaking for 15 minutes after lockdown was called. Gosar was one of the original organizers of the "Stop the Steal" movement and has been accused by multiple House members of orchestrating the attack. Gosar is also the first politician to start demanding the name of the officer who killed Ashli Babbitt, which is strange because almost nobody on Earth is in a better position to know that individual's identity than Gosar.
- Gosar was one of the last to leave the chamber so unlike us, he can see the identity of the officer on the far side of the door, protecting Gosar's escape.
- We can see from the video that the man holding the gun is wearing a suit and probably black.
- Metropolitan police confirmed that the shooter was a plainclothes Capitol Police officer.
- Given Gosar's proximity to the shooter and the fact that there can't have been many extra officers hanging around 90 minutes after the violence began I think its very likely that the shooter is the security officer seen advising the House to don masks at 26:09. That's the back of Gosar's head in the foreground.
- The Congressional Record only list the speaker as "a security officer" but its seems hard to believe that Gosar couldn't id a guy he works in the same room with all day or at least look him up in the congressional directory
- Further, it's public knowledge that the officer has not returned back to work. I might not be able to figure out who shot Babbitt from a list of black plainclothes floor security officers who haven't been to work for 6 months but I assume that's a simple task for Gosar.
- I see no reason not to conclude that Gosar's (and by extention, Trump's) supposed ignorance is all pantomime.
- Nevertheless, I think the shooter's name should be released. I understand this information exposes an officer who has already sacrificed much in service to our Legislature to increased vitriol and harm but I can't see how the public can maintain oversight of police violence without public access to individual names and records. Trump's reasons are entirely scummy but we should release the name anyway.
Here is Trump latest round of lies regarding his attempts to nullify by violence the voice and choice of the American people as expressed on Nov 2nd.
FOX's "Sunday Morning Futures." with Maria Bartiromo- Sunday, Jul 11
BARTIROMO:....And I know that you have had some time to reflect on what took place on that day, January 6.Talk to us about what you're thinking about as you reflect. What happened that day, from your standpoint?TRUMP: So, there was a big rally called. And, actually, when I say big, who knew? But there was a rally called.And a tremendous number of people, the largest one I have ever spoken before, is called by people, by patriots. And they asked me if I'd speak. And I did. And it was a very mild-mannered speech, as I think has been -- in fact, they just came out with a report in Congress, and they didn't mention my name, literally.
In fact, the report mentions Trump 27 times. The bipartisan report makes no judgement regarding Trump's claims of fraud in the election but explicitly credits failures in the Intelligence Committee, Dept of Defense, and the National Guard as largely contributing to harms of Jan 6th. Apparently, Trump didn't know he was in charge of those depts. The entirety of Trump's speech on that day is included in the report as relevant to the insurrectionists' mission.
But what they were complaining about and the reason, in my opinion, you had over a million people there, which the press doesn't like to report at all,
The permit for the event was bumped from 5,000 attendees to 30,000 on Jan 3rd. Best estimates of crowd size range between 8,000 and 30,000 attendees.
because it shows too much -- too much activity, too much -- too much spirit and faith and love. There was such love at that rally.
You had over a million people there. They were there for one reason, the rigged election. They felt the election was rigged. That's why they were there. And they were peaceful people. These were great people.The crowd was unbelievable. And I mentioned the word love. The love -- the love in the air, I have never seen anything like it.
And that's why they went to Washington.BARTIROMO: You know, Mr...(CROSSTALK)TRUMP: And, by the way, I can tell you that I thought -- because I was hearing from a lot of people there are going to be a lot of people coming there, much bigger than anybody ever anticipated by many times.And I had suggested to the secretary of defense, perhaps we should have 10,000 National Guardsmen standing by. And he reported that, as you know, but I -- we should have -- and he was turned down. I said, it's subject to Congress. They run it. Nancy Pelosi runs it. So, it would be subject to the Capitol Police and the other things, whatever they need.But I said, perhaps you need 10,000, because I think the crowd is going to be very large. Who knows? Maybe two people will show up. But I think it's going to be very large.Anyway, he had that. He went to them. They said it won't be necessary. They were the ones that were responsible. They were the ones. And this came out very loudly in the report.
The president, [Acting Defense Secretary Christopher ]Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. "We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And Trump goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’"
But Trump didn't ask for it, although as both Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard and leader of the Stop the Steal movement, only Trump had an accurate sense of what was needed and the capacity to meet that need. Miller and Pelosi both confirm that nobody talked to Pelosi's office and of course, the report comes to the opposite conclusion of Trump's assertion.
BARTIROMO: Yes, that report showed FBI operatives potentially aware.But there are unanswered questions here. What did the FBI know? Why weren't your Cabinet secretaries briefed? What did Speaker Pelosi know, Chuck Schumer, McConnell?Do you have any answers to that? They continue to call this an armed insurrection.TRUMP: Oh, I think they knew plenty.
Trump is here accusing Pelosi, Schumer, and McConnell of secretly knowing more about the size and intentions of Trump's own ally and faulting them for not requesting more help from him and the armed forces Trump commands while NOT faulting himself who is in ultimately in charge of both sides of the equation. How entirely disconnected from reality Trump seems to be. Naturally, the FOX interviewer has no curiosity regarding this claim.
BARTIROMO: And yet no guns were seized, Mr. President.TRUMP: Right. There were no guns whatsoever.
Let's recall that police weren't arresting or frisking the rioters so an accurate assessment is impossible Police report that at least hundreds of guns were in evidence on the rioters and plenty of holster bulges are in evidence on video. Of the 14 rioters arrested (mostly that vanguard held at gunpoint by police while evacuating the Senate), 2 were charged with carrying weapons without a permit. If we extrapolate that sampling percentage and apply to the 8,000 besieging the capitol we get more than a thousands guns but that's just speculation. Others arrested had pepper sprays, stun guns, tasers, brass knuckles, lead pipes, knives, and a whip. Police found a Tavor X95 rifle with a telescopic sight, a Glock 9 mm with high-capacity magazines and more than 2,500 rounds of ammunition, at least 320 rounds of armor-piercing bullets, an AR-15-style rifle, a shotgun, a crossbow, several machetes, smoke grenades and 11 Molotov cocktails in two cars owned by rioters parked near the Capitol. Two pipe bombs were discovered concealed next to the entrances to the RNC and DNC's national HQs.
And yet Antifa, which went into Portland and went into so many other places, Seattle -- they took over a big part of Seattle. People died. And there were plenty of guns there, by the way -- and in Minnesota, in Minneapolis. They got -- there was no repercussions for them. And yet they have people still in jail. There were no guns. There were no guns.
Of the 14,000+ charges associated with George Floyd protests, most were misdemeanors and a majority of charges have been dropped. Of the 500 felony charges brought, most are still pending trial. About 30% of all felony charges are associated with Portland rioters.
And, by the way, while you're at it, who shot Ashli Babbitt? Why are they keeping that secret? Who is the person that shot...BARTIROMO: Well...TRUMP: ... an innocent, wonderful, incredible woman, a military woman, right in the head? And there's no repercussions.
In fact, Babbit was shot once in the upper right chest.
If that were on the other side, it would be the biggest story in this country. Who shot Ashli Babbitt? People want to know, and why.BARTIROMO: Well, that's right.And I want to talk about that, because Ashli Babbitt, a wonderful woman, fatally shot on January 6 as she tried to climb out of a broken window.
That's quite false. Babbitt was climbing in through a window she and her band had just broken and that window was the last physical barrier between the rioters and the fleeing congressmen (including Gosar). The plainclothes policeman and his pistol were literally the last line of defense and Babbitt was the only rioter to breach that line. Of all the rioters that day, Veteran soldier Babbitt was the closest any got to their intended targets and the only who breached every line of defense. [27:50-28:40] The rioters at that door backed down pretty quickly after that single shot.
Her family has spoken out. Her family has been on "Tucker Carlson." And they want answers as far as why this wonderful woman, young woman who went to peaceful protests was shot.Do you have any information? There is speculation that this was a security detail in a leading member of Congress' security detail, a Democrat.(CROSSTALK)BARTIROMO: What can you tell us in terms of who shot Ashli Babbitt? What do you know, Mr. President?TRUMP: So -- so, I have heard that.I will tell you they know who shot Ashli Babbitt. They're protecting that person. I have heard also that it was the head of security for a certain high official, a Democrat.
Capitol Hill Police have confirmed that the shooter did not belong to any individual security detail.
And we will see, because it's going to come out. It's going to come out.
Again, there's no reason to think Trump can't have the name of Babbitt's shooter at will, since some of Trump's closes alliest were eye-witnesses to the shooting and were the very individuals being protected by that shooting from the breach by Babbitt. Those same Trump allies, Gosar, Biggs, and Brooks particularly voted against recognizing CHP valor in the wake of the attack. Gosar has refused to even shake hands or acknowledge the cops who may have saved his ass that day.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Nobody can deny that the Democrats have come more than halfway on the two major bills before Congress right now. Today is the first and largest test of Republicans willingness to actually do the job they were elected for.
Yesterday, Barack Obama threw his support behind Joe Manchin's scaled back voting rights compromise that must pass Republican filibuster today. Following Stacey Abrams endorsement last week, Obama is giving in on two long held principled objections to National VoterID and voter roll purging.
From this point forward, the only reason that VoterID, which enjoys 80% support nationally (84% minority voter support)is not law is Republican pigheadedness and pantswetting over Trump's stranglehold on the party apparatus. If Republicans block this bill today, Republicans will have unarguably justified the structural changes Democrats are considering to regain America's capacity to make law- first and foremost shifting the filibuster.
Here are the main points of Manchin's compromise bill:
1. Make election day a public holiday
2. Mandate at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections
(include 2 weekends)
3. Ban partisan gerrymandering and use computer models.
4. Require voter ID with allowable alternatives (utility bill, etc.) to prove
identity to vote
5. Automatic registration through DMV, with option to opt out.
6. Require states to promote access to voter registration and voting for persons
with disabilities and older individuals.
7. Prohibit providing false information about elections to hinder or discourage
voting and increases penalties for voter intimidation.
8. Require states to send absentee by mail ballots to eligible voters before an
election if voter is not able to vote in person during early voting or election
day due to eligible circumstance and allow civil penalty for failure.
9. Require the Election Assistance Commission to develop model training
programs and award grants for training.
10.Require states to notify an individual, not later than 7 seven days before
election, if his/her polling place has changed.
- Absentee ballots shall be carried expeditiously and free of postage.
- Require the Attorney General to develop a state-based response system
and hotline that provides information on voting.
11. Allow for maintenance of voter rolls by utilizing information derived from
state and federal documents.
12. Establish standards for election vendors based on cybersecurity concerns.
13. Allow provisional ballots to count for all eligible races regardless of
precinct.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics