#sure rep gohmert

[jewish-privilege]

A Google representative said Tuesday that hate “has no place on YouTube,” a platform the company runs, during a congressional hearing on the rise of hate crimes and white nationalism just after YouTube users spent more than an hour leaving vile messages on an official video feed of the event.

Alexandria Walden, a public policy counsel at Google focused on free expression and human rights, was among the witnesses called before the House Judiciary Committee. Shortly before she began speaking, the comments section of the committee’s official video stream of the hearing was shut off, having been filled with anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, racist and otherwise hateful notions.

“We are deeply troubled by the increase of hate and extremism in the world,” Walden said. “We take these issues seriously and want to be part of the solution.”

After describing the difficulty in identifying hate speech due to its reliance on context and noting how “borderline” hateful content can be pushed to the sidelines of the platform, Walden stated: “Hate speech and violent speech have no place on YouTube.”

What was happening on the live stream told a different story, however. Commenters were able to leave messages containing slurs for Jewish people and Muslims while others typed “14,” which refers to a white nationalist slogan, and “88,” which signals “Heil Hitler” in white nationalist circles.

Committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) pointed out that the comments had been turned off during the hearing and read a short selection of them. Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) cut in to ask whether the comments were somehow a “hoax.”

In November, the FBI reported that hate crimes had risen across the U.S. for the third consecutive year.

The committee’s hearing comes just weeks after a horrific mass shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, left 50 worshippers dead.

Many have suggested the massacre to be a tragic consequence of the spread of white nationalism around the world, aided by social media. The Christchurch shooter wrote a lengthy manifesto suggesting he had been motivated by white nationalist ideals and live-streamed 17 minutes of the shooting to Facebook through a body camera.

YouTube and Facebook were slammed for allowing the shooter’s gruesome video to proliferate across their platforms. Both companies were forced to play a game of whack-a-mole against users who uploaded copies of it en masse, raising questions about the tech giants’ ability to monitor and suppress hateful content.

Facebook Public Policy Director Neil Potts said at the hearing that white nationalist and hateful content was not permitted on the site “under any circumstances.” The social media giant just this week said it would ban white nationalist content.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A day before the 2020 presidential election, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas mugged for the camera wearing a Trump baseball cap with her friend Connie Hair, Chief of Staff to GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, at an event supporting the then-President in pictures posted on Facebook at the time.

A month later, in her now-infamous texts to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, referred to Hair and claims about election fraud while urging Meadows to fight the election result.

Around that same time, Hair's boss, Gohmert, filed or supported two lawsuits challenging the election that eventually landed before the Supreme Court.

Ginni Thomas' years-long relationship with Hair, including social outings that Clarence Thomas attended, as well as her texting with Meadows add another dimension to an ongoing debate over whether her husband should recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6 insurrection, especially when his wife is closely aligned to people who advocated overturning the election.

To be sure, Thomas and Hair were voicing their opinions on the election. At the same time, however, Hair was a top aide to a congressman who would file or sign on to election litigation that landed before the court where Thomas sits. And Hair herself posted on Facebook about the need to fight in court over the election.

"Was on a call with the Trump campaign manager and legal folks for a briefing this morning. WE ARE SEEING THIS THROUGH TO THE END OF THE COURT/COUNT BATTLE," Hair posted on November 7, four days after the election. And on November 21, Hair posted: "Massive amounts of voter fraud in big cities throughout the contested states."

It's rare for the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice to be so politically active, and legal ethicists say a line may be crossed when Ginni Thomas' interests collide with her husband's work. Some say the reputation of the Supreme Court is at stake.

"Mrs. Thomas has a First Amendment right to speak publicly and forcefully on issues that might come before the Supreme Court without thereby forcing recusal of her husband," said Stephen Gillers of NYU School of Law. "But in the current situation, her interests are caught up in cases that could come before the court."

Gillers believes that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from any upcoming cases concerning the Capitol attack. Following the revelation of the Meadows texts, Democratic senators have introduced legislation meant to address questions of recusal and other ethics issues.

Washington is a town where powerful people frequently hobnob, and Ginni Thomas maintains she kept her conservative political activism separate from her marriage. Her husband has not commented publicly on calls for him to recuse -- or even resign -- after his wife's texts to Meadows were revealed.

A friend of the Thomases who is familiar with the situation contends Ginni Thomas and Hair say they did not talk about specific cases that Gohmert was involved in and that Hair did not know about Gohmert's lawsuits before they were filed.

"Hair is a friend of Ginni Thomas," the source said. "They had a general concern about the election."

In the end, the high court took neither Gohmert's lawsuit against then-Vice President Mike Pence, nor a case from Texas that Gohmert supported against states that Donald Trump lost.

Ginni Thomas declined to comment to CNN through a lawyer.

Hair didn't respond to emailed questions about her interactions with the Thomases, nor did Gohmert's office.

Earlier this month, Gohmert defended the ethics of both Ginni and Clarence Thomas on the House floor, saying Ginni Thomas' activism shouldn't put pressure on the justice to recuse from any cases. Thomas returned to the bench in person at the Supreme Court this week, after being hospitalized for an illness around the same time that the news of his wife's communications with the Trump White House about the election broke.

"Now, Justice Thomas is being told he needs to recuse himself because he has a wife who thinks for herself. We can't have that, these liberals say. Yet the hypocrisy rises higher and higher with every comment they make about Justice Thomas and/or his wife," Gohmert said in his speech.

"What happened to the old ideas of liberals being these caring, compassionate people who would never judge one's spouse by the acts or thoughts of the other?" Gohmert added. "Well, those have gone by the wayside, and we see exactly what is at play here."

Ginni Thomas also has a close friendship with Meadows, and a case involving him landed before the Supreme Court in recent months. In that case, the court allowed the release of hundreds of documents from the Trump White House to the House Select Committee investigating January 6. Clarence Thomas was the only one to publicly dissent.

The documents in that case did not include Meadows' texts with Ginni Thomas that he had voluntarily turned over to the committee. The committee has said it will seek to interview Ginni Thomas, CNN has reported.

Dinners With Friends

The Thomases have kept in contact with Hair for years, according to several photos and messages shared on Facebook by Hair and others and obtained by CNN.

In 2016, Hair posted about attending a Colbie Caillat concert, sending her thanks for a "f un" evening to Ginni Thomas. Hair posed for photos with Clarence Thomas and at dinner with him, his wife and others the night of the concert, according to Facebook posts.

Hair has worked in Gohmert's office since 2010, according to congressional staffing records.

In 2017, she took a new round of pictures with Clarence and Ginni Thomas, this time inside the justice's chambers. That day, January 20, 2017, Clarence Thomas had sworn in Pence as Vice President. In her Facebook post, Hair calls the Thomases "great friends."

And in 2019, Hair took part in a meeting at the White House with Trump and Ginni Thomas to discuss hiring more Trump loyalists in his administration, according to a senior Trump administration official.

Over the past decade, Ginni Thomas and Hair's photos together and posts tagging each other are numerous.

Then after the 2020 election and January 6 Capitol riot, Hair on her Facebook wall shared coverage of Clarence Thomas dissenting on a Supreme Court election case, writing, "GOD BLESS HIM." The case was a too-late attempt by Pennsylvania Republicans to challenge the state's use of mail-in ballots, and Thomas expressed a fear that mail-in balloting could allow for fraud in future elections.

And in text messages to Meadows, which CNN obtained last month, Ginni Thomas quotes Hair in November 2020 as she implores the Trump White House to stick with its claims of election fraud.

"This war is psychological. PSYOP. It's what I did in the military. They are using every weapon they have to try to make us quit... It is fake, fraud and if people would take a deep breath and look at things through that filter we will see this through and win," Ginni Thom as texted Meadows on November 14, 2020.

She then cites Hair's name in the text, implying the words came from her friend. The source familiar with the Thomases said Ginni Thomas was cutting and pasting Hair's own words from another text chain, to send to Meadows.

Gohmert Headed To SCOTUS

Soon after these texts, Gohmert's office took part in two cases that challenged the election result at the Supreme Court.

First, Texas' attorney general went straight to the high court to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin -- all swing states Joe Biden had won -- claiming they had conducted their elections unconstitutionally.

The case theoretically could have given the Supreme Court the power to throw out the presidential election result. Gohmert was one of 126 Republican members of Congress to sign on to an amicus brief supporting Texas before the high court.

On December 11, just days after the case had been filed, a majority of justices rejected the attempt, saying Texas had not shown it had the legal right to challenge how another state conducts its election.

Clarence Thomas signed on to a two-sentence statement, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, arguing a procedural point that the court should not have dismissed the case outright because it fell under the court's "original jurisdiction." But importantly, Thomas and Alito did note that they would grant no other relief to Texas in the case.

A source close to Thomas believes that the justice's position on that case and others shows he was not swayed by his wife's interests.

Even with that swift loss at the Supreme Court, Gohmert's office wasn't finished aiming election challenges at the high court.

In late December, Gohmert tried with a case of his own. The congressman sued Pence directly. The lawsuit asked the court to force Pence to stop the Electoral College certification of Biden's win.

That prompted Pence's lawyers to speak up in court, asking a federal judge to dismiss Gohmert's case. It was a crucial early moment of the vice president publicly defending his role of presiding over the Senate. Pence has stood by his position that the vice president couldn't overturn the election and courts should not have either.

The Gohmert case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court on January 6, the day of the Electoral College certification.

"Our nation stands at the crossroads of a Constitutional crisis fraught by chaos and turmoil brought into play by a viral plague, anti-democratic interference from d omestic and foreign sources, and hastily enacted State voting measures ostensibly placed to protect voters from catching the plague," Gohmert's filing said.

The court denied its request the next day, with no dissents noted.

[popolitiko]

A Republican lawmaker just asked the dumbest question imaginable at a hearing.🤦‍♂️

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) asked during a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing if the National Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management could change the orbits of the moon and Earth in order to help address climate change. Gohmert's office did not respond to CNN's requests to clarify his remarks.

Comments

When I heard about this as reported by Forbes, I thought it was a joke. How could that woman keep a straight face? Great commentary.

Louie "Gomer's Pile" Gohmert, ladies and gentleman. God's gift to stupidity.

Trump : Nobody will outdo me in stupidity when I say- "why not inject disinfectant to fight coronavirus?" Louie gomert: Hold my Beer 🍺

Sure, Louis, attempting to change the earth’s and moon’s orbits would be SOOOO much less expensive than what can be done here on earth!

Remember: people voted for this man. Fund public education already. This world have profound effects.

I'm impressed by that woman's resolve to stay calm, i would've laughed my *ss off if i was in her place😂🤣.

That poor lady. See how she paused before she answered and THEN EVEN smiled through her answer. No one takes Gohmert serious, NO ONE! LMBO!!

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 26, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

As the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol starts its work, former president Trump and his supporters are consolidating their power over the Republican Party. Through it, they hope to control the nation.

Trump this morning tried to assert his dominance over the party by issuing a statement in which he demanded that Republican senators scrap the infrastructure bill that has been more than three months in the making. Although he did not note any specific provisions in the bill, he claimed that senators were getting “savaged” in the negotiations because Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “and his small group of RINOs wants nothing more than to get a deal done at any cost to prove that he can work with the Radical Left Democrats.” Trump ordered lawmakers not to do an infrastructure deal “until after we get proper election results in 2022 or otherwise…. Republicans,” he ordered, “don’t let the Radical Left play you for weak fools and losers!”

The term “RINO” comes from the 1990s, when the Movement Conservatives taking over the Republican Party used it to discredit traditional Republicans as “Republicans In Name Only.” It reversed reality—the Movement Conservatives were the RINOs, not the other way around—but it worked. Movement Conservatives, who wanted to get rid of the New Deal and take the government back to the 1920s, pushed aside traditional Republicans who agreed with Democrats that the government should regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, and promote infrastructure.

Now, the former president is doing the same thing: claiming that the Movement Conservatives who now dominate the leadership of the Republican Party are not really Republicans. True Republicans, he says, are those loyal only to him.

He is using the infrastructure bill as a loyalty test. The reality is that an infrastructure package is very popular, and walking away from it will cost Republicans in states that are not fully under Trump’s sway. A new poll by the Associated Press and NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC is the nonpartisan National Opinion Research Center affiliated with the university) finds that 83% of Americans, including 79% of Republicans and 80% of Independents, want funding for roads, bridges, and ports. Sixty-six percent of Americans, including 43% of Republicans and 53% of Independents, want to pay for it with higher taxes on corporations.

Walking away from those kinds of numbers seems like political poison, and yet the discussions to whip the bipartisan bill into shape seemed to veer off track today.

The demand for Republican loyalty is playing out as the January 6 committee gets down to business. Organizing that committee has driven a wedge through Republican lawmakers. After an initial period in which leaders like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) expressed outrage and a desire to learn what had created the January 6 crisis, the leaders have lined up behind the former president. Emboldened, Trump’s supporters have become more aggressive in their insistence that they, not those interested in stopping a future insurrection, are the good guys.

After Republican senators rejected the establishment of a bipartisan select commission and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) set up a House select committee instead, McCarthy tried to sabotage the committee by putting on it two extreme Trump supporters out of the five slots he was assigned. He named Jim Jordan (R-OH) but pretty clearly expected Pelosi would toss him and put up with Jim Banks (R-IN), whom McCarthy had named the ranking member of the committee. Banks was on record attacking the committee as a leftist plot, and could undermine the committee’s work while getting enough media time to launch him as a national political candidate (his hiring of Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson’s son long before this indicated his hope for good media coverage for a possible swing at a higher office).

But Pelosi didn’t play. She refused to accept either Jordan or Banks, prompting McCarthy to pull all five of his nominees. She had already chosen Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) as one of her eight seats on the committee; yesterday she added Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) as well. Both Cheney and Kinzinger are Movement Conservatives, but they are not willing to jump on the Trump bandwagon.

Today, when PBS correspondent Yamiche Alcindor asked McCarthy what he thought of Cheney and Kinzinger’s participation on the committee, he called them “Pelosi Republicans.” He has suggested that they might face sanctions from the party for their cooperation with the committee.

Both Cheney and Kinzinger voted for Trump. Cheney voted with Trump more than 90% of the time. Kinzinger voted with him 99% of the time in the president’s first two years in office. Trying to make them into Democrats because they did not support the insurrection is a double-edged sword. McCarthy is trying to read them out of the Republican Party, for sure, but he is also tying the entire party to Trump, and it seems likely—from Trump’s rising panic, if nothing else—that the committee will discover things that will not show the former president and his supporters in a good light.

Today Representative Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), chair of the select committee and of the House Homeland Security Committee, published an op-ed in the Washington Post. He noted that in a recent CBS News survey, 72% of Americans said they thought there was more to learn about what happened on January 6. He promised that “nothing will be off-limits” as the committee figures out “what happened, why and how. And we will make recommendations to help ensure it never happens again.”

Along with Thompson, Liz Cheney will deliver opening remarks from the committee before it begins to hear the testimony of Capitol Police.

But McCarthy and other Trump supporters are doing all they can to derail the investigation into what happened on January 6. The committee’s work is not a criminal investigation: that is the job of the Department of Justice, which has already charged more than 535 people for their actions in the insurrection. The committee will try to piece together the events leading up to January 6, along with why the response from law enforcement was so delayed. It will look at the response of the White House, as well as the funders and organizers of the rallies of January 5 and 6. It will look at members of Congress, and how they intersected with the events of that day.

Politico’s congressional reporter Olivia Beavers reported that McCarthy will try to counter the committee’s first hearing tomorrow morning with a press conference. Sometime later in the day, Representatives Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ), staunch and vocal Trump supporters all, are planning a press conference outside the Department of Justice, where they plan to demand “answers on the treatment of January 6th prisoners” from Attorney General Merrick Garland.

One of the hallmarks of a personality like that of former president Donald Trump is that he cannot stop escalating. It’s not that he won’t stop; it’s that he can’t stop. And he will escalate until someone finally draws a line and holds it.

—-

Notes:

Cheney:

BrooklynDad_Defiant! @mmpadellanRep. Liz Cheney will be delivering the opening remarks of the January 6th hearing before Capitol Police testify. This should be...interesting.1,762 Retweets13,293 Likes

July 26th 2021

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-rino-rino-rino

https://apnorc.org/projects/views-on-the-infrastructure-bill/

Yamiche Alcindor @YamicheI asked Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy what he makes of GOP Reps Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger sitting on the January 6th Select Committee. He replied in two words here at the WH: “Pelosi Republicans.”842 Retweets4,461 Likes

July 26th 2021

https://www.oneillinois.com/stories/2021/1/8/kinzinger-voted-for-with-trump-before-turning

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/26/cheney-mccarthy-jan-6-investigation-500741

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-opinion-poll/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/26/bennie-thompson-jan-6-investigation/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bipartisan-infrastructure-talks-in-dire-state-ahead-of-pivotal-week/ar-AAMzKuV

Olivia Beavers @Olivia_BeaversGOP Strategy: 2 sources tell me House Rs — including members McCarthy picked to serve on the 1/6 select panel and then pulled & likely Scalise/Stefanik — will hold a presser tomorrow AM to try to counter Dems’ messaging about the 1/6 probe ahead of committee’s first hearing.103 Retweets269 Likes

July 26th 2021

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-arrests-latest-2021-07-22/

https://www.justsecurity.org/77588/questions-the-january-6-select-committee-should-ask-its-witnesses/

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime/where-things-stand-july-26-2021-tomorrow-sinister-counter-programming

https://www.axios.com/jan-6-graphic-footage-capitol-attack-041e0422-42b7-4f4b-8d1b-bc55612733b8.html

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[96thdayofrage]

Since the attack, House members, who were forced to evacuate the chamber after it was stormed by pro-Trump insurrectionists, have been debating the potential creation of an independent investigative commission, after the pattern of the one formed following 9/11, to investigate the January 6 riot.

And as of Friday, when the leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee announced a bipartisan agreement on its formation, that commission looks closer than ever — much to McCarthy’s potential discomfort, should he be called to testify.

Specifically, if McCarthy testifies either voluntarily or under subpoena as part of the commission’s investigation, he could be faced with the prospect of bridging the rather large gap between Trump — who has shown no inclination to relinquish his grasp on the Republican Party — and the truth of what happened at the Capitol on January 6.

As CNN and other outlets have reported previously — and pro-impeachment Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) confirmed in a statement in February — McCarthy spoke with Trump while the riot was still ongoing and pleaded with Trump to call his supporters off.

According to Herrera Beutler, Trump “initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol” on the call with McCarthy.

Subsequently, Herrera Beutler said in her February statement, “McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said: ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’”

Other Republicans have corroborated Trump’s state of mind as the attack was unfolding. According to Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), “Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building.”

If McCarthy is called on to substantiate Herrera Beutler’s account of the McCarthy-Trump call for the commission, however, it would likely also put McCarthy in an awkward position politically.

That’s because McCarthy’s call with Trump — which reportedly took place as rioters were attempting to break through the minority leader’s office windows — is a reminder of the true severity of the January 6 attack, and of Trump’s support for the mob, who he described as “very special” in a video later the same day. It’s also increasingly out of step with a Republican conference eager to downplay the insurrection and a former president who is hypersensitive to criticism — and it’s hard to imagine McCarthy looking forward to giving a faithful retelling of January 6 to a potential commission.

The commission plan isn’t a sure thing yet

Despite Upton’s and Cheney’s comments, however, there are still lots of “ifs” floating around any potential McCarthy testimony — like the commission itself. Though Friday’s agreement between House Homeland Security Committee chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and ranking member John Katko (R-NY) gives the commission at least a veneer of bipartisanship, it’s less clear how much support the proposal will find with House GOP leadership.

Katko, specifically, is an outlier — one of just 10 House Republicans to support impeaching Trump — and his conference just purged the only member of leadership, Cheney, who likewise voted to impeach Trump for inciting insurrection.

For now, McCarthy has yet to come down either for or against the plan — telling reporters Friday that he hadn’t approved the deal and wants to see more details — but a vote on the measure could be coming “as soon as next week,” according to the statement released by Thompson.

“Inaction — or just moving on — is simply not an option,” Thompson said Friday. “The creation of this commission is our way of taking responsibility for protecting the U.S. Capitol. ... we owe it to the Capitol police and all who enter our citadel of democracy to investigate the attack.”

There are also questions about whether a McCarthy subpoena could materialize even if the commission is established in its proposed form.

McCarthy will likely get a say in selecting half of the commission

According to the statement released Friday by Thompson, the independent commission would consist of 10 total members appointed by a bipartisan, bicameral leadership group — five by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), including the commission chair, and five by McCarthy himself and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), including a vice chair.

None of those members may be sitting members of Congress or current government employees, according to Thompson, and they must all have “significant expertise in the areas of law enforcement, civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, intelligence, and cybersecurity.”

But though the commission would have subpoena power in its proposed form, actually issuing a subpoena would require at least limited bipartisan consensus — either an agreement between the chair and vice chair, or a simple majority vote.

In other words, McCarthy will have a direct hand in choosing enough commission members to block the subpoena process if they vote as a bloc, which could make Upton and Cheney’s suggestion that McCarthy be subpoenaed aspirational at best.

The Republican conference is trying to whitewash the insurrection

If the commission proposal, which calls for a final report and “recommendations to prevent future attacks on our democratic institutions” to be issued by the end of this calendar year, does come to fruition, it could be a valuable reminder of what actually occurred on January 6 — something which some House Republicans appear increasingly fuzzy about.

In the past week alone, the GOP effort to whitewash the insurrection, which injured 140 members of law enforcement, has kicked into high gear.

On Wednesday, for example, in a committee hearing on the attack, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) said that “there was no insurrection and to call it an insurrection, in my opinion, is a boldfaced lie.”

“Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking videos and pictures,” Clyde said. “You know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”

Clyde isn’t alone — also this week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said that “there’s no evidence this was an armed insurrection,” and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) described the insurrectionists as “peaceful patriots.”

Needless to say, all three statements (and there are several others in the same vein just from this week) are flat-out false — and there’s abundant video evidence to prove it.

In addition to all of the footage that has already emerged from the riot — much of which is graphic and disturbing — CNN just this week obtained new bodycam video showing a DC Metropolitan Police officer, Michael Fanone, being attacked by the mob.

According to CNN, Fanone was “stun-gunned several times and beaten with a flagpole” by Trump supporters. He also suffered a “mild” heart attack, according to the Washington Post, and at least one insurrectionist shouted that the mob should “kill [Fanone] with his own gun!”

As the Washington Post editorial board argued on Friday, it’s no sure thing that the 9/11-style commission agreed on by Thompson and Katko will stop Republicans from pushing a false, revisionist account of January 6.

“But,” the board writes, “as [the commission] answers outstanding questions about how the riot occurred and who is responsible — in part, we hope, by taking the sworn testimony of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other eyewitness lawmakers — the panel ought to make it harder for Republicans to twist the truth.”

Upton himself has made the same point: In the same CNN interview Sunday, he told Bash that his colleagues’ claims that the attack was “peaceful” were “absolutely bogus.”

“I saw the gallows that were constructed on the East Front of the Capitol,” Upton said. “It was chilling, what happened, absolutely chilling. And that’s why I think that it’s important that we move forward with this bipartisan commission.”

[ahnsael]

These days, I don’t hold 100% hope in the process working as intended. But this is what it would take for Congress to overturn the election.

While the sheer amount of Republicans willing to sell their souls to Trump is frightening, and while pretty much all of the rules are out the window these days, this gives me hope that in just under two weeks we will have a new democratically elected President. But January 6th is going to be HUGE in getting us to January 20th, when Biden would be sworn in as long as the results stand and there isn’t enough underhanded subterfuge to undo the will of the people in a land that purports to want to spread democracy around the world.

I feel good about our chances, but I also get that all bets are off this year. Nothing is normal or going according to plan. So I’ll be curious to see what I see in the news tomorrow night when I get up for work. Of course, I’ll also be curious to see what’s in the news tonight, since today is the day of the Georgia run-off elections that will decide the balance of power in the Senate.

(I don’t talk as much about politics as I used to but these are unprecedented scenarios in unprecedented times; those of you who know me know how I feel, and the rest of you can probably make an accurate guess -- while things may go the way I want, there WAS Rep. Gohmert saying that “street violence” was the only recourse for Republicans after his suit against Mike Pence was dismissed (and they’re not the only ones, as seen in this tweet from the Arizona Republican Party’s official account:)

And I DO genuinely worry about a second civil war...during a pandemic...over a genuine and clear election result and a bunch of sore losers).

Sure, I didn’t like the results in 2016. But I never challenged the legitimacy of the election (other than complaining about the electoral college, while accepting that Trump won under the rules in place). For a sitting President to be throwing such a temper tantrum that he has filed over 50 lawsuits (most of which were thrown out, including by judges that Trump appointed because even THEY know that Trump is being delusional), is just pathetic. But Trump’s minions are so brainwashed that anything could happen. Life is hard enough right now. The last thing we need is to go to war over Trump’s extremely large but misplaced ego, and the fools who have bought into it.

[realifezompire]

The names of the 106 House Republicans who are trying to overturn the election results

What was it called the last time they tried to commit treason like this? A confederacy? I guess that’s why they kept all those flags.

Remember their names. Spread this post. Make sure they never hold office again.

Here are their names:

Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. Gary Palmer of Alabama’s 6th Congressional District

Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. Ralph Abraham of Louisiana’s 5th Congressional District

Rep. Rick W. Allen of Georgia’s 12th Congressional District

Rep. James R. Baird of Indiana’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana’s 3rd Congressional District

Rep. Jack Bergman of Michigan’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona’s 5th Congressional District

Rep. Gus Bilirakis of Florida’s 12th Congressional District

Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District

Rep. Mike Bost of Illinois’s 12th Congressional District

Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas’s 8th Congressional District

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama’s 5th Congressional District

Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. Ted Budd of North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District

Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee’s 2nd Congressional District

Rep. Michael C. Burgess of Texas’s 26th Congressional District

Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Ken Calvert of California’s 42nd Congressional District

Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter of Georgia’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Ben Cline of Virginia’s 6th Congressional District

Rep. Michael Cloud of Texas’s 27th Congressional District

Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas’s 11th Congressional District

Rep. Rick Crawford of Arkansas’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas’s 2nd Congressional District

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida’s 25th Congressional District

Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina’s 3rd Congressional District

Rep. Neal P. Dunn of Florida’s 2nd Congressional District

Rep. Tom Emmer of Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District

Rep. Ron Estes of Kansas’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. Drew Ferguson of Georgia’s 3rd Congressional District

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann of Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District

Rep. Bill Flores of Texas’s 17th Congressional District

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina’s 5th Congressional District

Rep. Russ Fulcher of Idaho’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Greg Gianforte of Montana’s at-large congressional district

Rep. Bob Gibbs of Ohio’s 7th Congressional District

Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Lance Gooden of Texas’s 5th Congressional District

Rep. Sam Graves of Missouri’s 6th Congressional District

Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District

Rep. Michael Guest of Mississippi’s 3rd Congressional District

Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Vicky Hartzler of Missouri’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana’s 3rd Congressional District

Rep. Trey Hollingsworth of Indiana’s 9th Congressional District

Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina’s 8th Congressional District

Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan’s 2nd Congressional District

Rep. Bill Johnson of Ohio’s 6th Congressional District

Rep. John Joyce of Pennsylvania’s 13th Congressional District

Rep. Fred Keller of Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District

Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania’s 16th Congressional District

Rep. Trent Kelly of Mississippi’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Steve King of Iowa’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. David Kustoff of Tennessee’s 8th Congressional District

Rep. Darin LaHood of Illinois’s 18th Congressional District

Rep. Doug LaMalfa of California’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado’s 5th Congressional District

Rep. Robert E. Latta of Ohio’s 5th Congressional District

Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona’s 8th Congressional District

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District

Rep. Kenny Marchant of Texas’s 24th Congressional District

Rep. Roger Marshall of Kansas’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Tom McClintock of California’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington’s 5th Congressional District

Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania’s 9th Congressional District

Rep. Carol D. Miller of West Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District

Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. Alex X. Mooney of West Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District

Rep. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma’s 2nd Congressional District

Rep. Gregory Murphy of North Carolina’s 3rd Congressional District

Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District

Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania’s 14th Congressional District

Rep. Tom Rice of South Carolina’s 7th Congressional District

Rep. John Rose of Tennessee’s 6th Congressional District

Rep. David Rouzer of North Carolina’s 7th Congressional District

Rep. John Rutherford of Florida’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia’s 8th Congressional District

Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho’s 2nd Congressional District

Rep. Adrian Smith of Nebraska’s 3rd Congressional District

Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri’s 8th Congressional District

Rep. Ross Spano of Florida’s 15th Congressional District

Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York’s 21st Congressional District

Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania’s 15th Congressional District

Rep. Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District

Rep. William Timmons of South Carolina’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. Ann Wagner of Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District

Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan’s 7th Congressional District

Rep. Michael Waltz of Florida’s 6th Congressional District

Rep. Randy Weber of Texas’s 14th Congressional District

Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida’s 11th Congressional District

Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio’s 2nd Congressional District

Rep. Bruce Westerman of Arkansas’s 4th Congressional District

Rep. Roger Williams of Texas’s 25th Congressional District

Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina’s 2nd Congressional District

Rep. Rob Wittman of Virginia’s 1st Congressional District

Rep. Ron Wright of Texas’s 6th Congressional District

Rep. Ted S. Yoho of Florida’s 3rd Congressional District

Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York’s 1st Congressional District

Source: (x)

[go-redgirl]

Exclusive – Congressional Leaders Seek to Mobilize Republican Voters in Georgia: ‘This Is the Super Bowl’

CANTON, Georgia — Congressional leaders, including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA), and Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), told Breitbart News during exclusive interviews Saturday that electing Sens. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) and David Perdue (R-GA) remains essential to preserving American freedom and vanquishing the prospect of socialism in Congress.

The Save America Coalition — a coalition of conservative activist organizations such as Club for Growth Action, FreedomWorks, and Tea Party Patriots — launched a statewide tour to save the Republican majority by electing Loeffler and Perdue.

To spur conservatives’ enthusiasm for voting in the pivotal January runoffs, the Save America Coalition enlisted prominent conservatives such as Jordan, the House Judiciary Committee ranking member and Freedom Caucus cofounder; Hice, a Freedom Caucus member; Daines, a conservative senator from Montana; and Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene, a conservative who just got elected to Congress.

Club for Growth Action President David McIntosh led the Save America Coalition’s tours on Saturday in Duluth at the Gwinnett County GOP headquarters and in Canton.

McIntosh told Breitbart News in an interview after the Duluth event that the Save America bus tour is designed to boost Republican turnout ahead of the January runoffs. The event featured roughly 100 attendees.

Other Republicans such as Reps. Ken Buck (CO), Louie Gohmert (TX), and Andy Biggs (AZ) spoke at the event in Duluth, while Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) spoke at the Canton event. The event in Canton featured Lee Greenwood, the acclaimed country music singer and songwriter.

“Everything we do, we have to encourage people to vote and tell them how important it is. And it’s not just about these two candidates, it’s about saving the Senate, about saving America from the socialist Democrat agenda,” McIntosh said.

He added that Club for Growth Action hopes to utilize their hundreds of activists to knock on one million doors between now and the January 5 runoffs, send two million texts, and send out five million pieces of mail.

Jordan told Breitbart News that grassroots Republicans understand that the stake for the Georgia runoffs is whether “America will stay America.”

Daines explained to Breitbart News that many of President Donald Trump’s accomplishments were achieved by very close votes in the Senate, oftentimes achieved by having Vice President Mike Pence break the tie in Congress’s upper chamber.

 On the obverse side, this would mean that if Loeffler and Perdue lose in January and Democrats gain the Senate majority, then a potential Joe Biden administration could enact its agenda with the help of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), the likely next vice president, as the tiebreaking vote in the Senate.

“Every one of these votes we have taken whether you look at Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett has been just razor-thin margins. In fact, Vice President Mike Pence broke 13 ties when he was vice president,” Daines told Breitbart News during the Save America Coalition event in Canton. 

“That’s the most for any vice president since 1876 so that’s just how thin the margins are. It all comes down to Georgia. This is the Super Bowl. We hold Georgia, we hold the Senate. We lose Georgia, we lose the Senate. And it’s as simple as that.”

Daines, who fended off a challenge this year from Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D), said that the January runoffs will be decided by whichever side gets its base out. Daines’s reelection was considered one of the pivotal races needed for Republicans to maintain the majority during the 2020 Senate races.

“Turnout is everything. It’s who shows up. It’s pretty simple — whoever gets the most votes wins,” Daines said.

“That’s the purpose of this tour, to get the base mobilized and make sure they start voting on December 14 for early voting,” the Montana senator noted.

Greene, the congresswoman-elect for Georgia’s 14th Congressional District, told Breitbart News that the stakes could not be higher for the country.

“I was saying President Trump’s election is the most important election in history. It’s our Senate seats, and it’s coming down to Georgia,” she charged.

Greene added that preserving the Republican majority would allow for the Senate to investigate alleged corruption with the Biden family and stop Democrats from further entrenching their power in Congress.

“It’s also about investigating the Biden crime family, Hunter Biden, James Biden, and Joe Biden. It’s also things like protecting the filibuster, stopping them from adding more states to our country; it’s packing our courts, which is what they want to do. And if the Senate goes to the Democrats and Joe Biden is in the White House, and Nancy Pelosi has control of Congress, we’re possibly looking at the end of Republicans being able to win moving forward,” she said.

Hice, the congressman for Georgia’s 10th Congressional District, explained to Breitbart News the benefit of Perdue and Loeffler being political outsiders with backgrounds in business.

“Most of the base recognizes that we’re in the fight of our life for this country. Primarily we have two candidates on the other side who are outright socialist and Marxist, and this election is going to determine the direction of the country, not only the balance of power but the direction of political philosophy be it an America of limited government, maximum freedom versus socialism. The people on the ground are recognizing that they understand the enormous importance of that,” he said.

READ MORE STORIES ABOUT:

2020 Election Politics David Perdue Donald Trump Georgia Jim Jordan Jody Hice Joe Biden Kamala Harris Kelly Loeffler Marjorie Taylor Greene On the Hill Raphael Warnock Steve Daines

[newagesispage]

                                                                JANUARY                                    2020

PAGE  RIB

 Lots of nominations are out. I do have some faves: The Grammy’s went crazy for Lizzo and Billie Eilish. The comedy recording noms went to Trevor Noah, Ellen, Aziz, Gaffigan and Dave Chappelle.**The Sag’s gave love to Leo and Brad for Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood, Of course, Joaquin was nominated for Joker. Most noms went to JJ Rabbit, The Irishman and Bombshell.  In TV there was much ado about The Morning Show, The Crown, Barry, Big Little Lies, Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel and Schitt’s Creek.** The Golden Globes which will air on Jan. 5 were full of great choices. Fingers crossed for Joaquin Phoenix and Todd Phillips for Joker, Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood and Quentin and Brad and Leo, Knives Out, Kathy Bates, Jodie Comer, Olivia Coleman, Billy Porter, Bill Hader and Henry Winkler and Barry. I hope good things for The Crown, Succession, Patricia Arquette, Helena Bonham Carter, Brian Cox and Kieran Culkin. Ellen DeGeneres will get the Carol Burnett award and Tom Hanks will receive the Cecil B. DeMille award.

*****

And Hooray to Schitt’s Creek for their PSA at the end of an episode that was about a character coming out to his parents. The promo gave resources to turn to for help.**The crew met up recently at the Paley Fest after the end of the series.

*****

Finally.. The Pope has abolished pontifical secrecy. It’s 2020 and the church may finally stop protecting predators. The age of consent for their porn was raised from 14 to 18 to keep up with modern times.

*****

Days of our Lives has been renewed for another year. We are safe until September 2021.**I am really hating Kate right now. I wish Rolf would take them all down.  I am quite thru with the ‘acting’ of pushing buttons on phones and computers which leads us to read their messages on the screen. I do not like it in real life and I don’t want to watch it. Boring!!

*****

The Patriot act has been reauthorized.

*****

Sara Gilbert has separated from wife Linda Perry.

*****

Sharon Stone was blocked on Bumble because users thought it wasn’t really her, it was and her account was restored.

*****

The new film, Linda Ronstadt: the sound of my voice shows just how far her reach has been.

*****

Kudos to Eddie Murphy and company for the fab ‘Dolemite is my name.’

*****

I saw that the Bachelor is back. Is that horrid show still on?

*****

Steve Bullock is out.** Kamala Harris is out. Scary Clown tweeted: Too bad. We’ll miss you Kamala. She tweeted back: Don’t worry Mr. President, I’ll see you at your trial.** Biden is on the No Malarkey tour.

*****

Willie Nelson has reportedly quit smoking weed.

*****

Word is that Trump wears Switzerland’s Bronx face makeup for that orange glow.** Have you seen Rand Paul lately. He seems to have taken on a similar look to his President with the big white puffy eyes and that deranged look. What is going on with these people?

*****

Woody Harrelson and Justin Theroux will star in a series about Watergate from the Veep team.

*****

Billy Dee Williams tells us that he identifies as male and female.

*****

About 1 million kids are getting thrown off lunch subsidies and other programs.** A recent Rolling Stone article explains the evangelical support of Trump.  An early campaign meeting with religious leaders promised to fuck with the rights of transgender folks, abortion rights and to leave climate change alone because of the belief that God will control that. So, with that thinking should we shut down the factories because those are man made? Should we all be Christian scientists and not practice medicine anymore? Word is that the big money donors for Trump are helping to prop up their institutions and charities. **Christianity Today magazine : Trump should be removed from office. To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, remember who you are and whom you serve. ** On Dec. 8, the President tweeted 108 times. So much time on his hands!

*****

Michael Moore has a new grass roots podcast called Rumble. He will discuss and digest the breaking political news of the day and suggest things that the rest of us can do. He is introducing the Emergency podcast system.

*****

The last democratic debates of the year were here and again there was not enough time for Andrew Yang. He did well when he got the time and got to promote his book without that sounding too bad after he was asked whet gift he might give another candidate. Warren made a sound bite with her “wine cave” crack which just made her look petty. Biden and Bernie sounded the same as always. Amy Klobuchar had the best night. She was not shaky and seemed so confident.  Trevor Noah seemed thrilled that he was mentioned. The sound on the microphones was a bit prickly.

*****

I really hate advertising for the most part and try to avoid them if at all possible. But it seems these Peyton/ Brad ads are everywhere and they are the most annoying things I have ever seen. Please make them go away.

*****

Hooray for Kansas City for being the first major city in the country to offer free public transportation.

*****

The Giuliani’s are divorced.

*****

Ok.. I’ll hand it to Dolly Parton. She has been putting her story songs on the screen in Heartstrings. They are a little “Hallmarky” so they wouldn’t really be my thing but it’s Dolly so sure I’ll give it a go. They celebrate all kinds of love which is a beautiful thing . One story had a beautiful performance b Gerald McRaney.

*****

Love intentionally, extravagantly, unconditionally, the broken world waits in darkness for the light that is you. –L.R. Knost

*****

I was so hoping that Greta Thunberg would be the person of the year for Time.  Hooray!!

*****

Rep. Van Drew is switching from the democrats to the republicans. Um..ok.. what timing.

*****

Check out Jack’s grandson, Duke Nicholson. He is all the buzz!

*****

The President was impeached on Dec 18. There were plenty of objections and rants from the republicans like they were children. The idiocy that comes out of their mouths is astonishing. Doug Collins, Deb Lasko and Louie Gohmert just seem insane. I don’t understand why there was not more push back when they kept up their mantra about nothing in the Mueller report when we can all see that there was. We are not all stupid. In the end some sort of consequence was finally brought to the man who has been accused of so much in his life. In formal impeachment proceedings there is no executive privilege. Pelosi is mulling over when to send the case to the senate. It is probably a good idea to let POTUS stew over the holidays.

*****

If impeachment would overturn the will of 63 million voters and that’s unconstitutional, then what is the electoral college overturning the will of 65 million voters. –Adam Parkhomenko

*****

Trump fans were upset when Canada broadcast Home Alone 2 with their President cut out. They called it political but it was found that it had been cut for ad time long before his campaign even began.

R.I.P. Irving Burgie, Williams Rucklehouse, victims of the multiple military shooting, Ron Leibman, Marie Fredriksson, the Jersey City , Portland and New Zealand victims, Don Imus, victims of the Vegas fires, Jerry Herman, Alley Willis, Carol Spinney, Danny Aiello, Syd Mead and Neil Innes.

[bountyofbeads]

Mueller deserves a Medal of Honor

https://wapo.st/2Gxle4k

Mueller deserves a Medal of Honor

By Kathleen Parker | Published July 26 at 6:18 PM ET | Washington Post | Posted July 28, 2019 10:16 PM ET |

The picture that spoke far more words than former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III uttered during this week’s hearings was taken by renowned photographer David Hume Kennerly.

The close-up of Mueller’s face was a portrait of rare depth, the sort one is more likely to find on a Leonardo da Vinci canvas with all its shadows, hollows and his soulful, nearly weeping eyes. I found myself thinking of paintings of the Agony in the Garden, showing Jesus’ upturned face as he prayed. No doubt, Mueller, too, was praying that this all would soon be over.

On Instagram , Kennerly captioned his photo: “Weary warrior.”

The tag was fitting and perfect. Mueller, a Vietnam War hero and recipient of a Bronze Star, has fought nobly throughout a life of distinguished public service. Whether defending his country on the battlefield or as director of the FBI, he has by all accounts been a man of honor, dignity and careful judgment.

After two years of draining the swamp of several of its slimiest occupants — all associates of the president of the United States — Mueller had to present himself one final time for the benefit of politicians bent on showboating at his expense. Democrats wanted to get him on record saying he did not exonerate President Trump of possible obstruction of justice, which everyone who cared already knew. This they did by reading excerpts of Mueller’s 400-plus-page report and asking him to confirm that they were correct.

Mueller kept the bulk of his responses to “yes,” “no,” “true” and “correct.” The rest largely consisted of “I refer you to the report,” “It’s outside my purview” and, best of all, “I take your question,” which apparently is a polite way of saying, “I rue the day you were born.”

Both parties’ members had their agenda. Republicans wanted to get themselves on record as Trump sycophants, apparently, while also proving that they could be just as nasty as Democrats were to Brett M. Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court nomination hearings last year. You may now check your boxes and get back to phoning your donors.

It was painful to watch as Republicans yelled at Mueller, pounding the table and throwing their best tantrums, even as Mueller was clearly not at his best. Whether he was merely tired — or just sick and tired — or perhaps even giving in a bit to age, he surely deserved more of their respect.

Most egregiously obnoxious was Rep. Douglas A. Collins (Ga.), the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. After saying he is often accused of speaking too fast and promising to slow down, Collins then proceeded to imitate an auctioneer, shoving as many words into a split second as is humanly possible. This was plainly deliberate and seemed intended to confuse Mueller or make him seem not fully cognizant. More than once, Mueller was forced to ask him to repeat the question. It was one of the most arrogant, self-important performances I’ve witnessed in decades of political reporting. Can we send Collins back to where he came from, please?

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) shouted so much I was afraid he might choke on his tongue. And Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) got worked up over Volume II of the report, which he said broke regulations, and yelled that Trump wasn’t above the law but somehow shouldn’t be below it, either.

One notices that you don’t truly know people until they have power. For a few hours Wednesday, members of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees had power over Mueller, and several revealed themselves to be unworthy of the audience. Mueller isn’t a perfect man, but he is a gentleman. He exercised his own power during the investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election by never speaking a word publicly.

In starkest contrast to Trump, who bellowed his non-exoneration, Mueller isn’t an attention-seeker. This man of few words surely had aplenty to say in the privacy of his own space with an audience of his own choosing. Or, perhaps, he had nothing more to say, having completed the job he was asked to do with his usual tenacity and humility.

This is what I saw in his face as I watched the proceedings — a humble man who has seen enough of life and kept his own counsel through most of it. A weary warrior, indeed. For his forbearance throughout his investigation — and his patience through this week’s insufferable hearings — he deserves a Medal of Honor.

[arpov-blog-blog]

..."The goal appears to have been getting enough members of the US Congress to vote to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The GOP had a Senate majority at the time. They could have, in theory, overruled the will of the people, at least temporarily. Ultimately, however, just 147 Republicans, including eight senators, objected. 

I don’t know, had they amassed enough votes in the Senate, where things would have gone after that. Perhaps it would have triggered the 12th Amendment. Perhaps it would have thrown the process back to red states that Joe Biden had won, where friendly Republican legislators would have fixed things so Trump could stay in office.

In any case, the former president spent a lot of time talking about congressional Republicans and talking directly to congressional Republicans to such a degree as to suggest there was another layer of his grand seditious conspiracy that’s only now coming into light. That’s certainly what the J6 committee has been hinting hard at.

Last week, the panel’s Stephanie Murphy said Trump met in late December with US Reps. Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, Brian Babin, Jody Hice, Louie Gohmert, Andy Harris, Mo Brooks, Paul Gosar, Scott Perry and Jim Jordan. Margaret Taylor Greene was there. So were Mike Pence, Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani. (Seven of these members asked for pardons. Ditto Meadows, Giuliani and Greene.)

They tried getting the former vice president to go along with the conspiracy. It called for him to reject the count all by himself or send it back to the states where state GOP legislators were waiting. 

Pence had refused before. I’m guessing those at the meeting expected him to again. He did. The next step was finalizing a scheme to bring tens of thousands of Trump loyalists to the capital, including armed paramilitaries (eg, Proud Boys and Oath Keepers), in order to terrify not only Pence but GOP senators into reinstalling Trump.

Terrifying GOP senators According to the J6 committee’s Elaine Luria, Trump was told 15 minutes after returning to the White House after his speech on the Ellipse that the US Capitol was under siege by an armed mob. After the briefing, Luria said, Trump began calling GOP senators for the purpose of persuading them to overrule the results of the election.

On the one hand, the former president had insurgents sacking and looting the seat of government, threatening lawmakers with death –  in Mike Pence’s case, with hanging from a makeshift gallows. (It was revealed last night that Pence’s Secret Service detail believed they were going to die. They sent messages of love to their families.) On the other, Trump pushed GOP senators by phone to get on board. 

During that time, White House staffers tried and failed to persuade Trump to respond to the assault. (He did not issue orders to anyone, not the secretary of defense, the secretary of homeland security, the attorney general, no one.) Instead of telling them to go home, as staffers had hoped, he posted a tweet accusing Pence of betrayal."

[opedguy]

Jan. 6 All About the Historical Record

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Jan. 3, 2020.--So as every liberal media print and broadcast outlet lambastes Republicans for challenging the Nov. 3 presidential election when a joint session of Congress meets Jan. 6, Republicans want to state for posterity their objections to the 2020 election.  Democrats and their friends in the press like to point out that 74-year-old President Donald Trump and his mighty legal tam couldn’t prove their election fraud case in federal court, the fact remains that the 2020 election was highly unusual.  Whether you can blame that on the Covid-19 crisis or not, never before in U.S. history has the country employed universal mail-in ballots.  No one in the federal courts wanted to get into the murky swamp of finding out what really happened.  Saying there’s no “evidence” or “proof” of massive election fraud doesn’t mean that something irregular didn’t occur before-and-after Nov. 3 when ballots were collected-and-counted.     

        It’s easy for a Democrat biased press to say that Trump has no right to challenge the election results, or, like 50-year-old former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that it’s “anti-democratic” or “anti-conservative” to challenge the results. Ryan doesn’t know anymore than anyone else about what really happened in the 2020 election.  What’s known for sure is what Chapman Constitutional law professor John Eastman said in his brief for the State of Texas to the Supreme Court about the 2020 election.  Eastman said because of universal mail-in ballots it was impossible to prove the validity of ballot collection-and-counting, making in impossible to prove fraud.  Whether it’s difficult to prove fraud of not, it doesn’t mean that something nefarious didn’t happen.  Democrats, the media, and anti-Trump Republicans, like Ryan and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Ut.), think it’s disgraceful to challenge the results.      

       Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said today he didn’t think that Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and other GOP senators supporting Trump will do anything on Jan. 6 other than make a political statement.  But if Lindsey thinks about it, stating for the record that they object to universal mail-in ballots because, as Prof. John Eastman said, it makes it  impossible to prove voter fraud.  Stating in the Congressional record Jan. 6 that Republicans object to universal mail-in ballots because it’s impossible to collect-and-count the ballots accurately states for the record that they don’t trust the results.  It’s fine for Democrats and the anti-Trump press to celebrate their victory.  But Graham said Nov. 8 that universal mail-in ballots could make it impossible to elect another Republican.  Lindsey said, while doubting the outcome, that he looked forward to hearing on Jan. 6 from his GOP colleagues.      

       Vice President Mike Pence, who presides over the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 said he wanted to “use his authority they have under the law to raise objections and bring forward evidence” supporting claims of  “voter fraud and irregularities.”  Everyone knows that because of Covid-19 election laws and rules were stretched to the breaking point to accommodate universal mail-in ballots. Many of the ballots lacked the proper signatures and time-stamps yet election officials in several battleground states bent the rules so the ballots would count.  Republicans tried but failed to get a Trump-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Kermodle, led by Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Tezas), give Vice President the authority to invalidate the national vote and call the election for Trump.  Kermodle tossed out Gohmert’s suit Jan. 2.  Running out legal options, the GOP only has only the Jan. 6 joint hearing to object to the vote.  

           Federal courts around the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court, refused to take up Trump’s claims of voter fraud, largely because they open up an endless can of worms.  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.), a former solicitor general to the U.S. Supreme Court, plans to make the case for election fraud before the joint session of Congress Jan. 6. Whether or not Cruz persuades anyone to change their vote to confirm the Electoral College results in anyone’s guess.  But what Cruz and other Republicans plan to do is let the American public know on national TV what they think of the election results.  Unable  to prove fraud in court doesn’t mean that something irregular didn’t happen.  Cruz’s burden of proof is far lower to give his opinion about what happened in the 2020 vote.  Cruz asked Congress to approve a 10-day emergency audit of the election results, then convene Congress to approve the Electoral College results.   

          Democrats and the press have made their best case to the public that the Nov. 3 election results were valid, without showing proof.  Republicans want their due process to state for the historical record, whether or not it changes any minds, that universal mail-in ballots made it impossible to verify the validity of the Nov. 3 vote.  Republicans don’t have enough votes to stop the procedural task of tallying up the Electoral College votes, handing the presidency to Biden.  Trump’s going down creating a historic record that he objected to the 2020 election, regardless of whether or not he could prove election fraud.  Universal mail-in ballots forced state election officials in battleground states and elsewhere to bend the rules to accommodate the irregular vote collection-and-counting.  Stating for the record the GOP’s objections cannot possibly be “anti-democratic” or “anti-conservative.”

 About the Author 

 John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.  Reply  Reply All  Forward 

[bountyofbeads]

Live: Mueller grilled on obstruction, ‘fishing’ without charging Trump

https://wapo.st/2Z4ThrU

Live: Mueller grilled on obstruction, ‘fishing’ without charging Trump (Updates Thus Far Part 1)

By Washington Post Staff | Published July 24 at 10:41 AM ET | Washington Post | Posted July 24, 2019 10:52 PM ET

This live story is being reported by Matt Zapotosky, Karoun Demirjian, Rachael Bade, Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger, Shane Harris, Devlin Barrett, John Wagner and Rachel Weiner.

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is testifying publicly before two separate congressional panels Wednesday and for the first time is addressing questions about his investigation of President Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The first hearing, before the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), began just after

8:30 a.m., and the second, before the House Intelligence Committee, will begin at noon.

Democratic lawmakers are digging into the episodes Mueller outlined in his 448-page report of potential obstruction of justice by Trump. Mueller has said that he preferred not to say more about his work in public and — if made to do so — that he would not speak beyond what was detailed in his report.

Republicans, meanwhile, are likely to grill Mueller on what they view as impropriety in his investigation, focusing intensely on anti-Trump text messages exchanged by an FBI agent and an FBI lawyer who worked on the case.

Follow our live coverage here throughout the day.

10:30 a.m.: “I’m just going to leave it as it appears in the report”

Back from a break, Rep. Cedric L. Richmond (D-La.) tried to press Mueller on an episode in his report alleging that Trump had directed former White House Counsel Donald McGahn to have the special counsel fired, and then lie about it.

As he has throughout the hearing, Mueller merely confirmed that the lines that Richmond read were accurate.

“Correct,” he said repeatedly, as Richmond described the episode. “Generally true.”

Richmond tried to convince Mueller to elaborate, asking the open-ended question, “Can you explain what you meant there?” But Mueller balked.

“I’m just going to leave it as it appears in the report,” he said.

10:20 a.m.: Pence aides back Trump’s account of 2017 meeting with Mueller

Aides to Vice President Pence confirmed Trump’s account earlier Wednesday that Pence was present during a 2017 meeting in which Trump says Mueller sought to return to the job of FBI director.

Alyssa Farah, a spokeswoman for Pence, confirmed in an email that Pence was present for the meeting in the Oval Office “when Robert Mueller interviewed for the job of FBI Director in May of 2017.”

During his testimony Wednesday, Mueller confirmed that he met with Trump about the position of FBI director but “not as a candidate.”

Former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told investigators that the purpose of the meeting was not a job interview but to have Mueller “offer a perspective on the institution of the FBI,” according to the special counsel’s report.

Trump has previously cited the meeting as evidence for his contention that Mueller had conflicts of interest.

During a morning tweet, Trump suggested that Pence could back him up if Mueller did not tell the truth about the meeting

10:15 a.m.: The mysterious case of Joseph Mifsud

President Trump’s ally Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) grilled Mueller Wednesday about Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor who told former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton — but lied to federal investigators and was never charged.

Mifsud’s information — which Papadopoulos later related to Australia’s then-ambassador to the United Kingdom, who alerted the FBI — prompted the entire investigation that formed the foundation for Mueller’s probe. Republicans have questioned those origins — but Jordan and others in the GOP have also specifically questioned whether Mifsud was a potential Western intelligence asset, set up to trick Papadopoulos into passing on information that would prompt the probe of Trump’s Russia ties.

The Mifsud theory has failed to catch on outside the Republican base, but Jordan focused his questions for Mueller on one simple aspect of it: Why, if the special counsel had charged so many of Trump’s associates for lying to the FBI, had he never brought charges against Mifsud, who lied repeatedly to federal agents and whose words launched the entire Russia probe?

“You can charge all kinds of people around the president with false statements … but the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can’t charge him,” Jordan challenged Mueller.

“I’m not sure I agree with your characterizations,” retorted Mueller, who also said it was “obvious we can’t get into charging decisions” during the public hearing.

10:10 a.m.: Mueller continues one- or two-word responses to confirm obstruction episodes

Democrats — appearing to realize that Mueller would not elaborate on his report — continued to read key episodes of the 448-page documents and ask him to confirm the accounts with simple “yes” and “no” answers.

Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) guided Mueller through an episode in his report in which Trump tried to convince his former White House counsel Donald McGahn to deny reports that Trump requested he fire Mueller.

In late January 2018, the New York Times reported that McGahn had threatened to resign the previous year rather than follow through on an order from Trump to fire Mueller. Muelller’s report describes how Trump pressured McGahn to deny the story, including in an Oval Office meeting, in which Trump asked if McGahn would “do a correction.” McGahn said that he would not.

Trump also asked then-aide Rob Porter to tell McGahn to “create a record” making it clear that Trump had never directed McGahn to fire Mueller. He told Porter that if McGahn didn’t write a letter to file on the issue, he might have to “get rid of him.”

There is “substantial evidence,” Mueller wrote in his report, that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the special counsel fired, Trump was acting to try to influence McGahn’s account and prevent further scrutiny of Trump’s conduct with regards to the investigation.

Mueller, however, wouldn’t elaborate, confirming these details with simple answers, including “correct” or “yes.” Bass ended her five-minute session with her own statement: “If anyone else had ordered a witness to create a false record … that person would face criminal charges.”

10:05 a.m.: Roby pushes Mueller to explain interactions with the attorney general

Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) asked Mueller to explain his interactions with Attorney General William P. Barr, whom Democrats have said mischaracterized the special counsel’s work.

She asked Mueller whether he had “sought to change the narrative” about his report when he signed a March letter to Barr complaining about the way the attorney general originally characterized his findings.

In that late March letter, Mueller expressed dissatisfaction to Barr about the attorney general’s initial four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation.

Mueller wrote that Barr’s memo “did not fully capture the context, nature and substance” of the work his staff had completed.

At a May hearing, Barr called Mueller’s letter “a bit snitty.”

Roby pushed Mueller to explain how his letter had leaked publicly and asked who wrote the document. “I can’t get into who wrote it,” Mueller said. “I will say the letter stands for itself.”

10 a.m.: Why did Trump want Mueller gone?

Democrats’ efforts to get Mueller to explain the motivations of the president fell flat Wednesday, even when it came to getting Mueller to repeat assertions his report made about precisely those questions.

“The most important question I have for you today is why: why did the president of the United States want you fired?” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) asked Mueller, who said he couldn’t answer the question. So Deutch answered it for him, by citing a passage from the report in which Mueller wrote “substantial evidence indicates that the president’s attempts to remove the special counsel were linked to the special counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the president’s conduct, and most immediately to reports that the president was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice.”

Deutch focused most closely on Trump’s contacts with former White House counsel Donald McGahn, a key witness in Mueller’s probe, who told investigators about how Trump appeared to order him to carry out Mueller’s termination, and later lie about it.

Deutch asked Mueller if McGahn understood what the president’s motivations were. Mueller referred him “toward what was written in the report, in terms of characterizing his feelings.”

9:57 a.m.: Mueller and Gohmert spar

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Tex.), an old nemesis of Mueller’s, spent his five minutes on the attack. First, he got Mueller to concede that he and fired former FBI director James B. Comey “were friends.” Then, he tried to suggest that the FBI investigation of the president was politically biased from the beginning.

As Gohmert’s tempo quickened and frequently cut off Mueller’s attempted answers, the former special counsel asked in frustration, “May I finish?”

Gohmert barreled forward, arguing that, rather than obstruct justice, Trump set out to defend himself from Trump-hating prosecutors and agents.

“What he’s doing is not obstructing justice. He is pursing justice and the fact that you ran it out two years means you perpetuated injustice,” Gohmert said.

Gohmert and Mueller have a history of antagonism. At a congressional hearing in 2013 when Mueller was FBI director, the congressman angrily accused the FBI of missing a key investigative step before the Boston Marathon bombing. Mueller, who generally takes a low-key approach to congressional hearings, got angry and denied the accusation.

[Transcript: Read Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary panel]

9:55 a.m.: Johnson: Diving into an obstruction episode

Rep. Hank C. Johnson (D-Ga.) has begun the Democrats’ strategy of asking sharp, tight questions to explore specific episodes of possible obstruction of justice described in Mueller’s report.

Johnson asked a series of “yes” and “no” questions about an episode described in the report in which Trump called McGahn, the White House counsel, twice at home over a weekend in June 2017 and directed him to get Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein to fire Mueller.

“Mueller has to go,” McGahn recounted Trump told him, according to the report. “Call me back when you do it.”

Rather than following the order, McGahn drove to the White House to pack up his belongings and informed three other White House staffers he intended to resign. Ultimately, McGahn remained in his post, and Trump let the matter drop.

Mueller wrote in his report that “substantial evidence” existed that Trump’s efforts to remove Mueller were linked to the special counsel’s investigation of Trump’s conduct.

Parceling out those details, Mueller continually said Johnson had his facts “correct” or that he had “generally” followed the account of the report. But Mueller declined to be pushed even a bit beyond the exact words of the report. At one point, Johnson asked Mueller if he could explain the “significance” of the phone call Trump made to McGahn at home on a Saturday to discuss Mueller. “I’m going to ask you to rely on what we wrote in our report about that,” Mueller responded.

9:45 a.m.: Mueller declines to answer questions on Steele dossier’s origins

Mueller declined to answer a series of questions from Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) about the origins of the Steele dossier, the memos alleging various connections between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Mueller repeatedly said that the dossier and Fusion GPS, the U.S.-based investigation company that hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, were “outside my purview,” and that the Justice Department was already investigating the dossier.

Republicans have seized on Steele’s research to argue that the FBI probe of the Trump campaign was begun improperly, saying that federal agents leaned too heavily on it when they sought a warrant to monitor the communications of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page because of his contacts with Russians.

Republicans have also argued the Steele dossier was opposition research funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Clinton’s campaign did hire a law firm that hired Fusion GPS. Steele had begun his research earlier at the behest of conservative funders who wanted to compile opposition research about Trump.

9:40 a.m.: Democrats read portions of report themselves, as Mueller responds with short affirmations

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) sought to guide Mueller through one of the most explosive chapters of his report’s presentation of potential obstruction of justice — Trump’s appeals to then-attorney general Jeff Sessions to steer investigative scrutiny away from him — and was met with mostly one-word answers from Mueller.

Sessions recused himself from the government’s investigations of Russia and Trump before Mueller was appointed as special counsel, a decision that Trump tried to get him to undo, as documented in the report. Cohen attempted to sweep Mueller up in a dramatic retelling of the episodes, but the former special counsel’s preferred response was to simply tell him: “that’s in the report,” “I’ll refer you to the report for that,” or some variation.

The exchange illustrated what has been on display throughout the hearing: that for the most part, Mueller is offering sparse responses, and mostly leaving it to Democratic lawmakers to bring the words of his report to life in their own voices.

9:34 a.m.: Another Republican accuses Mueller of ‘fishing’ without charging Trump

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), who once chaired the Judiciary panel, used his time to criticize Mueller for laying out hundreds of pages worth of investigative material on Trump without charging him with any crime.

Citing the second volume of Mueller’s report, in which Mueller said he decided not to make a traditionally prosecutorial judgment about whether Trump obstructed justice, Sensenbrenner asked why Mueller did the entire investigation when he knew he wasn’t ever going to prosecute Trump.

“The OLC opinion itself says that you can continue the investigation … even if you don’t indict the president,” Mueller responded, referring to Justice Department rules barring the prosecution of a sitting president.

“If you’re not going to indict the president, then you’re just going to continue fishing, that’s my opinion,” Sensenbrenner said.

Sensenbrenner grew visibly frustrated with Mueller when he had to repeat his questions several times. Sensenbrenner also probed why Mueller didn’t use the phrase “impeachable conduct” to describe any actions by Trump laid out in his report, particularly since he appeared to kick to Congress the determination of whether Trump obstructed justice. Mueller merely answered that wasn’t in his mandate.

9:25 a.m.: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee launches questions on obstruction

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) pushed Mueller on obstruction of justice, walking the former special counsel, through a series of rapid-fire questions about Volume II’s discussion of potential obstruction of justice, expected to be a recurrent theme of inquiry for Democrats.

In that second volume, Mueller’s team described 10 episodes in which Trump’s actions raised concern about potential obstruction of justice. In some of those cases, the special counsel indicated there was evidence to support key elements of an obstruction charge. But the report stopped short of making an assessment that Trump committed a crime. Democrats repeatedly said before the hearing that they planned to focus on those episodes.

While Jackson Lee’s questions were predictable, Mueller responded in a halting manner, repeatedly asking the Texas lawmaker to repeat her questions.

Her final query was whether conviction on an obstruction of justice charge warranted a significant amount of time in jail. “Yes,” Mueller responded.

9:20 a.m.: Ratcliffe: Mueller applied an “inverted burden of proof”

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) made a lengthy speech, accusing Mueller of inverting the American legal system’s traditional presumption of innocence by declaring in Volume II of his report that he was not recommending charging Trump with obstruction of justice but also could not exonerate him.

Ratcliffe questioned Mueller about whether a prosecutor had ever before found it be his role to conclusively determine a person’s innocence — as opposed to determining whether evidence existed that he committed a crime. Mueller said he could not think of another case and then quietly interjected, “This is a unique situation.”

Ratcliffe then jumped in to say that nowhere in Justice Department policies and standards or in the order appointing Mueller as special counsel could such a mission be found. The presumption of innocence, Ratcliffe said, “exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it — including the president.”

The congressman said Mueller had “applied this inverted burden of proof” and then wrote a report about it.

He noted that Democrats have said Trump is not above the law.

“He’s not,” Ratcliffe said. “But he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where Volume II of this report puts him.”

Mueller sat quietly and did not respond.

9:15 a.m. Mueller says Russians believed a Trump victory would benefit them

Under questioning from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Mueller said that the Russians did perceive that the victory of one presidential candidate would benefit them: “It would be Trump,” Mueller said.

The former special counsel also confirmed findings from his report that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort gave internal campaign information and polling data to an associate whom the FBI has assessed has ties to Russian intelligence.

But Mueller declined to discuss how that information might have assisted the Russians in their efforts to disrupt the campaign. “That’s a little bit out of our path,” Mueller said.

9:10 a.m.: Collusion, conspiracy or none of the above?

Rep. Douglas A. Collins, the panel’s ranking Republican, and Mueller got into a tense back-and-forth about a comparison of terms that has bedeviled the public chatter surrounding Mueller’s probe: if Mueller didn’t find Trump was guilty of a conspiracy, does that also mean he was exonerated of collusion?

Technically, collusion isn’t a specific crime, but in his report, Mueller acknowledged that in common parlance, “collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute.” But when Collins asked him Wednesday if they were colloquially equivalent, Mueller said “No.”

Collins then repeatedly asked Mueller, “Are you contradicting your report,” repeatedly reading from the former special counsel’s text and asking if he needed to speak more slowly for Mueller to follow him.

“I leave it with the report,” Mueller ultimately said, prompting Collins to say he hoped the collusion question could “finally” be put to rest.

9:05 a.m.: Mueller pushes back on Trump’s ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ claim

Mueller rejected claims by Trump that his report cleared him from wrongdoing and confirmed that he could be charged after he leaves office.

In the first back-and-forth, Nadler, the committee chairman, listed a series of basic yes-or-no questions — or inquiries that could be answered in a few words — to get Mueller to confirm that he did not exonerate Trump.

“Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” the New York Democrat asked.

“No,” Mueller said.

“Does that say there was no obstruction?” Nadler said, reading an excerpt from the report where Mueller’s team discussed they could not “exonerate” Trump on the matter.

“No.”

Mueller went on to talk about Justice Department rules that say a sitting president cannot be indicted.

“The report did not conclude that he did not commit of obstruction of justice,” Nadler asked again.

“That is correct,” Mueller said.

The president has repeatedly claimed the report showed there was “no collusion” and “no obstruction.”

Asked if “under DOJ policy the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office,” Mueller responded: “True.”

Mueller also confirmed that Trump refused to be interviewed by his team.

9 a.m.: Mueller makes clear his investigation did not exonerate the president

“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” the former special counsel told the House Judiciary Committee.

Asked whether the president could potentially be indicted after leaving office, Mueller responded, “True.”

8:55 a.m.: What Mueller stressed in his opening statement

In his opening statement, Mueller stressed three points: the special counsel’s investigation found “sweeping and systematic” Russian interference in the 2016 election, it did not establish a conspiracy between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign and its inquiry into obstruction was “of critical importance.”

In response to later questions, Mueller would say more explicitly, as his report did, that the investigation did not exonerate Trump on obstruction. But in his opening statement, he stopped short of even that.

“Finally, as described in Volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the president toward the investigation,” Mueller said. “Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.”

8:50 a.m.: The topics Mueller says he won’t address

In his prepared opening statement, Mueller reiterated that he plans to stay “within the text” of his 448-page report and provided a list of questions he won’t be able to answer.

“In writing the report, we stated the results of our investigation with precision. We scrutinized every word,” Mueller said. “I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today.”

Likely to the disappointment of Republicans, he said he would be “unable to address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called ‘Steele Dossier.’” Conservatives have focused much of their ire on that document — an opposition research product funded by the Clinton campaign that made lurid and unproven allegations against Trump and played a role in the early portion of the Russia investigation.

Likely to the dismay of Democrats, Mueller also said he would “not comment on the actions of the attorney general or of Congress.”

Mueller noted that court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of some information, and that the Justice Department had asserted “privileges concerning investigative information and decisions, ongoing matters within the Justice Department, and deliberations within our office.”

“These are Justice Department privileges that I will respect,” Mueller said.

8:45 a.m.: Republicans to question origins of Mueller report

[go-redgirl]

Victims of Illegal Immigration Storm Nancy Pelosi’s Office!

WASHINGTON, DC — Angel families, American victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens, marched on Capitol Hill and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office Tuesday, along with legislators and Women for Trump.

The Angel families chanted “build the wall” in Pelosi’s office:

Americans who have lost loved ones at the hands of illegal aliens and because of open borders gathered on Capitol Hill Tuesday urging Congress to fund a wall along the U.S. southern border for border security.

Reps. Mo Brooks, Louie Gohmert, Matt Gaetz were among the several legislators gathered with the Angel families and Women for Trump in front of the U.S. Capitol Building, as they put faces to the statistics of Americans killed or injured due to illegal aliens and the drugs that flow in the U.S. at the southern border.

Among them were D.J. and Wendy Corcoran and their daughter Avery, Sabine Durden, Maureen Laquerre, Maureen Maloney, Mary Ann Mendoza, Kent Terry, and Susan Stevens, who have each lost a loved one. Former Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Tom Homan also accompanied the group.

____________________________________

Great to see and know that Moms are fighting for rights to build that Wall so others may live and so other parents want have to go through hurt, pain, grief and sadness like they had too and are still in pain, but still willing to fight so others mighty live.  

Mothers in this country have to stick together to make sure that our children and loves are safe from outsiders that come to this country trying to destroy it so others can take over.

We Americans stand with these parents/moms/dad/ and we WILL MAKE sure that our safety is just as important as those that don’t want to come through the  legal entrance. Why? What are they hiding?  We know its all evil with evil intentions because they are taking someone else children by force, from their parents in from another country

We stand with you Moms and Dad 1000% and Chuck And Nancy will never, never, escape what they are doing to this country for only selfish political and so much hate for one human-being because he (Donald J. Trump) put our American Citizens and this country first and above all other as no other leader have in our life time.

And just for that Chuck and Nancy hate the President so much. But, if you truly believe in Almighty God then you know that Nancy and Chuck is ‘evil’ and being exposed just like the rest of the ‘deep state’.

President Donald J. Trump is on a mission from God and the ‘devil’ children are losing their minds and power.  But, if you know God like we do, he’s going to take care of all of it that’s why he sent the right leader for us this time around and that’s President Donald J. Trump.

Pray for the Moms and Dads and ask Almighty God to give them strength to fight so others might live and expose the ‘evil’ one’s and we know them by name (Chuck and Nancy).

[classysassy9791]

Where Republicans Stand on ObamaCare Repeal Plan

GOP leaders cannot afford to lose more than 22 Republicans in order for the new TrumpCare to pass in the House. Here is where the Republicans currently stand: 

HOUSE REPUBLICANS

Voting Against (28)

Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.)  Rep. Rod Blum (Iowa) Rep. Dave Brat (Va.) Rep. Mo Brooks (Ala.) Rep. Ted Budd (N.C.) Rep. Rick Crawford (Ark) Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.) Rep. Dan Donovan (N.Y.) Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) Rep. Tom Garrett (Va.) Rep. Louie Gohmert (Texas) Rep. Andy Harris (Md.) Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.) Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio) Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio) Rep. John Katko (N.Y.) Rep. Ra R. Labrador (Idaho) Rep. Leonard Lance (N.J.) Rep. Frank LoBiondo (N.J.) Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.) Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) Rep. Mark Sanford (S.C.) Rep. Chris Smith (N.J.) Rep. Glen Thompson (Pa.) Rep. Rob Wittman (Va.) Rep. Ted Yoho (Fla.) Rep. David Young (Iowa)

Leaning/Likely No (6)

Rep. Joe Barton (Texas) Rep. Andy Biggs (Ariz) Rep. Ken Buck (Colo.) Rep. Peter King (N.Y.) Rep. Scott Perry (Pa.) Rep. Don Young (Alaska)

Unclear or Uncertain (19)

Rep. Mark Amodei (Nev.) Rep. Brian Babin (Texas) Rep. Barbara Comstock (Va.) Rep. Paul Cook (Calif.) Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.) Rep. Scott DesJarlais (Tenn.) Rep. Neal Dunn (Fla.) Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.) Rep. Paul Gosar (Ariz.) Rep. Will Hurd (Texas) Rep. Mike Johnson (La.) Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas) Rep. Bruce Poliquin (Maine) Rep. Ted Poe (Texas) Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.) Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) Rep. David Valadao (Calif.) Rep. Randy Weber (Texas) Rep. Daniel Webster (Fla.)

Leaning/Likely Yes (5)

Rep. Steve Chabot (Ohio) Rep. Mike Coffman (Colo.) Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) Rep. Brian Mast (Fla.) Rep. Roger Williams (Texas)

Yes (82)

Rep. Robert Aderholt (Ala.) Rep. Jodey Arrington (Texas) Rep. Jim Banks (Ind.) Rep. Lou Barletta (Pa.) Rep. Andy Barr (Ky.) Rep. Jack Bergman (Mich.) Rep. Gus Bilirakis (Fla.) Rep. Mike Bishop (Mich.) Rep. Diane Black (Tenn.) Rep. Susan Brooks (Ind.) Rep. Vern Buchanan (Fla.) Rep. Larry Bucshon (Ind.) Rep. Michael Burgess (Texas) Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) Rep. Ken Calvert (Calif.) Rep. Buddy Carter (Ga.) Rep. John Carter (Texas) Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.) Rep. Chris Collins (N.Y.) Rep. James Comer (Ky.) Rep. Mike Conaway (Texas) Rep. Ryan Costello (Pa.) Rep. Kevin Cramer (N.D.) Rep. Carlos Curbelo (Fla.) Rep. Blake Farenthold (Texas) Rep. John Faso (N.Y.) Rep. Drew Ferguson (Ga.) Rep. Bill Flores (Texas) Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) Rep. Morgan Griffith (Va.) Rep. Glenn Grothman (Wis.) Rep. Brett Guthrie (Ky.) Rep. Gregg Harper (Miss.) Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas) Rep. George Holding (N.C.) Rep. Richard Hudson (N.C.) Rep. Lynn Jenkins (Kan.) Rep. Bill Johnson (Ohio) Rep. Sam Johnson (Texas) Rep. Mike Kelly (Pa.) Rep. Steve King (Iowa) Rep. Adam Kinzinger (IL) Rep. Bob Latta (Ohio) Rep. Jason Lewis (Minn.) Rep. Billy Long (Mo.) Rep. Barry Loudermilk (Ga.) Rep. Tom MacArthur (N.J.) Rep. Kenny Marchant (Texas) Rep. Tom McClintock (Calif.) Rep. David McKinley (W. Va.) Rep. Martha McSally (Ariz.) Rep. Patrick Meehan (Pa.) Rep. Markwayne Mullin (Okla.) Rep. Tim Murphy (Pa.) Rep. Kristi Noem (S.D.) Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.) Rep. Pete Olson (Texas) Rep. Gary Palmer (Ala.) Rep. Erik Paulsen (Minn.) Rep. John Ratcliffe (Texas) Rep. Tom Reed (N.Y.) Rep. Dave Reichert (Wash.) Rep. Jim Renacci (Ohio) Rep. Tom Rice (S.C.) Rep. Todd Rokita (Ind.) Rep. Peter Roskam (IL) Rep. David Schweikert (Ariz.) Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas) Rep. John Shimkus (IL) Rep. Adrian Smith (Neb.) Rep. Jason Smith (Mo.) Rep. Lloyd Smucker (Pa.) Rep. Claudia Tenney (N.Y.) Rep. Pat Tiberi (Ohio) Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.) Rep. Tim Walberg (N.C.) Rep. Mark Walker (N.C.) Rep. Jackie Walorski (Ind.) Rep. Mimi Walters (Calif.) Rep. Bruce Westerman (Ark.) Rep. Steve Womack (Ark.) Rep. Rob Woodall (Ga.)

SENATE REPUBLICANS

Voting Against (6)

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.) Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) Sen. Dean Heller (Nev.) Sen. Mike Lee (Utah) Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.)

Unclear/Uncertain (15)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (La.) Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) Sen. Steve Daines (Mont.) Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) Sen. Cory Gardner (Colo.) Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.) Sen. James Lankford (Okla.) Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (W. Va.) Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) Sen. John Thune (S.D.) Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.) Sen. Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.)

So please!! Call your representatives!! Let them hear your voice to repeal this abomination of a health care bill, and SAVE MILLIONS OF LIVES!! 

The House of Representatives may look to be moving in the people’s favor, but that DOES NOT mean we can rest easy!! Look at what happened when it came to clearing Betsy DeVos. We were ONE vote away from repealing her and we lost that battle!

Haven’t had the chance to see what exactly the new Health Care Bill would include? Click here! 

Unsure of who your representatives are? Go to GovTrack and type in your home address. It will give you your senators as well as your district house representative. 

The American Medical Association is opposed to this bill!!

Some representatives are voting “yes” simply because Trump has promised to make changes to the bill. DON’T BELIEVE HIM!! He has made an abundance of promises in the past in which he has broken, over and over again. He has even tried threatening Republicans that they will lose their seats should they oppose him. 

We CANNOT afford to allow this bill to pass. It will take more from the poor and give to the rich. Fight for what’s right and make sure you take a stand!! 

They vote TODAY!! Get on the telephone and call!!

[narcisbolgor-blog]

Mark Kelly: Gohmert ‘shouldn’t hide behind’ my wife’s attack to avoid town halls

Washington (CNN)Gun-control advocate and former astronaut Mark Kelly said Friday that Republicans should meet with their constituents even in the face of uproar or unspecified security concerns.

In an appearance on CNN's "OutFront" with Erin Burnett, Kelly responded to Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, who cited the shooting of Kelly's wife, former Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords, as a reason not to hold a town hall.

"If he doesn't want to do town halls, he should just say he doesn't want to face his constituents," Kelly said. "He shouldn't hide behind Gabby."

Giffords, who survived being shot in the head while meeting with constituents in her Arizona district in 2011, responded to Gohmert herself on Thursday, saying: "I was shot on a Saturday morning. By Monday morning, my offices were open to the public."

"To the politicians who have abandoned their civic obligations, I say this: Have some courage," Giffords said in a statement.

Kelly reiterated his wife's comments and told members of Congress to be "aware" of potential threats and make sure their constituents are safe -- but not to use her shooting as an excuse to avoid town halls. He also said Giffords continued to hold town meetings in 2009 as the debate over what would become Obamacare raged through the country, and Democrats faced significant push-back at their own town hall events.

Giffords ultimately voted in favor of the bill.

Kelly, who stressed that he and his wife are gun owners and support the Second Amendment, also called on members of Congress to support universal background checks for gun purchases.

"If these representatives are really concerned about the safety of their constituents, they should join us and not side with the Washington gun lobby," Kelly said.

He added that despite President Donald Trump's regular praise of the NRA, he believed he could find common ground with the President and said he'd like to meet to discuss the issue.

Gohmert said on Friday he would appear on a local news station and billed the question-and-answer session as a "town hall meeting."

More From this publisher : HERE

=> *********************************************** Post Source Here: Mark Kelly: Gohmert ‘shouldn’t hide behind’ my wife’s attack to avoid town halls ************************************ =>

Mark Kelly: Gohmert ‘shouldn’t hide behind’ my wife’s attack to avoid town halls was originally posted by 11 VA Viral News