leadership of House and Senate will be making some hard decisions to come- there's no spin for this.
'they're in the tunnel..seal it off and let's GAS 'em.!!'
January 6th, 2021
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
'they're in the tunnel..seal it off and let's GAS 'em.!!'
there was an out of state camper parked here in the heart of town this AM and state boys were all over it. scared the bejesus out of me because i'm not paying attention just woke up walking the dog and i'm thinking 'why are there so many cars and can i walk there because it's part of our route..?' when i saw the plate and recognized it wasn't from here..i picked up my dog and quickly cut to the left another human saw it too and picked up her 50lb dog and basically ran. kudos to her.
welcome to post MAGA.
printer
Well-Known Member
'QAnon Shaman' willing to testify in impeachment trial, lawyer says
A man photographed wearing face paint and a horned headdress during the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol said he would be willing to testify at former President Trump’s impeachment trial in February, his attorney told The Associated Press.
Jacob Chansley, who is colloquially known as the “QAnon Shaman,” would be willing to testify that he was incited to allegedly storm the Capitol by the then-president, according to attorney Albert Watkins. "QAnon Shaman" is a name that references the far right conspiracy theory known as QAnon.
Watkins said his client has not yet made contact with any members of the Senate.
In a statement to The Hill, Watkins confirmed that his client would be willing to testify during the Senate impeachment trial.
Trump was impeached by the House for a second time earlier in January for his role in the violent riots at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Trump made remarks before the attack, encouraging a group of his supporters on the National Mall to march to the Capitol building and demand that Congress halt its certification of President Joe Biden's electoral victory.
Trump is the only president to be impeached twice in U.S. history. His Senate impeachment trial is slated to begin in February.
During the riots, hundreds of rioters, including Chansley were photographed inside the Capitol building. Chansley was arrested on Jan. 9 and later charged with civil disorder, obstruction of official proceedings and disorderly conduct in a restricted building. He is set to be arraigned Friday and has yet to enter a plea.
Court records indicate Chansley told investigators he attended the riot specifically "at the request of the president that all 'patriots' come to D.C. on January 6," according to the AP.
Watkins told the AP that after Trump failed to pardon him or other participants in the insurrection, his client “felt like he was betrayed by the president.”
The attorney last week said that his client felt that he had been "duped" by Trump.
"He regrets very, very much having not just been duped by the president but by being in a position where he allowed that duping to put him in a position to make decisions he should not have made," Watkins said, according to Missouri's NBC-affiliated television station KSDK.
thehill.com
A man photographed wearing face paint and a horned headdress during the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol said he would be willing to testify at former President Trump’s impeachment trial in February, his attorney told The Associated Press.
Jacob Chansley, who is colloquially known as the “QAnon Shaman,” would be willing to testify that he was incited to allegedly storm the Capitol by the then-president, according to attorney Albert Watkins. "QAnon Shaman" is a name that references the far right conspiracy theory known as QAnon.
Watkins said his client has not yet made contact with any members of the Senate.
In a statement to The Hill, Watkins confirmed that his client would be willing to testify during the Senate impeachment trial.
Trump was impeached by the House for a second time earlier in January for his role in the violent riots at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Trump made remarks before the attack, encouraging a group of his supporters on the National Mall to march to the Capitol building and demand that Congress halt its certification of President Joe Biden's electoral victory.
Trump is the only president to be impeached twice in U.S. history. His Senate impeachment trial is slated to begin in February.
During the riots, hundreds of rioters, including Chansley were photographed inside the Capitol building. Chansley was arrested on Jan. 9 and later charged with civil disorder, obstruction of official proceedings and disorderly conduct in a restricted building. He is set to be arraigned Friday and has yet to enter a plea.
Court records indicate Chansley told investigators he attended the riot specifically "at the request of the president that all 'patriots' come to D.C. on January 6," according to the AP.
Watkins told the AP that after Trump failed to pardon him or other participants in the insurrection, his client “felt like he was betrayed by the president.”
The attorney last week said that his client felt that he had been "duped" by Trump.
"He regrets very, very much having not just been duped by the president but by being in a position where he allowed that duping to put him in a position to make decisions he should not have made," Watkins said, according to Missouri's NBC-affiliated television station KSDK.
‘QAnon Shaman’ willing to testify in impeachment trial, lawyer says
A man photographed wearing face paint and a horned headdress during the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol said he would be willing to testify at former President Trump’s impeachment trial in …
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Lawmakers introduce legislation to massively expand mail-in voting
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) on Thursday introduced legislation to allow all registered voters to have the option to vote from home. The Vote at Home Act would require all registered voters to be sent mail-in ballots prior to Election Day, guarantee that voters had the option to either vote by mail or vote in person at the polls and enact automatic voter registration for all citizens with driver’s licenses or permits. It would be a significant expansion of mail-in voting. It would also address concerns around paying for mail-in voting by providing funding to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to cover the costs of mailing the ballots.
“Our democracy is stronger when every American can vote, without standing in ridiculous lines or having to take time off work or school to exercise their Constitutional rights,” Wyden, who led over a dozen other Democratic senators in introducing the bill, said in a statement Thursday.
The bill was first introduced in 2017, but did not see passage. The lawmakers reintroduced it following a general election that saw a huge spike in mail-in voting due to concerns over the COVID-19 pandemic, with just less than half of voters mailing their ballots in 2020.
Oregon is among the states that had allowed mail-in voting prior to 2020, and was the first state to move to voting almost entirely by mail. Wyden has been among the most vocal senators on election reform and security issues, including pushing hard over the past year to expand mail-in voting during the pandemic.
“To get the big things done that really improve Americans’ lives, our country needs the government to represent all Americans,” Wyden said. “Oregonians know that voting at home is a time-tested, secure and accessible way to vote. It’s high time the rest of the country had the chance to vote the way we do.”
Blumenauer warned in a separate statement that the right to vote is “under threat in communities across America.” “Last year we saw a widespread expansion of vote-at-home access as a safe and secure way to participate during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Blumenauer said. “We should continue to make voting easier, not harder. This important bill would strengthen and clarify the right to vote at home, the most secure and convenient way for voters to exercise the franchise.”
thehill.com
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) on Thursday introduced legislation to allow all registered voters to have the option to vote from home. The Vote at Home Act would require all registered voters to be sent mail-in ballots prior to Election Day, guarantee that voters had the option to either vote by mail or vote in person at the polls and enact automatic voter registration for all citizens with driver’s licenses or permits. It would be a significant expansion of mail-in voting. It would also address concerns around paying for mail-in voting by providing funding to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to cover the costs of mailing the ballots.
“Our democracy is stronger when every American can vote, without standing in ridiculous lines or having to take time off work or school to exercise their Constitutional rights,” Wyden, who led over a dozen other Democratic senators in introducing the bill, said in a statement Thursday.
The bill was first introduced in 2017, but did not see passage. The lawmakers reintroduced it following a general election that saw a huge spike in mail-in voting due to concerns over the COVID-19 pandemic, with just less than half of voters mailing their ballots in 2020.
Oregon is among the states that had allowed mail-in voting prior to 2020, and was the first state to move to voting almost entirely by mail. Wyden has been among the most vocal senators on election reform and security issues, including pushing hard over the past year to expand mail-in voting during the pandemic.
“To get the big things done that really improve Americans’ lives, our country needs the government to represent all Americans,” Wyden said. “Oregonians know that voting at home is a time-tested, secure and accessible way to vote. It’s high time the rest of the country had the chance to vote the way we do.”
Blumenauer warned in a separate statement that the right to vote is “under threat in communities across America.” “Last year we saw a widespread expansion of vote-at-home access as a safe and secure way to participate during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Blumenauer said. “We should continue to make voting easier, not harder. This important bill would strengthen and clarify the right to vote at home, the most secure and convenient way for voters to exercise the franchise.”
Lawmakers introduce legislation to massively expand mail-in voting
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) on Thursday introduced legislation to allow all registered voters to have the option to vote from home.The Vote at Home Act would require a…
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
As long as he wears the horns headgear while he's testifying!'QAnon Shaman' willing to testify in impeachment trial, lawyer says
A man photographed wearing face paint and a horned headdress during the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol said he would be willing to testify at former President Trump’s impeachment trial in February, his attorney told The Associated Press.
Jacob Chansley, who is colloquially known as the “QAnon Shaman,” would be willing to testify that he was incited to allegedly storm the Capitol by the then-president, according to attorney Albert Watkins. "QAnon Shaman" is a name that references the far right conspiracy theory known as QAnon.
Watkins said his client has not yet made contact with any members of the Senate.
In a statement to The Hill, Watkins confirmed that his client would be willing to testify during the Senate impeachment trial.
Trump was impeached by the House for a second time earlier in January for his role in the violent riots at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Trump made remarks before the attack, encouraging a group of his supporters on the National Mall to march to the Capitol building and demand that Congress halt its certification of President Joe Biden's electoral victory.
Trump is the only president to be impeached twice in U.S. history. His Senate impeachment trial is slated to begin in February.
During the riots, hundreds of rioters, including Chansley were photographed inside the Capitol building. Chansley was arrested on Jan. 9 and later charged with civil disorder, obstruction of official proceedings and disorderly conduct in a restricted building. He is set to be arraigned Friday and has yet to enter a plea.
Court records indicate Chansley told investigators he attended the riot specifically "at the request of the president that all 'patriots' come to D.C. on January 6," according to the AP.
Watkins told the AP that after Trump failed to pardon him or other participants in the insurrection, his client “felt like he was betrayed by the president.”
The attorney last week said that his client felt that he had been "duped" by Trump.
"He regrets very, very much having not just been duped by the president but by being in a position where he allowed that duping to put him in a position to make decisions he should not have made," Watkins said, according to Missouri's NBC-affiliated television station KSDK.
‘QAnon Shaman’ willing to testify in impeachment trial, lawyer says
A man photographed wearing face paint and a horned headdress during the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol said he would be willing to testify at former President Trump’s impeachment trial in …
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
I was going to post the same thing. Lol.As long as he wears the horns headgear while he's testifying!
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Let's talk about what Mattis said about the Capitol....
topcat
Well-Known Member
That makes good television. Think of the ratings!As long as he wears the horns headgear while he's testifying!
printer
Well-Known Member
Paul says Roberts's absence 'crystalized' argument against Trump impeachment
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday said hearing that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would not preside over former President Trump’s upcoming impeachment trial “crystalized” the GOP argument that the proceedings are unconstitutional. Paul emerged as a hero for Trump supporters this week after he used a little-known procedural tactic, a privileged constitutional point of order, to strike a severe blow to Democrats’ hopes of convicting the former president on a House-passed article of impeachment. Forty-five Republican senators voted this week to support Paul’s motion that said Trump’s impeachment trial is unconstitutional since he’s no longer in office.
“We’ve long been aware that a constitutional motion is a privileged motion and that it could happen. We discussed it within our office,” Paul told The Hill in an interview Thursday. “What really crystalized it for me is that about a week ago we were on a Republican conference call and they said the chief justice wasn’t coming.” “Myself and others were like, ‘Oh my goodness, the chief justice is not coming. That’s a huge, huge signal that there’s something wrong with this proceeding,’” Paul said, recounting the conference call on Jan. 21, the day after Trump left office.
Paul said the news that Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would preside over the second impeachment trial struck many Republicans as deeply unfair. Leahy voted to convict Trump on two articles of impeachment last year. “The optics of the chief justice not coming and then also the optics of a person who had favored the last impeachment now presiding over the trial — who’s also going to vote in the trial — it just didn’t look right or sound right to any of us,” he added. Paul described how he then put together a motion to declare the trial unconstitutional. He offered the motion as a privileged point of order on Tuesday.
The move caught GOP colleagues by surprise. “I didn’t know we could do it,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said of Paul’s motion. “I was surprised he could even raise the point of order. I’m glad he did.” “When I found out that was in the works, I supported it,” Johnson added. “I always thought this was unconstitutional.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she was asking her legislative director the day of the vote about the obscure procedural tactic. “Constitutional point of order. I was asking my L.D. coming over here. Constitutional? We talk about budget points of order all the time; when was the last time we did a constitutional point of order?” she told reporters after the vote. Murkowski said the vote illustrated the immense power the Senate rules give to individual senators. “Around here, the power of one senator we see demonstrated every day,” she said.
A former Senate Republican aide who is known for his procedural expertise as an early master of the so-called clay pigeon amendment process applauded Paul’s move. “I was very impressed by it. Props to Rand Paul. He basically ended the impeachment proceedings before they even got started. (A) I was impressed that he did, I thought it was a great maneuver, and (B) I was surprised at how the vote was,” the strategist said.
Paul said he kept his plan secret up until the day of the vote. He only let the Senate cloakroom know about the point of order on Monday.
“We told the cloakroom staff the day before,” he said, adding the floor staff probably alerted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of the tactic immediately afterward.
Paul said he was informed by the legal analysis of Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus Harvard law professor and constitutional expert who has argued that the penalty for an impeachment conviction — removal from office and disqualification from future office — would not apply to Trump since he is no longer in office. “His point is that it doesn’t say ‘remove from office or disqualify,’ it says ‘remove and disqualify.’ That doesn’t really work if you’ve already left office,” Paul said.
Paul’s point of order stated that Trump “holds none of the positions listed in the Constitution” and is “a private citizen.”
It also emphasized Leahy’s role in presiding over the trial. “His presence, and the chief justice’s absence, demonstrates that this is not a trial of the president but of a private citizen,” the motion states.
After 45 Republicans voted against tabling Paul’s motion on Tuesday, many senators predicted Trump’s trial will end in acquittal, especially since only five GOP senators joined with Democrats, falling far short of the 17 needed to reach the conviction threshold of 67.
“I think it's pretty obvious from the vote today that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the president will be convicted,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said after the vote.
thehill.com
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday said hearing that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would not preside over former President Trump’s upcoming impeachment trial “crystalized” the GOP argument that the proceedings are unconstitutional. Paul emerged as a hero for Trump supporters this week after he used a little-known procedural tactic, a privileged constitutional point of order, to strike a severe blow to Democrats’ hopes of convicting the former president on a House-passed article of impeachment. Forty-five Republican senators voted this week to support Paul’s motion that said Trump’s impeachment trial is unconstitutional since he’s no longer in office.
“We’ve long been aware that a constitutional motion is a privileged motion and that it could happen. We discussed it within our office,” Paul told The Hill in an interview Thursday. “What really crystalized it for me is that about a week ago we were on a Republican conference call and they said the chief justice wasn’t coming.” “Myself and others were like, ‘Oh my goodness, the chief justice is not coming. That’s a huge, huge signal that there’s something wrong with this proceeding,’” Paul said, recounting the conference call on Jan. 21, the day after Trump left office.
Paul said the news that Senate President Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would preside over the second impeachment trial struck many Republicans as deeply unfair. Leahy voted to convict Trump on two articles of impeachment last year. “The optics of the chief justice not coming and then also the optics of a person who had favored the last impeachment now presiding over the trial — who’s also going to vote in the trial — it just didn’t look right or sound right to any of us,” he added. Paul described how he then put together a motion to declare the trial unconstitutional. He offered the motion as a privileged point of order on Tuesday.
The move caught GOP colleagues by surprise. “I didn’t know we could do it,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said of Paul’s motion. “I was surprised he could even raise the point of order. I’m glad he did.” “When I found out that was in the works, I supported it,” Johnson added. “I always thought this was unconstitutional.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she was asking her legislative director the day of the vote about the obscure procedural tactic. “Constitutional point of order. I was asking my L.D. coming over here. Constitutional? We talk about budget points of order all the time; when was the last time we did a constitutional point of order?” she told reporters after the vote. Murkowski said the vote illustrated the immense power the Senate rules give to individual senators. “Around here, the power of one senator we see demonstrated every day,” she said.
A former Senate Republican aide who is known for his procedural expertise as an early master of the so-called clay pigeon amendment process applauded Paul’s move. “I was very impressed by it. Props to Rand Paul. He basically ended the impeachment proceedings before they even got started. (A) I was impressed that he did, I thought it was a great maneuver, and (B) I was surprised at how the vote was,” the strategist said.
Paul said he kept his plan secret up until the day of the vote. He only let the Senate cloakroom know about the point of order on Monday.
“We told the cloakroom staff the day before,” he said, adding the floor staff probably alerted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) of the tactic immediately afterward.
Paul said he was informed by the legal analysis of Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus Harvard law professor and constitutional expert who has argued that the penalty for an impeachment conviction — removal from office and disqualification from future office — would not apply to Trump since he is no longer in office. “His point is that it doesn’t say ‘remove from office or disqualify,’ it says ‘remove and disqualify.’ That doesn’t really work if you’ve already left office,” Paul said.
Paul’s point of order stated that Trump “holds none of the positions listed in the Constitution” and is “a private citizen.”
It also emphasized Leahy’s role in presiding over the trial. “His presence, and the chief justice’s absence, demonstrates that this is not a trial of the president but of a private citizen,” the motion states.
After 45 Republicans voted against tabling Paul’s motion on Tuesday, many senators predicted Trump’s trial will end in acquittal, especially since only five GOP senators joined with Democrats, falling far short of the 17 needed to reach the conviction threshold of 67.
“I think it's pretty obvious from the vote today that it is extraordinarily unlikely that the president will be convicted,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said after the vote.
Paul says Roberts’s absence ‘crystalized’ argument against Trump impeachment
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday said hearing that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would not preside over former President Trump’s upcoming impeachment trial “crystalized” the GOP argume…
thehill.com
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
The utter absence of GOP self-awareness and capacity for shame would have destroyed the party, back before they decided to seize control of the nation instead of help govern it. By 1980, the GOP had gone all in on racial division for the purpose of usurpation/institutional capture - or insurrection, if their sneakiness failed & they had to rely on their brainwashed base - and it was already too late for the party to ‘right’ itself.
GOP is injured currently...and is therefore exponentially more dangerous as it continues to struggle for survival and victory. The stake in its heart can’t come soon enough
GOP is injured currently...and is therefore exponentially more dangerous as it continues to struggle for survival and victory. The stake in its heart can’t come soon enough
printer
Well-Known Member
Suck on this Trumptards.
Ex-FBI lawyer gets 1-year probation for altering email in Trump campaign probe
A former FBI lawyer on Friday was sentenced to one year of probation after pleading guilty to doctoring an email that was used to help justify surveillance on an adviser to former President Trump's 2016 campaign. Kevin Clinesmith had pleaded guilty to one charge of making a false statement in a case brought by John Durham, the special counsel appointed by the Trump administration to investigate the origins of the Department of Justice's investigation into the 2016 campaign. Judge James Boasberg, who was appointed by former President Obama, also ordered Clinesmith to complete 400 hours of community service.
Clinesmith admitted to altering an email exchange about whether Carter Page, a onetime foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, had been a source for the CIA — information that was used in an application to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for permission to wiretap Page. The case against Clinesmith is the only criminal charge that has been brought as a result of Durham's ongoing investigation, which has so far failed to prove a wide-ranging political conspiracy against the Trump campaign as the former president had repeatedly alleged.
Clinesmith has said that his actions were not motivated by bias against Trump, and the Justice Department's inspector general found that the investigation into potential Russian involvement with Trump's campaign was not politically motivated.
Durham's office had been seeking a sentence of up to six months in prison for Clinesmith, citing his two-week suspension in 2018 for sending text messages with a colleague that expressed political views disparaging Trump. Society expects and requires better from attorneys and officers of the Court, who take the oath to uphold the law and comply with their professional and ethical obligations," prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memo last month. "These consequences do not negate the need for a sentence of imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of his offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide adequate general deterrence."
Boasberg's sentence is in line with the recommendation from Clinesmith's lawyers, who had argued that the ex-FBI official's action was a misguided effort to save time and provide clarity for his colleagues. "Kevin Clinesmith made a grievous mistake," his lawyers said in a court filing last month. "By altering a colleague’s email, he cut a corner in a job that required far better of him. He failed to live up to the FBI’s and his own high standards of conduct. And he committed a crime. Kevin pled guilty and accepts full responsibility. He deeply regrets his conduct and apologizes to all those who have been affected — including his former colleagues, the FBI, the DOJ, the Court, the public, and his family."
thehill.com
Ex-FBI lawyer gets 1-year probation for altering email in Trump campaign probe
A former FBI lawyer on Friday was sentenced to one year of probation after pleading guilty to doctoring an email that was used to help justify surveillance on an adviser to former President Trump's 2016 campaign. Kevin Clinesmith had pleaded guilty to one charge of making a false statement in a case brought by John Durham, the special counsel appointed by the Trump administration to investigate the origins of the Department of Justice's investigation into the 2016 campaign. Judge James Boasberg, who was appointed by former President Obama, also ordered Clinesmith to complete 400 hours of community service.
Clinesmith admitted to altering an email exchange about whether Carter Page, a onetime foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, had been a source for the CIA — information that was used in an application to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for permission to wiretap Page. The case against Clinesmith is the only criminal charge that has been brought as a result of Durham's ongoing investigation, which has so far failed to prove a wide-ranging political conspiracy against the Trump campaign as the former president had repeatedly alleged.
Clinesmith has said that his actions were not motivated by bias against Trump, and the Justice Department's inspector general found that the investigation into potential Russian involvement with Trump's campaign was not politically motivated.
Durham's office had been seeking a sentence of up to six months in prison for Clinesmith, citing his two-week suspension in 2018 for sending text messages with a colleague that expressed political views disparaging Trump. Society expects and requires better from attorneys and officers of the Court, who take the oath to uphold the law and comply with their professional and ethical obligations," prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memo last month. "These consequences do not negate the need for a sentence of imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of his offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide adequate general deterrence."
Boasberg's sentence is in line with the recommendation from Clinesmith's lawyers, who had argued that the ex-FBI official's action was a misguided effort to save time and provide clarity for his colleagues. "Kevin Clinesmith made a grievous mistake," his lawyers said in a court filing last month. "By altering a colleague’s email, he cut a corner in a job that required far better of him. He failed to live up to the FBI’s and his own high standards of conduct. And he committed a crime. Kevin pled guilty and accepts full responsibility. He deeply regrets his conduct and apologizes to all those who have been affected — including his former colleagues, the FBI, the DOJ, the Court, the public, and his family."
Ex-FBI lawyer gets 1-year probation for altering email in Trump campaign probe
A former FBI lawyer on Friday was sentenced to one year of probation after pleading guilty to doctoring an email that was used to help justify surveillance on an adviser to former President Trump&#…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Not fear of telling the truth but rather political ambition at the expense of the truth.
Former House GOP leader: Fear of telling 'truth' to voters led to Capitol riot
Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Friday argued in an opinion piece for The Washington Post that the deadly Jan. 6 pro-Trump riot at the Capitol was a result of some elected officials’ “unwillingness to speak truth to power.” Cantor, who served as the majority leader in the House from 2011 to 2014, pointed to his experience as a top GOP lawmaker in 2013 during what at the time was the second-longest government shutdown in American history. “Back in 2013, the expectation was that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives could force the Democratic-controlled Senate to pass — and compel President Barack Obama to sign — a repeal of his signature health-care initiative,” Cantor writes on the initiative to end the Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as ObamaCare.
Cantor wrote that “a small group of lawmakers in the House and the Senate, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), started telling the base what they longed to hear: that Republicans could indeed defund Obamacare simply by insisting on it as part of a larger annual government spending bill. These members, and indeed every other elected Republican, knew better, but very few were willing to say so.” Cantor, who now serves as vice chairman and managing director of global investment bank Moelis & Company, argued that this “pattern repeated itself at a new level around the 2020 election,” with the “Stop the Steal” campaign fueled by former President Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that the election was “stolen” from him through widespread voter fraud.
“Bloggers and certain friendly radio and TV shows didn’t need to worry about providing defensible facts or being confronted with the truth,” Cantor wrote. “Soon, President Donald Trump was talking about how the election could be overturned and awarded to the ‘true’ winner — him — if only a secretary of state . . . or a governor . . . or the judges he appointed . . . or congressional Republicans . . . or the vice president would fight like he wanted them to.”
Cantor maintained that the issue is not limited to the GOP, adding, “The same pattern is already unfolding… as progressive activists — joined by elected officeholders, including Reps. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and ‘the Squad,’ with aspirations of higher office — tell tales of what Democrats could accomplish if only they were willing to fight and use their power.” “Political parties and their leaders have a two options: Engage in the competition of ideas and solve problems while moving the country forward, or continue to promote disinformation and false narratives designed to undermine our democracy," he wrote.
“The choice should be obvious,” he adds.
Several Republican lawmakers and conservative media outlets advanced Trump’s unsupported election claims, with Cantor pointing out in his opinion piece that a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this month found that two-thirds of Republican or GOP-leaning voters believed there was valid evidence showing widespread election fraud.
thehill.com
Former House GOP leader: Fear of telling 'truth' to voters led to Capitol riot
Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Friday argued in an opinion piece for The Washington Post that the deadly Jan. 6 pro-Trump riot at the Capitol was a result of some elected officials’ “unwillingness to speak truth to power.” Cantor, who served as the majority leader in the House from 2011 to 2014, pointed to his experience as a top GOP lawmaker in 2013 during what at the time was the second-longest government shutdown in American history. “Back in 2013, the expectation was that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives could force the Democratic-controlled Senate to pass — and compel President Barack Obama to sign — a repeal of his signature health-care initiative,” Cantor writes on the initiative to end the Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as ObamaCare.
Cantor wrote that “a small group of lawmakers in the House and the Senate, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), started telling the base what they longed to hear: that Republicans could indeed defund Obamacare simply by insisting on it as part of a larger annual government spending bill. These members, and indeed every other elected Republican, knew better, but very few were willing to say so.” Cantor, who now serves as vice chairman and managing director of global investment bank Moelis & Company, argued that this “pattern repeated itself at a new level around the 2020 election,” with the “Stop the Steal” campaign fueled by former President Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that the election was “stolen” from him through widespread voter fraud.
“Bloggers and certain friendly radio and TV shows didn’t need to worry about providing defensible facts or being confronted with the truth,” Cantor wrote. “Soon, President Donald Trump was talking about how the election could be overturned and awarded to the ‘true’ winner — him — if only a secretary of state . . . or a governor . . . or the judges he appointed . . . or congressional Republicans . . . or the vice president would fight like he wanted them to.”
Cantor maintained that the issue is not limited to the GOP, adding, “The same pattern is already unfolding… as progressive activists — joined by elected officeholders, including Reps. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and ‘the Squad,’ with aspirations of higher office — tell tales of what Democrats could accomplish if only they were willing to fight and use their power.” “Political parties and their leaders have a two options: Engage in the competition of ideas and solve problems while moving the country forward, or continue to promote disinformation and false narratives designed to undermine our democracy," he wrote.
“The choice should be obvious,” he adds.
Several Republican lawmakers and conservative media outlets advanced Trump’s unsupported election claims, with Cantor pointing out in his opinion piece that a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this month found that two-thirds of Republican or GOP-leaning voters believed there was valid evidence showing widespread election fraud.
Former House GOP leader: Fear of telling ‘truth’ to voters led to Capitol riot
Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Friday argued in an opinion piece for The Washington Post that the deadly Jan. 6 pro-Trump riot at the Capitol was a result of some elected offic…
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
‘I’m just furious’: Relations in Congress crack after attack - POLITICO
‘I’m just furious’: Relations in Congress crack after attack
Lingering hostility over the Capitol attacks have left lawmakers more bitter than ever.
Some House lawmakers are privately refusing to work with each other. Others are afraid to be in the same room. Two members almost got into a fist fight on the floor. And the speaker of the House is warning that “the enemy is within.”
Forget Joe Biden’s calls for unity. Members of Congress couldn't be further divided.
Just weeks into the 117th Congress, the bedrock of relationships hasn't been on such shaky ground in more than a generation, with a sense of deep distrust and betrayal that lawmakers worry will linger for years. And those strains could carry long-term effects on an institution where relationships — and reputations — matter more than almost anything else.
“This is a real tension,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who was among the roughly two dozen Democrats barricaded into the chamber during the Jan. 6 riots and later contracted coronavirus after spending hours in a safe room with Republicans who refused to wear masks. “I don’t know if that’s repairable. It is certainly a massive chasm that exists right now between a large majority of the Republican caucus and all of us Democrats across the ideological spectrum.”
The friction is particularly intense in the House, where two-thirds of the GOP conference voted to overturn the election just hours after lawmakers were attacked by a mob that demanded that very action. The position of those 139 members is now threatening to upend decades of relationships in the House, forcing long-time colleagues to work through their raw emotions and palpable anger in the weeks since the attack.
“I've really been struggling with it,” added Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), who was also in the chamber when rioters breached the building. “I have a hard time interacting with those members right now, especially with those I had a closer relationship with... I'm not going to deny the reality — that I look at them differently now. They’re smaller people to me now.”
Multiple Democrats said they are privately mulling whether to sever ties completely with those Republicans, as their caucus weighs potential forms of punishment — particularly for those still-unnamed members who House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said gave “aid and comfort” to the insurrectionists.
more...
‘I’m just furious’: Relations in Congress crack after attack
Lingering hostility over the Capitol attacks have left lawmakers more bitter than ever.
Some House lawmakers are privately refusing to work with each other. Others are afraid to be in the same room. Two members almost got into a fist fight on the floor. And the speaker of the House is warning that “the enemy is within.”
Forget Joe Biden’s calls for unity. Members of Congress couldn't be further divided.
Just weeks into the 117th Congress, the bedrock of relationships hasn't been on such shaky ground in more than a generation, with a sense of deep distrust and betrayal that lawmakers worry will linger for years. And those strains could carry long-term effects on an institution where relationships — and reputations — matter more than almost anything else.
“This is a real tension,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who was among the roughly two dozen Democrats barricaded into the chamber during the Jan. 6 riots and later contracted coronavirus after spending hours in a safe room with Republicans who refused to wear masks. “I don’t know if that’s repairable. It is certainly a massive chasm that exists right now between a large majority of the Republican caucus and all of us Democrats across the ideological spectrum.”
The friction is particularly intense in the House, where two-thirds of the GOP conference voted to overturn the election just hours after lawmakers were attacked by a mob that demanded that very action. The position of those 139 members is now threatening to upend decades of relationships in the House, forcing long-time colleagues to work through their raw emotions and palpable anger in the weeks since the attack.
“I've really been struggling with it,” added Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), who was also in the chamber when rioters breached the building. “I have a hard time interacting with those members right now, especially with those I had a closer relationship with... I'm not going to deny the reality — that I look at them differently now. They’re smaller people to me now.”
Multiple Democrats said they are privately mulling whether to sever ties completely with those Republicans, as their caucus weighs potential forms of punishment — particularly for those still-unnamed members who House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said gave “aid and comfort” to the insurrectionists.
more...
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Federal Judge Overturns Local Courts To Keep Some Accused Trump Mob Members In Custody
Rachel Maddow reviews some of the cases in which accused pro-Trump rioters were allowed by local judges to go home after being arrested, only to have a federal judge insist that they remain in jail until trial.
Rachel Maddow reviews some of the cases in which accused pro-Trump rioters were allowed by local judges to go home after being arrested, only to have a federal judge insist that they remain in jail until trial.
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
Word today that Moscow Mitch has caved to T Rex...I sincerely hope this means that the filibuster is toast, and that the Dems will play GOP-style hardball, especially with the treason monkeys still screeching in both chambers.
In other ‘news’, Trump has set up an “official” Office of the Former President...because *of course he did*
In other ‘news’, Trump has set up an “official” Office of the Former President...because *of course he did*
Jimdamick
Well-Known Member
This is a pretty funny story & a good song 
Donald Trump's entire legal team quits week before impeachment trial: Sources (yahoo.com)
Donald Trump's entire legal team quits week before impeachment trial: Sources (yahoo.com)
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
A real vote of confidence on their part...such confidence in the case and their client!
they may be already experiencing a bloodbath in their marketing dept...lawyers need every scrap of reputation they can collect, defending the indefensible can’t be good for business.
they may be already experiencing a bloodbath in their marketing dept...lawyers need every scrap of reputation they can collect, defending the indefensible can’t be good for business.
I like it - saw them at SIX FLAGS of all places...and with Depeche Mode, too. GREAT concert!This is a pretty funny story & a good song
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
As much as I fought the remove the filibuster movement, I am no longer.
The Republicans have not been serious about helping 100% of our nation for far too long and it needs to stop. But once this happens citizens of our nation will need to be hyper vigiliant about voting far as long as the Republicans are more focused on trolling Americans in order to keep power than they are legislating for them all.