Elie Mystal: The “Chief Architect” Of The Assault On Voting Rights Is Chief Justice John Roberts

$upport via Cash App

The Nation’s Justice Correspondent, Elie Mystal, dropped a major bombshell on MSNBC’s American Voices (01/16/22), when he slammed U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as the “chief architect” of the assault on voting rights. Unlike many mainstream media pundits who engage in incendiary rhetoric just for ratings, Elie Mystal backed up his bombshell assertion with very good examples that would make any reasonable person either agree with him, or at the very least, find his assertion quite plausible. The fact that Elie Mystal’s bombshell claims pass the plausibility test, should compel Chief Justice Roberts to address them, for the sake of the Supreme Court’s integrity.

Elie Mystal specifically said: “The chief architect of this assault on our voting rights is not Mitch McConnell, it’s not ot David Duke, it’s not whatever boogey man you think is hiding under the closet. The chief architect is Chief Justice John Roberts. It is he who has been an enemy of voting rights and racial equality from his very first job out of law school, which was to oppose the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act. It is John Roberts who authored Shelby County v Holder in 2013 which eviscerated section 5 of Voting Rights Act which is basically why we are here right now, it is John Roberts who authored Rucho in 2020 which swung wide the doors towards gerrymandering, and it is John Roberts who provided the crucial 5th vote in last year’s Brnovich decision which eviscerated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This is all being done by Federalist Society conservatives that have been put on the Supreme Court, and until we stop them, until we do something about the court–you want to pass your Freedom to Vote Act, I think that’s a great bill, we should pass it, I think we should have passed HR1, but always remember that John Roberts and his conservative cronies are waiting at the Supreme Court level to strike down whatever laws we put forward. As long as you let Republicans control the Supreme Court, you cannot have a fair and equal just society.”

It’s worth pointing out here too, that Elie Mystal is not only decrying Chief Justice Roberts’ questionable history on voting rights, but crucially, also making the point that minorities are doomed going forward, with him at the helm of the Supreme Court. This naturally raises the question as to whether Chief Justice Roberts is the right person to lead the high court.

Bottom line folks, these are questions that the mainstream media needs to take up with Chief Justice Roberts. At a time when voting rights are a red hot topic, and minorities are increasingly concerned about Republicans infringing upon their right to vote, the public deserves to know whether the Roberts Supreme Court will be a neutral arbiter in the fight for voting rights, as it should be.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Sen Cassidy Says SCOTUS Decision Gutting Voting Rights Act Justifies Restrictive State Election Laws

$upport via Cash App

Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) appeared on CNN’s State of The Union show (01/16/22) to put forward the Republican position on the push for a federal voting rights legislation(John Lewis Voting Rights Act), and also discuss the related question as to whether the U.S. Senate should change its filibuster rules to allow for the passage of the said voting rights law via a simple majority vote. When asked by host Jake Tapper why Republicans are now opposed to keeping key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act(VRA) intact, when as recently as a decade ago they were all for it, Sen Cassidy gave a strange response which appeared to suggest that because the Roberts Supreme Court gutted key provisions of the VRA in Shelby County v Holder(2013), there is no need to be concerned about discriminatory state election laws–that this is not 1965 anymore, things have changed.

Yours Truly, and I suspect a lot of other viewers too, found Senator Cassidy’s Response quite strange because while liberals agree that this is not 1965, and that progress has been made on the civil rights front, we need to restore key aspects of the 1965 Voting Rights Act because Trump’s GOP is taking us back to 1965. In other words, Senator Cassidy, and by extension the Roberts Supreme Court, are totally wrong in their assessment that simply because this is not 1965, Republican states are no longer capable of crafting discriminatory election laws. The facts on the ground clearly show that after the 2020 election, relying on former President Trump’s “big lie“, many Republican-controlled states have hurriedly enacted election laws that reasonable people agree, disenfranchise voters of color.

Senator Cassidy specifically said on CNNSOTU(video @ 2:20 onwards): “The Supreme Court decided[paused for effect], the Supreme Court decided that the conditions in 1965 are different than the conditions now. Imagine that. We’ve had an African-American elected President of the United States, we’ve had an African-American elected to the Vice Presidency, an African-American elected to the[U.S.]Senate in South Carolina. Now, if anyone can’t see that circumstances have changed, they’re just not believing their lying eye…There’s more to do, absolutely, we need safeguards, but to argue we are still the same as we were in 1965 is to deny facts that are clearly before us.”

There’s no other way any reasonable person presented with Senator Cassidy’s response(including his pause for effect), would arrive at any other conclusion other than, because the Roberts Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013 citing changed conditions, the voter suppression laws currently popping up in red states are justified. Think about that, the new Republican rationale for voter suppression, as articulated by Senator Cassidy, is that it’s not a big deal because if it was, the Roberts Supreme Court would never have gutted key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act–a sad state of affairs indeed.

Bottom line folks, Dems must use every tool at their disposal to get holdout Senators Kyrsten Sinema(D-AZ) and Joe Manchin(D-WV) to agree to a filibuster carveout for a federal voting rights legislation before the 2022 midterms because if they don’t, all the gains we’ve witnessed thus far as a result of the 1965 Voting Rights Act will be lost, and the Roberts Supreme Court will not lift a finger to assist. Simply put, it’s now or never for a federal voting rights law that restores key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

OathKeepers Indictment Raises Serious Questions About Higher Up Involvement

$upport via Cash App

The bombshell seditious conspiracy indictment of 11 members of the militia group OathKeepers following their involvement in the January 6th insurrection, is raising serious questions as to how far up the law enforcement, military, and intelligence food chain, the conspiracy went. Specifically, given the level of tactical military sophistication they displayed on January 6th, there are valid questions as to whether Trump-allied senior members of U.S. law enforcement, military, and intelligence apparatus, gave material support, or even worse, are still members of this dangerous militia group that attempted to violently overthrow the government. A segment on CNN’s Outfront with Erin Burnett(01/13/22) delved into this very topic.

The full Outfront segment is available here, but the relevant clip is below.

Host Erin Burnett said in relevant part: “Prior planning, coordination, sedition, weapons. The 11 people charged today, were[in a]conspiracy, and they are not small fish, like many of the more than 700 people already charged, some of who may have been wrapped up in the moment. Not the case with these individuals. This group had a level of combat training, they were prepared to use force, they had a stash of weapons that they brought for that specific intent, and the question tonight is…now you’ve got a conspiracy, you’ve got planning, you’ve got it all laid out. How much higher does that go?”

Any reasonable person presented with the OathKeepers indictment would reasonably conclude, as host Erin Burnett did, that given the sophistication of their January 6th operation, people higher up in the law enforcement, military, intelligence and even political food chain, were providing material support to the OathKeepers. Providing material support to this dangerous militia group would also necessarily imply that they are members of the group–a scary thought indeed.

CNN’s Sara Sidner followed up with an in depth look at OathKeepers leader Stewart Rhodes in an appearance on New Day (01/14/22), where she dropped a bombshell that further bolsters the troubling prospect that the OathKeepers may have enjoyed material support from insiders within our law enforcement, military and intelligence ranks.

Sara Sidner said: “One of the things the OathKeepers do, is they try and recruit either current or former military, current or former members of law enforcement, current or former people who have been part of the intelligence apparatus in the United States, whether it be the FBI , CIA, anybody that they can get and bring into the organization, and when you think about that, it means that they have tactical training to do something like this[January 6th], and to plan something like this.”

This raises serious questions including but not limited to, what kind of arms and illegally acquired intelligence the OathKeepers currently have, whether in light of this indictment, it’s still okay to have active members of our law enforcement, military, and intelligence apparatus being active members of this violent militia group, etc.

Bottom line folks, Erin Burnett’s question as to how high up this conspiracy goes, is a very serious one, that needs to be seriously addressed by Congress, especially the January 6th Committee, and the mainstream media. For the record, this question has been raised before by concerned members of the public, including Yours Truly, but always treated as one requiring a voluntary answer from our law enforcement, military and intelligence brass. Given the seriousness of this OathKeepers indictment, this question should no longer be one that requires a voluntary answer. The mainstream media and Congress, preferably the January 6th Committee, must demand an answer from leaders in our law enforcement, military and intelligence agencies, as to how much the OathKeepers have infiltrated their ranks. This is a serious national security problem, and it should be treated as such. A major part of the January 6th Committee’s mission is to prevent another January 6th-type insurrection. Reasonable people will agree that rooting out extremism within our law enforcement, military, and intelligence ranks will go a long way in fulfilling that mission.

Specific emphasis should be placed on Trumper states like Texas, which has a heavy OathKeepers presence, and was involved all the way to the top(AG Paxton and other political leaders) in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. What other nefarious activities are the OathKeepers enlisted for in such states? Did the Texas political establishment provide material support to the OathKeepers, for their January 6th operation?

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Three Trump Campaign Officials Were Directly Involved In Harassment Of An Elderly Georgia Election Worker

$upport via Cash App

Trumpers Trevian Kutti and Garrison Douglas pressuring election worker Ruby Freeman to confess to a bogus election fraud scheme at a Georgia police station(Jan 4, 2021)

A troubling segment on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show (12/22/21) revealed that three Trump campaign officials were directly involved in the harassment of an elderly Georgia election worker, Ruby Freeman, who they tried to extort into confessing to a bogus election fraud claim pushed by then President Trump. The officials in question are Harrison Floyd, a Black Voices for Trump Executive Director, who until November 2020, was a paid Trump campaign staffer, Trevian Kutti, a publicist for Trump’s Rapper buddy Kanye West(now Ye), and Garrison Douglas, another Black Voices for Trump member who apparently, was also working for the Georgia Republican Party at the time of this harassment scheme.

Trevian Kutti is the woman in the dark outfit, seen in the video pressuring election worker Ruby Freeman to confess in 48 hours, if she wants to avoid getting arrested, and as a condition for her getting “protection”. The man sitting on the right of Trevian Kutti as she issues her threats, is Garrison Douglas, who at the time, was working for the Georgia Republican Party, and is also a member of the Black Voices For Trump. The “high-profile individual” who Trevian Kutti got on the phone with, who was supposedly going to “protect” Ruby Freeman, and keep her out of jail if she confessed in 48 hours, is Harrison Floyd, the Executive Director of Black Voices for Trump. Harrison Floyd was until November 2020, a paid Trump campaign staffer. There’s no question that this shameful harassment scheme was a full blown Trump operation geared towards stopping the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral college victory, scheduled for January 6th.

The full Maddow segment is available here but the relevant clip is below

Maddow said: “Just step back here for a moment, just appreciate what we now know happened here. This is in the midst of what at this point, is already a weeks-long pressure campaign by President Trump and his allies in Georgia. Everybody from President Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and everybody on down, is hyping this wackadoodle conspiracy theory about a random Atlanta election worker, and her being like the mastermind of the crime. They are doing that in order to justify getting Republican officials in Georgia to overturn the election results and say that Trump won. That election worker is getting threatened like you cannot believe. She is in fear for her life under an onslaught of harassment and threats, and in the midst of that, three people involved with the Trump campaign, one of whom until recently had been a high profile Trump campaign employee, another who works for the Republican Party, they arrange to show up at this woman’s house and try to get her to admit to election fraud because then they can protect her. And the deadline they gave her was very specific–48 hours….Why was it so important that they get to her before that 48 hours was up? Well, at the end of that 48 hours, remember that conversation happened on January 4th, 48 hours after that was the certification of Joe Biden’s win in Congress, the thing Trump and his allies were trying to stop at all costs.”

Maddow went on to add that on January 6th, as the insurrection was playing out in real time, a bunch of Trumpers surrounded Ruby Freeman’s house in Atlanta, and shouted at her through a bullhorn. Any reasonable person presented with Maddow’s account of this incident would conclude that Ruby Freeman’s harassers were not just some random Trump supporters arbitrarily going out of their way to inflict pain on her, but rather that they were part of an elaborate scheme to force a bogus confession out of her, which they could then use to overturn the Georgia election results, and stop the scheduled January 6th certification in Congress. Simply put, these were conspirators to a crime.

Bottom line folks, the January 6th Committee definitely needs to look into who was giving orders to these three Trumpers in this very elaborate scheme to (1) overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results and (2) to put a stop to the scheduled January 6th Congressional certification of Biden’s electoral college win. The public deserves to know who else was working with these three shady characters, as they terrorized an innocent, and elderly election worker. That’s the least the January 6th Committee can do for poor Ruby Freeman’s tormented family.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Senator Shaheen Says Havana Syndrome Most Likely Caused By “Microwave Directed Energy Attacks”

$upport via Cash App

Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) appeared on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports (12/15/21), where she gave an update on the investigation into the causes/origins of Havana Syndrome. Senator Shaheen said Russia remains the chief suspect, adding that she agrees with the assessment of the National Academy of Sciences, that these are most likely “microwave directed energy attacks.”

Sen Shaheen said part of the defense authorization bill currently being debated in Congress, seeks to provide a coordinator who will look into Havana Syndrome cases across all federal agencies, and keep Congress apprised on any new findings.

Sen Shaheen told host Andrea Mitchell:“What we want is a coordinator, not just within the various agencies where they’ve had personnel attacked, but also someone who can coordinate the entire effort, and that’s part of the amendment that’s in the defense bill, as well as a regular reporting to Congress. We want to know exactly what’s going on so that we can respond. It’s very troubling that this happened years ago, five years ago, and we still don’t know who’s responsible, we don’t know exactly the cause of the attacks, and we’re not sure who’s doing it.”

Neither Senator Shaheen nor MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchel addressed the growing elephant-in-the-room question regarding directed energy attacks, and that is, growing complaints by regular civilians in the U.S.(not diplomats), who claim to be victims of directed energy attacks, leaving them with symptoms of Havana Syndrome–complaints similar to the one below. Will the designated Havana Syndrome coordinator also hear from such regular civilians and report back to Congress? Hmm

Bottom line folks, the U.S. constitution intended for members of Congress to function as representatives of their constituents. Where, as here, we have Congress totally ignoring cries from regular civilians(their constituents) of directed energy attacks, while at the same time enacting a scheme to compensate and treat similarly afflicted government employees, one can only conclude that the era of representative government is long gone–a sad state of affairs indeed. At some point, hopefully soon, Congress will have to entertain Havana Syndrome complaints from regular civilians. Then, and only then, will the public have confidence in the government’s investigation into Havana Syndrome.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Moderate House Dems Shoot Down AOC’s Intel Oversight Amendment

$upport via Cash App

On 12/9/21 Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-NY) introduced an amendment(Amendment 148 to H.R. 5314–Protect Our Democracy Act), that would have restored the oversight powers Congress always intended the Government Accountability Office(GAO) to have, including over our intelligence agencies. Our intelligence agencies, as everyone knows, are notoriously impervious to any Congressional oversight, and often hide behind a vague 1988 Department of Justice opinion to justify their need for secrecy. Rep Ocasio-Cortez’s amendment would have taken away that cover, ensuring much-needed transparency from our intelligence agencies. Surprisingly, 23 Centrist Democrats voted with House Republicans to kill her amendment.

As Rep Ocasio-Cortez correctly pointed out on the House floor, given the kinds of abuses we’ve witnessed during Trump’s presidency, it is only prudent that we restore GAO’s oversight powers over all federal agencies, including our intelligence agencies. Any reasonable person would agree, that it is foolhardy to assume that former President Trump abused all other federal agencies for his selfish political interests, except our intelligence apparatus, the easiest ones to abuse given the secrecy with which they are allowed to operate.

Rep Ocasio-Cortez said on the House floor: “Since it’s creation in 1921, the Government Accountability Office(GAO) has had the purview to conduct oversight of all federal agencies with the goal of reducing waste, fraud and abuse, and holding accountable bad actors. However and unfortunately, most of our intelligence agencies today are not fully cooperative with the GAO, pointing to an outdated and vague 1988 Department of Justice opinion. Our amendment would allow the GAO to act as a check on this behavior, not creating new powers, but restoring the power Congress always intended the GAO to have. This amendment is welcomed by many in the intelligence community, who want to protect their important work and resources from abuse, particularly after the last presidency we just endured. We drafted this amendment in partnership with the community and I’m proud to have the support of Representative Adam Schiff who serves as the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In fact many of my colleagues have already taken a stand in support of this legislation because in 2010, the House passed a virtually identical amendment.”

The amendment failed with a final tally of 233 nays, 196 yeas, with 4 members not voting. Among the 233 nays were 23 Centrist Democrats who Yours Truly is compelled to name. The nay Dems included Reps Cynthia Axne(IA), Cheri Bustos(IL), Matt Cartwright(PA), Angie Craig(MN), Antonio Delgado(NY), Val Demings(FL), Jared Golden(ME), Josh Gottheimer(NJ), Chrissy Houlahan(PA), Conor Lamb(PA), Susie Lee(NV), Elaine Luria(VA), Tom O’Halleran(AZ), Chris Pappas(NH), Kurt Schrader(OR), Kim Schrier(WA), Terri Sewell(AL), Mikie Sherrill(NJ), Abigail Spanberger(VA), David Trone(MD), Filemon Vela(TX), Jennifer Wexton(VA), Susan Wild(PA).

Ever since the Patriot Act was enacted after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, there have been growing calls from civil libertarians and others, for there to be some checks on the almost absolute powers we granted our intelligence agencies after the 9/11 attacks. The reasoning behind this is pretty simple–power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Fast forward to the Trump administration and the abuses we witnessed occurring across all federal agencies–(DOJ being used for the Big Lie, Military on Black Lives Matter protesters in DC, numerous abuses of DHS, “failure” by our intel agencies to anticipate Jan 6th insurrection)– and the need to look into our intel agencies becomes an absolute necessity. It’s against this backdrop that Rep Ocasio-Cortez, with the support of many in the intel community, are pushing for more transparency. One would assume given these set of circumstances, that more oversight would be a no-brainer for Democrats, but apparently not.

Concerns about possible abuses of our intel agencies run the gamut, from the mundane warrantless snooping of our electronic communications (emails, texts, voicemails, etc), to much more serious allegations that if proven, constitute serious violations of our commitments under the United Nations Conventions Against Torture(CAT). These include allegations of 24/7 organized stalking, non-consensual for-profit human experimentation on people entered on terrorism watchlists by weapons manufacturers and others in Big Tech(remote neuromonitoring), militarized attacks on civilians(usually watchlisted) with directed energy weapons, manufactured terrorism cases, etc. These are serious human rights violations that can only come to light through proper oversight. It also bears pointing out that similar egregious abuses have in the past been attributed to our intel agencies, a recent good example being the non-consensual experimentation on U.S. civilians using radiation. President Clinton in 1995, did the just and moral thing by not only exposing this inhumane conduct, but also making whole the surviving victims. The same can be done today.

Bottom line folks, Rep Ocasio-Cortez deserves a lot of praise for pushing for reform on a topic most politicians, and quite frankly the mainstream media, have been terrified to venture into. One only hopes that she musters the courage to push on with it, despite the recent setback on the House floor. Simply put, time has come for our intel agencies to be subjected to some real oversight.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Ingraham-Ted Cruz SCOTUS Ultimatum: Strike Down Roe v Wade Or Face Limited Jurisdiction

$upport via Cash App

Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX) appeared on Fox News’ Ingraham Angle show (12/1/21) to discuss the Mississippi abortion law currently playing out at the United States Supreme Court. Conservatives consider this Mississippi law their best shot at dealing a fatal blow to the 1973 Roe v Wade decision which legalized abortion, given the fact that they now enjoy a 6-3 advantage on the high court. What caught Yours Truly’s attention from the interview however, was the very direct way(not subtle any more) both Senator Cruz and host Laura Ingraham, a very influential Republican in her own right, expect, even demand that the conservative Supreme Court justices toe the conservative ideological line. As a matter of fact, Ingraham and Senator Cruz went as far as laying an ultimatum to the six conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court: Strike down Roe v Wade or suffer the consequences of a limited jurisdiction court.

During the interview, as Senator Cruz was going on and on about why he thought the conservative Supreme Court would uphold the Mississippi abortion law, host Laura Ingraham interjected: “Senator if we have six Republican appointees on this court, after all the money that’s been raised, the Federalist Society, all these big fat cat dinners, I’m sorry, I’m pissed about this. If this court, with six justices cannot do the right thing here, the constitutional thing, then I think it’s time to do what Robert Bork said we should do, which is to circumscribe the jurisdiction of this court, and they want to blow it up, then that’s the way to change things finally because this can’t stand. This is insane.”

A concurring Senator Cruz responded: “I would do that in a heartbeat. As you know, the constitution gives Congress the authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the court, I think we should do that…”

There’s no other way any reasonable person would interpret Senator Cruz’s interaction with Fox News host Laura Ingraham other than Republicans have for decades, organized and raised large sums of money through the Federalist Society and others, to put like-minded justices on the United States Supreme Court, for the express purpose of overturning Roe v Wade, and for the high court to generally act as a rubber stamp for other Republican Party/conservative ideals. What Senator Cruz and Ingraham are expressly conveying to the six conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court is pretty clear, and that is, they better toe the Republican Party line by striking down Roe v Wade, or else suffer the consequences of a limited jurisdiction Supreme Court–have their powers reduced.

This direct threat Senator Cruz and Ingraham leveled at the conservative justices of the U.S. Supreme Court confirms what liberals have argued all along, and that is, the U.S. Supreme Court as is currently constituted, six conservatives and three liberals, is for all intents and purposes, a political court. This is especially so when one considers the egregious conduct of then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-KY), who robbed President Obama of an opportunity to fill the late Justice Scalia’s seat using the bogus “election year” rationale. Sen McConnell then turned around and abandoned his “election year” rationale in late 2020, to rush through the confirmation of Trump’s nominee Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ginsburg. Simply put, the conservative Roberts Supreme Court has become a political body, whether or not the justices want to acknowledge that fact.

Bottom line folks, this ultimatum by Senator Cruz and Ingraham should put to rest this myth that the 6-3 Roberts Supreme Court is some apolitical body, only interested in deciding cases on their legal merits. Republicans have fought for decades, and have succeeded in installing justices they are sure, will tow the GOP line. Now they expect/are demanding results, beginning with Roe v Wade. The only question remaining should be how we free the U.S. Supreme Court from it’s GOP captors, and revert it back to it’s proper realm, as the premier legal institution in America. One possible solution would be to expand the court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

FBI Ignored Specific Warnings About Killing Cops & Arresting MoCs Weeks Before January 6th

$upport via Cash App

As part of it’s Thanksgiving special programming(11/26/21), MSNBC’s Deadline White House invited venerable Washington Post journalists Carol Leonnig, Philip Rucker and Ashley Parker to discuss their bombshell 10/31/21 piece titled “The Attack” which is to date, the most in depth look(by journalists) into the events that transpired before, during and after the January 6th attack on the Capitol, aka DC Insurrection. The revelations in this bombshell Washington Post investigative piece show that the warnings that were ignored by the FBI and the rest of our national security apparatus prior to January 6th, were far more detailed and specific than has been previously reported by the mainstream media, or acknowledged by the agencies. Simply put, if this bombshell WaPo reporting holds, a reasonable argument can be made that our national security agencies knew full well what was going to happen at the January 6th event, and still allowed the event to proceed–a conspiracy.

According to Leonnig, as early as December 17th, the FBI was already receiving specific and detailed warnings about plans by attendees of the January 6th event to sneak in guns, kill Capitol Police officers, and even arrest Members of Congress. One warning even specified Sen Mitt Romney(R-UT), an outspoken Trump critic, as one of the targets of such arrests. Leonnig added that the January 6th warnings became so severe that an Intel Operator at the DC Fusion Center, one Donell Harvin, whose job it was to alert the FBI and other law enforcement agencies of known threats, was “basically clanging a bell saying, ‘Everybody, come on down to my office, you can see how scary this[warnings] is.'”

The full Thanksgiving special edition of Deadline White House w/Nicolle Wallace is available here (a must watch for January 6th enthusiasts), but the relevant clip is below.

Carol Leonnig told host Nicolle Wallace: “What we revealed in this reporting and in this investigative series, it was even a shock to me, is that in late December..in the final sort of two weeks of December, the FBI, the preeminent entity responsible for gathering, collecting and assessing the potential threat to our country, was getting warnings on a scale that was stunning. One from December 17th in which a person involved in extremist chat alerted the FBI that they saw a conversation happening, in which leaders of this organization were not only plotting to come to January 6th, but were encouraging each other to weapon up , giving them specific instructions for firearms they could bring without being detected, and also to be prepared to draw down on police. One of them wrote, ‘Are you comfortable killing the palace guards? Be with me, we need to drop a few and the rest will flee’…On December 20th…the FBI receives an alert from another tipster who says, ‘I’m reading chatter on a group that I’m monitoring, and I’m warning you that these individuals who clearly plan to come January 6th, are discussing targeting and arresting specific lawmakers, including[Sen]Mitt Romney’…an attack on a public official, a precipitated, threatened attack on a public official…the FBI decided to close that without investigation, within 48 hours…. These are things the FBI was alerted to and it’s still unclear Nicolle, why they discarded it as not that important.”

Any reasonable person presented with the text of Carol Leonnig’s statement on Deadline White House would arrive at the conclusion that at a minimum, this was either gross negligence by the heads of our national security agencies–DHS, FBI, DOD–or even worse, a case of outright sabotage/conspiracy–they knew what was going to happen on January 6th, and still allowed it to happen. Needless to say, none of these scenarios is acceptable, and should be cause for an immediate investigation by the January 6th Committee.

Bottom line folks, at some point, the January 6th Committee will have to haul in the heads of DHS, FBI, and other heads of our national security apparatus, whose job it was to prevent January 6th insurrection from happening, and hit them with the elephant-in-the-room question as to whether they were in on the plot. This lingering question cannot be left unanswered, especially considering the fact that some corrupt elements in these agencies may still be working there. The January 6th Committee owes the public an answer to this burning question.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Senator Kyrsten Sinema Addresses Criticism By Progressives Over BIF And Build Back Better

$upport via Cash App

Senator Kyrsten Sinema(D-AZ) in an interview with Arizona’s ABC 15(11/19/21)

***Updated 12/3/21 to include Sen Sinema’s interview with CNN’s Lauren Fox***

On the day the House passed the Build Back Better Act(Nov 19), Senator Kyrsten Sinema(D-AZ) sat down for an interview with Arizona’s ABC 15(KNXV), to discuss what lies ahead for the historic bill in the Senate. It is no secret that a lot of Democrats, especially Progressive Democrats, have been very upset with Senators Sinema and Joe Manchin(D-WV), over what they perceive as a coordinated effort by the two Senators to derail President Biden’s legislative agenda.

Asked by the ABC 15‘s host about the sharp, even personal criticism she regularly receives from Progressives regarding her perceived obstruction of the Build Back Better Act and other key Democratic legislative proposals(voting rights etc), Senator Sinema responded: “When I first was elected to head to Washington DC and represent Arizona about 9 years ago, I promised to be a work horse, not a show horse, and that’s exactly what I’ve done over these last 9 years. In the 3 years that I’ve served in the United States Senate, I’ve been known for just putting my head down and doing the work. And my experience is, if you want to negotiate and get to an agreement on difficult topics, the best way to do that is to build trust, and when you’re building trust with someone, you work one on one, you solve the problem, you stay focused, and you don’t get distracted by the noise outside. Now, I know that a lot of folks wanted to hear that noise outside, but they probably didn’t have the same goal as me, which is to negotiate and pass a historic infrastructure bill into law, and I guess I would just say the proof is in the pudding. Here we are today, the bill has become law, and we move on to the next topic, which is to implement it for the benefit of every day Arizonans. So while there are some who may not like this approach, it works, and I think it represents what Arizonans elected me to do, which is to put my head down, get the work done, and deliver results for every day families. “

There’s no other way to interpret Senator Sinema’s response, especially her work horse versus show horse analogy, other than she looks at her Progressive critics as a bunch of drama kings/queens who are either unwilling or unable to do the hard work of negotiating with the opposing party(Republicans)to advance legislation. Senator Sinema added that her approach, which involves quietly negotiating with Republicans produces results, as opposed to the unproductive “noise” which she attributed to Progressives.

In what could turn out to be a problem for the Build Back Better Act in the Senate, Senator Sinema later in the interview, raised concerns about the bill worsening the already alarming inflation problem. It’s highly likely that Senator Manchin will also raise similar inflation concerns, which may lead to the gutting of some popular Progressive items like paid family leave from the Build Back Better Act. A gutted Build Back Better Act may prove non-palatable to House Progressives thereby killing the bill, or extending it’s passage well into 2022, a tough election year for Democrats.

Bottom line folks, it was good to see Senator Sinema, often shrouded in secrecy, talking extensively to the media about her stance on the Build Back Better Act and other issues important to her constituents. Hopefully this is the beginning of a more “public” Senator Sinema.

Senator Sinema has since sat down with CNN’s Lauren Fox(12/2/21) where she expressed similar reservations about the House-passed Build Back Better Act

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Is Lt Gov Winsome Sears The New Feel-Good Republican Of Color?

$upport via Cash App

The Republican Party has for decades fought accusations of racism from Democrats and others who do not identify with the party. As a result, Republicans have always latched onto some highly impressive African-American in their midst, as the “feel-good” Republican of color, who the party then holds out as proof that it is not a racist party.

Some of the prominent and most recent “feel-good” Republicans of color include the late General Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, both of whom served as U.S. Secretary of State, former Oklahoma Congressman JC Watts who was a star quarterback for the Sooners, and even current Senator Tim Scott(R-SC)

Well, it appears, given the reaction to her stellar performance on CNN’s State of The Union, that we have a newly-minted feel-good Republican of color—one Winsome Sears from Virginia.

Here are just some of the reactions from Republicans, super excited about Winsome Sears’ performance on CNN’s State of The Union.

It will be interesting to see how the feel-good Republican of color status shapes Winsome Sears’ political career going forward. Will she run for President in 2024? Hmm. As Trump famously says, “We’ll see what happens.”

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com