Tag: GOP

Posted on

The History Of Lies Preceeding Findings Of War Crimes

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

An interesting segment on MSNBC’s Last Word dug into what it described as a familiar pattern in U.S. military history: deny wrongdoing first, then slowly acknowledge pieces of the truth once outside evidence becomes impossible to dismiss. Lawrence O’Donnell used the current controversy surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s alleged “boat strikes” in the Caribbean as his launching point, arguing that the initial denials and evasions coming from the Pentagon echo earlier moments when U.S. officials misled the public about military actions that later proved indefensible. O’Donnell’s implication was unmistakable—that when the dust settles, investigators may conclude not only that the strikes were unlawful, but that Hegseth or those operating under his authority initially misrepresented what happened.

O’Donnell’s framing draws on a long and painful history. From the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, to the Pentagon’s early false account of Pat Tillman’s death, to the denials surrounding the Kunduz hospital airstrike in Afghanistan, the United States military has repeatedly issued confident, categorical explanations that later unraveled. The pattern is not merely that the military gets things wrong; it is that it often knows its initial explanations are incomplete or misleading. In the Kunduz case, commanders first claimed that the deadly strike on the Doctors Without Borders hospital was an accident caused by bad intelligence. Later investigations revealed systematic procedural violations and inconsistencies in the official story. In other incidents, the military has been accused of cleaning up sites, withholding footage, or pressuring witnesses—all in the name of preserving institutional credibility. These reversals feed the larger concern O’Donnell was highlighting: when allegations of war crimes arise, the public’s first encounter with them is often a narrative shaped to minimize responsibility.

That context matters in the current debate over the so-called “double tap” strikes. The term refers to a practice—widely condemned by human rights groups—where an initial strike is followed minutes later by a second one timed to hit rescuers rushing to help the wounded. International law experts have long argued that the tactic constitutes a war crime because it intentionally targets medics, civilians, or anyone giving aid. According to MSNBC’s reporting, the controversy swirling around Hegseth includes allegations that at least some of the Caribbean boat strikes may have followed this pattern. Early statements from Defense Department officials reportedly downplayed or denied this, but as often happens, additional footage and testimony have begun to contradict the earliest claims. O’Donnell suggested that even Hegseth’s own language has shifted—initially presenting the strikes as precise, justified, and unambiguous, while later remarks seem more cautious, as if acknowledging that the official story may not hold under scrutiny. Critics note that this rhetorical drift mirrors earlier cases where U.S. officials’ first instinct was to shield themselves rather than openly confront what occurred.

The pressure is not only coming from television pundits. MSNBC has also reported that the family of a Colombian fisherman killed in one of the “narco-terrorist” drone strikes has filed a formal complaint with a Washington, D.C.–based human rights organization. The filing seeks monetary compensation but also demands an end to the drone campaign altogether. More significantly, it accuses Secretary Hegseth of authorizing extrajudicial killing—an allegation that, if taken up by international bodies, could draw the attention of the International Criminal Court or other tribunals. While the ICC rarely targets officials from powerful nations, a complaint of this nature can still generate diplomatic headaches, congressional scrutiny, and sustained media investigation.

What stands out even more is that, despite the deep polarization in Washington, these boat strikes have triggered bipartisan unease. Lawmakers in both parties have struggled to accept the administration’s rationale that small vessels thousands of miles from U.S. shores pose such a grave and imminent threat that the only viable response is to blow them out of the water. Even some Republicans—normally inclined to defend a Republican administration reflexively—are questioning whether the intelligence behind the strikes is as airtight as officials claim. The complaint filed by the fisherman’s family underscores the fragility of the administration’s narrative; if one case unravels, others may follow, and with them the assertion that all strikes have been lawful counter-narco operations rather than disproportionate uses of force.

The open question is whether Secretary Hegseth will adjust course. Will he dial back the strike policy to accommodate bipartisan concerns, or will he press forward under the belief that forceful action now will be vindicated later? The political calculus is complicated by the reality that former President Trump, as a former head of state, will almost certainly remain shielded from any serious war-crimes prosecution; the ICC has historically avoided pursuing former U.S. presidents, and legal scholars widely agree it is unlikely to break that precedent. Hegseth, however, does not enjoy the same protective aura. Officials below the level of head of state have faced international legal jeopardy before, and those in the Trump administration who assume they are untouchable may discover that this confidence is misplaced.

Whether the unfolding controversy becomes another entry in the long ledger of U.S. military denials followed by partial admissions—or something more legally consequential—remains to be seen. But as O’Donnell’s segment underscored, history has taught observers to pay close attention not only to what officials say at the beginning of these crises, but how their stories change once the evidence emerges and the truth becomes harder to hide.

Posted on

USAID Funding Cuts Already Proving Lethal

Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

A recent segment on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell sparked intense debate by suggesting that the Trump-era Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—until recently led by Elon Musk before the agency was disbanded this month—has triggered devastating humanitarian consequences through its rapid cuts to USAID programs. The report cited estimates—hotly disputed by DOGE supporters and independent analysts alike—that hundreds of thousands of Africans, many of them children, could die or may already have died as a result of withdrawing funding from health and nutrition programs that had long relied on U.S. support. Whether these figures represent confirmed deaths, worst-case projections, or something in between has become central to the wider political and moral argument.

Critics of DOGE argue that even the lowest plausible estimates of harm would constitute a profound moral failure by the United States. They contend that the speed and scope of the cuts all but guaranteed instability in regions where U.S.-backed programs had become essential to basic survival. From this viewpoint, fixating on the precision of the numbers risks missing the larger point: that preventable suffering—even at a fraction of the projections mentioned on air—would still be catastrophic and vastly outweigh any budgetary savings DOGE hoped to achieve.

Supporters of the cuts offer a very different narrative. They argue that the United States cannot indefinitely shoulder the burden of funding core public-health systems across developing nations while grappling with its own severe fiscal challenges. They also question the reliability of the projections referenced in cable-news segments, noting that models built on incomplete data often produce dramatic but speculative results. To them, MSNBC’s framing is an example of worst-case scenarios being treated as established fact, while years of inefficiency, redundancy, and poor oversight within USAID’s global operations go unaddressed. Critics respond that this fiscal-responsibility argument is undermined by the Trump administration’s willingness to approve major financial packages elsewhere—such as the recent $40-billion bailout for Argentina—which suggests that affordability may be less a constraint than political preference.

Overlaying all of this is an uncomfortable personal dimension involving Elon Musk himself. Born and raised in South Africa during the apartheid era, Musk’s early life and the advantages associated with that system have long been scrutinized in discussions of race, privilege, and inequality. For many Africans, the symbolism of an African-born billionaire—one whose family benefited from a racially stratified society—having overseen cuts that disproportionately harmed the continent is hard to ignore. Even though DOGE is now dissolved and Musk no longer holds that position, the optics remain deeply fraught, and skepticism among African observers is understandable.

Despite these tensions, nearly everyone agrees on one central point: USAID has indeed faced problems with waste, inefficiency, and poorly evaluated programming. But acknowledging these flaws does not require dismantling the lifesaving work that competent aid can deliver. With thoughtful reforms, stronger accountability, and better targeting of resources, the United States could address the system’s shortcomings without abandoning vulnerable populations who depend on these services. The real challenge lies in balancing fiscal discipline with global humanitarian leadership—while keeping the human consequences, not just the spreadsheets, at the center of the conversation.

Posted on

Is Mike Johnson The Weakest Speaker Of All Time?

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) increasingly looks like a man who has surrendered not only the institutional muscle of the speakership but even the pretense of independence from the president of his own party. The speakership historically has been an office defined by its willingness to challenge the White House when necessary—Sam Rayburn, Tip O’Neill, Newt Gingrich, Nancy Pelosi, and even John Boehner all asserted the House’s prerogatives when they believed a president, Democrat or Republican, had crossed a line. The job demands that a Speaker defend the House as a coequal branch of government, not serve as an extension of the Oval Office. Johnson’s conduct has prompted growing skepticism that he understands, or even values, that obligation.

Lawrence O’Donnell seized on this erosion of authority during a blistering segment on The Last Word, calling Johnson “pathetic” for repeatedly lowering the speakership to the status of Trump’s legislative errand boy. O’Donnell’s critique did not rest on ideology but on the abandonment of basic separation-of-powers expectations—what he framed as Johnson’s refusal to act like the leader of an independent branch of government. When the Speaker of the House won’t defend the House’s own jurisdiction and moral authority, O’Donnell argued, the institution itself becomes weaker, and Johnson seems almost proud to preside over its diminishment.

The latest and clearest example came with Johnson’s handling of the Epstein files, a matter where moral clarity should have superseded political loyalty. Many House Republicans, echoing survivors and transparency advocates, pushed for the full release of the unredacted files. Yet, according to multiple reports, the Trump team made it clear that it did not want that transparency, and Johnson dutifully complied. Instead of defending the bipartisan House vote for disclosure, he attempted to pressure Senate Republicans into adding anti-transparency amendments—effectively rewriting a unanimously passed House measure to align with Trump’s wishes. This was precisely the moment when a strong Speaker would have demonstrated independence, asserting that the House’s overwhelming vote reflected a moral imperative that transcended the president’s concerns.

What happened next exposed the extent of Johnson’s weakness. Senate Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, refused to go along. Thune brushed off Johnson’s push and let the bipartisan transparency bill stand as written. The moment was striking not only because Senate Republicans broke with Johnson, but because they did so with such ease. It showed how little weight Johnson’s requests carry even within his own party’s congressional leadership. It was the kind of public sidelining that previous Speakers would never have tolerated because they would never have allowed themselves to be put in that position to begin with.

Johnson, embarrassed by the rebuff, then claimed that Democrats—specifically Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—had somehow duped Thune into ignoring Johnson’s demands. It was an explanation that strained credibility. The idea that seasoned Senate Republicans were outmaneuvered by Schumer into doing the morally obvious thing, rather than following Johnson down the rabbit hole of suppressing sensitive documents, only underscored how deeply unserious Johnson’s defense was. This evasiveness was precisely what triggered O’Donnell’s sharpest criticism: that a Speaker reduced to blaming phantom Democratic trickery to justify his own impotence has forfeited the dignity of his office.

Seen in this light, Johnson’s speakership increasingly appears not merely weak but historically weak—a surrender of institutional power at exactly the moment when Congress should be asserting its independence. The Founders designed the legislative branch to check the executive, not to take instructions from it; the Speaker of the House, more than any other congressional figure, embodies that constitutional balance. By repeatedly deferring to Trump, even on issues where morality, transparency, and bipartisan consensus align against him, Johnson is not just weakening himself. He is weakening the House of Representatives. And that is why the charge that he may be the weakest Speaker of all time can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole. It is becoming a plausible assessment of a man who seems unwilling to use the authority of an office that demands far more than passive obedience to presidential preference.

Posted on

The Steve Bannon–Jeffrey Epstein Connection: What the Newly Released Emails Reveal

A recent segment on the 11/19/25 edition of MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber examined a newly surfaced trove of emails that—according to the program’s reporting—suggest Steve Bannon’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was far deeper and more strategic than Bannon has publicly acknowledged. As Melber emphasized, the emails do not indicate that Bannon participated in Epstein’s criminal activities. But they do appear to show that Bannon was fully aware of Epstein’s widely reported misconduct and still worked behind the scenes to help rehabilitate Epstein’s public reputation. If accurate, the correspondence paints a picture of a political strategist engaging with a disgraced financier in ways that raise more questions than answers.

Why Bannon would want to rehabilitate Epstein remains unclear. Bannon’s brief tenure in the first Trump administration fuels speculation: was he attempting to minimize or contextualize Trump’s long-documented association with Epstein? Was he pursuing financial or strategic support from Epstein, who still wielded substantial wealth and elite connections? Or was Bannon trying to leverage Epstein’s deep ties to global power brokers for his own political aims? While none of this is conclusively established, the emails suggest Bannon saw a degree of utility in Epstein that extended well beyond casual acquaintance.

The timeline of Bannon’s public statements only complicates matters further. When the Epstein files controversy re-emerged earlier this year during Trump’s second term, Bannon became one of the loudest figures demanding the release of every Epstein document. He framed Epstein as central to the so-called “Deep State,” arguing that the files were the key to exposing elite corruption and dismantling entrenched power networks. Yet throughout this campaign for transparency, Bannon never disclosed that he had any prior personal or professional interactions with Epstein—let alone that he had reportedly discussed rehabilitating Epstein’s image. That omission now casts his rhetoric in a new light and raises questions about whether his public crusade was also an effort to get ahead of information that might implicate or embarrass him.

The dynamic becomes even more intriguing when considering Bannon’s public clash with Elon Musk over the handling and release of Epstein-related material. What initially looked like another loud, intra-movement skirmish now takes on new weight. If Bannon had undisclosed ties to Epstein, his aggressive posture toward Musk could be interpreted as an attempt to steer the narrative or deflect scrutiny.

If these emails are authentic, they suggest a pattern of engagement with Epstein that conflicts with Bannon’s public posture and demands a fuller explanation. The public deserves to know why Bannon was attempting to reshape Epstein’s image, what he hoped to gain from the relationship, why he hid these interactions while urging transparency from others, and how this impacts the credibility of his broader claims about the Epstein files. Until Steve Bannon provides a transparent and comprehensive accounting of his relationship with Epstein—its scope, its motives, and its implications—there is little reason to take his proclamations at face value. The questions raised by these revelations are serious, and they are not going away.

Posted on

Homeland Security’s $220 Million Ad Controversy: An Objective Look at the Noem Connections

A series of recent investigative reports, first published by ProPublica and later picked up by major outlets including MSNBC, has drawn substantial attention to a large Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advertising campaign and its connections to Secretary Kristi Noem’s political circle. Although the DHS has defended its decisions and denies any improper influence, the scope of the contract, the speed at which funds were awarded, and the involvement of individuals tied to Noem have generated intense public scrutiny. What follows is a fact-based, balanced overview of what is known, what is contested, and why the episode continues to raise questions.

The controversy began with DHS’s launch of a national and international ad campaign intended to deter illegal immigration. According to ProPublica, the campaign totals approximately $220 million and includes television, digital, radio, and social-media placements. DHS has stated that the campaign is aimed at discouraging unauthorized crossings by emphasizing tougher enforcement policies and consequences. One of the signature ads features Secretary Noem at Mount Rushmore delivering a tough-on-immigration message that DHS characterizes as a public service announcement rather than a political communication. DHS has consistently argued that the campaign is justified by pressing national security needs and that it reflects policy objectives rather than partisan motives.

The financial and procedural details surrounding this campaign, however, prompted wider concerns. DHS invoked a “national emergency” at the border to bypass the traditional competitive bidding process, fast-tracking the ad contracts. While legal, this mechanism is typically used for time-sensitive, high-risk situations rather than large-scale media campaigns. Critics argue that employing emergency powers for a communications initiative undermines normal procurement safeguards designed to prevent favoritism and ensure transparency. DHS counters that career procurement officials oversaw the process and that all actions complied with federal law.

The most scrutinized element of the spending is the decision to direct $143 million of the campaign funds to a newly formed Delaware company called Safe America Media. The firm was incorporated only days before receiving the contract, an unusually rapid timeline for a high-value federal agreement. Public contracting databases provide little information about how Safe America Media has allocated its funds or whom it subcontracted. This lack of documentation has fueled questions about the nature of the company, who ultimately benefited from the funds, and why the government selected an entity with virtually no track record.

Those questions intensified when investigators identified personal and professional connections between DHS leadership and political consultants aligned with Noem. Safe America Media’s listed address is linked to Republican operative Michael McElwain, and reporting has highlighted the involvement of the Strategy Group, a Republican consulting firm that played a large role in Noem’s South Dakota gubernatorial campaigns. The firm is led by Benjamin Yoho, who is married to Tricia McLaughlin, DHS’s Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. That office, which McLaughlin leads, is the same DHS division responsible for funding the ad campaign. This nexus of relationships has raised concerns from ethics experts and watchdog groups, who argue that—even if no laws were broken—the appearance of a conflict of interest is substantial.

Critics, including former federal contracting officials, contend that the overlap between Noem’s political network and the firms connected to the DHS campaign creates significant risk of improper influence. They argue that the lack of publicly available subcontractor information prevents the public from knowing whether politically connected firms benefited from taxpayer funds. Some experts have described the arrangement as highly irregular, and organizations have called for oversight investigations by congressional committees or the DHS Inspector General. Others have pointed out that the political tone of some of the ads, particularly those referencing Trump-era border policies, may blur the line between public service messaging and partisan promotion, although DHS maintains the messaging is policy-driven.

Defenders of Noem and DHS present a different picture. They note that DHS officials, not political appointees, handled the contracting and that emergency procurement authority exists precisely to allow rapid responses to urgent national issues. McLaughlin has publicly stated that she fully recused herself from decisions related to these contracts, emphasizing that professional ethics protocols were followed. Supporters also argue that the intent of the campaign is clear: to deter migration through communication, a tool that has been used by multiple administrations. They also point out that no concrete evidence has surfaced proving that any funds were intentionally steered to Noem’s allies for political purposes.

Despite those defenses, the situation remains complicated. The unusual contracting timeline, the lack of transparency surrounding subcontractors, and the close personal ties between DHS leadership and outside political consultants make the story difficult to dismiss. Even if every action taken was technically compliant with procurement rules, the optics invite skepticism. In matters of public spending—especially on such a large scale—appearance alone can erode public trust, particularly when political figures and their associates are involved. At a minimum, the episode underscores the importance of transparent procurement processes, clear public reporting on subcontractors, and robust safeguards to prevent even the perception of conflicts of interest.

Ultimately, the controversy exposes a broader tension at the intersection of government communication, national security policy, and political influence. DHS insists the campaign is essential to its mission and was executed properly. Critics argue that the process lacked the transparency and arm’s-length separation needed to ensure public confidence. As calls for additional oversight continue, the resolution of this issue may set important precedents for how federal agencies handle large-scale communications campaigns—especially when those campaigns intersect with the political networks of their leaders.

Posted on

VP Vance Pushes Back On The Gerald Ford Comparison

On the 11/12/25 edition of The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, host Lawrence O’Donnell made a striking observation: current Vice President J.D. Vance’s near-silence on the swirling Jeffrey Epstein files scandal mirrors the posture then-Vice President Gerald Ford assumed as Richard Nixon’s presidency was collapsing under the weight of Watergate. O’Donnell pointed out that Ford, sensing the sinking of Nixon’s Presidency, deliberately kept his head down—he knew the ghosts of Nixon would dog his tenure if he didn’t distance himself.

By the same logic, O’Donnell argued, Vance appears to be doing exactly that: he knows the Epstein files may blow up and run Donald Trump out of office, and thus is doing everything he can to not get sucked into the scandal, to avoid becoming the next Ford.

As expected, social media erupted following O’Donnell’s segment. I posted a clip of the show, and to my surprise the reaction came from none other than the Vice President himself. That’s how provocative the comparison proved.

In his response, Vance strongly objected to O’Donnell’s suggestion that he was intentionally silent about the Epstein scandal. Vance pointed out that he had addressed the issue in prior TV appearances—citing his interview on Hannity scheduled for 11/13/25, which coincided with the date I posted the segment.

Interestingly, in that very 11/13/25 show O’Donnell claimed Vance had in fact ignored the Epstein issue entirely—and reaffirmed: “He’s still Gerald Ford.”

Now that the “Gerald Ford” comparison has caught Vance’s attention—and by implication, the President’s—it will be fascinating to watch how it plays out going forward.

Posted on

Rep. Khanna Accuses Trump of Protecting the “Epstein Class”

Appearing on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes, Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA) leveled a blistering charge at President Donald Trump — accusing him of protecting what he called the “Epstein class” rather than standing up for working Americans struggling to make ends meet. The phrase quickly caught fire online, and it’s now taking on new weight amid fresh controversy in Washington and inside the federal prison system.

Khanna’s remarks came as pressure mounts on House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) over his continued delay in swearing in Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona. Grijalva, a progressive Democrat, has been open about her plan to become the decisive 218th vote to compel the Trump administration to release the long-withheld Epstein files. Johnson’s refusal to seat her — even after certification of her election — has drawn criticism from both Democrats and watchdog groups who see the move as an attempt to block her role in advancing the Epstein disclosure measure.

After weeks of backlash, Johnson has now committed to swearing Grijalva in on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, when the House reconvenes to deliberate on a Senate measure to reopen the government. The timing has only intensified speculation that the Speaker’s delay was politically motivated.

Meanwhile, another development has reignited public scrutiny over how the powerful continue to benefit from special treatment. Ghislaine Maxwell — Epstein’s longtime associate who is serving a 20-year sentence for her role in his sex-trafficking network — was quietly transferred from a Florida federal facility to a much softer minimum-security prison camp in Bryan, Texas. The transfer raised immediate red flags, as such privileges are rarely extended to those convicted of serious sex crimes.

Reports from inside the Texas prison suggest Maxwell is enjoying unusually favorable treatment, including lenient oversight and staff attention that other inmates say border on favoritism. Members of Congress are now demanding a formal investigation into possible corruption or political interference in the Bureau of Prisons’ decision-making.

For Khanna and others calling for transparency, the timing couldn’t be more damning. A president who campaigned on exposing Epstein’s network has yet to release the files; his allies in Congress have stalled the one member most eager to force disclosure; and the central figure in Epstein’s trafficking ring appears to be enjoying preferential treatment behind bars.

Until those Epstein files are made public — as Trump once promised — the perception that his administration is shielding the powerful rather than serving the people will only deepen. As Khanna put it, Trump looks less like the champion of the “forgotten man,” and more like the guardian of the “

Posted on

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace Brands Trump Team the “Marie Antoinette Administration”

On a recent episode of Deadline: White House, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace didn’t hold back in her criticism of former President Donald Trump’s administration. She called it the “Marie Antoinette Administration” — a cutting comparison to the infamous French queen remembered for her decadence, detachment, and the apocryphal phrase, “Let them eat cake.”

Marie Antoinette became a symbol of a ruling class oblivious to the suffering of ordinary people — a monarch who partied in Versailles while her citizens starved outside the palace gates. Wallace’s jab draws on that same image, suggesting the Trump administration has been indulging in luxury and self-congratulation while Americans face economic hardship.

The comparison lands especially hard when you look at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Palm Beach estate turned private club — his modern-day Versailles. While millions of Americans struggle to put food on the table amid a grinding government shutdown that has halted SNAP payments, reports continue to surface of glittering soirées, Champagne toasts, and high-society dinners taking place under Mar-a-Lago’s gilded chandeliers. Even some of Trump’s own allies have privately admitted the optics are terrible: the image of Washington elites sipping cocktails on the oceanfront while federal workers and low-income families line up at food banks is a PR nightmare.

Adding insult to injury, a federal judge recently ordered the administration to tap the USDA’s contingency funds to keep SNAP benefits flowing. Instead of complying, the administration chose to fight the order in court — literally arguing for the right to let poor Americans go hungry. It’s a move that only deepens the “Marie Antoinette” parallel: power waging legal battles over crumbs while the public goes without bread.

As the shutdown drags on, the economic pain is becoming unbearable for working families. Most analysts expect the government to reopen soon, likely before the Thanksgiving holidays, if only to stem the political fallout. But even after the lights come back on, the damage — both human and reputational — will linger.

The “Marie Antoinette Administration” label may stick as one of Trump’s most unflattering legacies. It’s a sharp irony for a president who rose to power promising to champion the “forgotten man” — rural, blue-collar Americans who felt abandoned by Washington. The image of Mar-a-Lago’s ballrooms glittering while those same Americans tighten their belts is one that no amount of political spin can erase.

In the end, Wallace’s analogy hits its mark. For many watching from the outside, the Trump administration doesn’t just look out of touch — it looks like it’s dancing while the country burns.

Posted on

Russia Behind GOP’s Opposition To Ukraine Funding

$upport via Cash App

Rep Marjorie Taylor-Greene(R-GA), the loudest opponent to Ukraine funding

A bombshell segment on Alex Wagner Tonight show (04/17/24), citing a Washington Post piece, confirmed what we’ve suspected all along, and that is, Putin’s Russia is behind the Republican Party’s opposition to efforts by Congress to provide funding for Ukraine, as it defends itself against a Russian invasion. The bombshell report essentially says that Rep Marjorie Taylor-Greene(R-GA), aptly nicknamed “Moscow Marge”, and other congressional Republicans currently opposed to Ukraine funding, are either willing or unwilling participants in Vladimir Putins propaganda campaign–a sad state of affairs indeed.

Host Alex Wagner(5:43): “…Ukraine and the vote for Ukraine funding has become a leverage point for Russia. The Washington Post has some explosive reporting…on newly revealed documents from inside Vladimir Putin’s government, documents which show how Russia is seeking to subvert western support for Ukraine and disrupt the domestic politics of the United States and European countries through propaganda campaigns and supporting isolationist and extremist policies. Russia is formenting division over Ukraine because it wants to weaken America’s role in the world. In particular, one Russian policy expert cited in one of these documents, specifically calls on Russia to continue to facilitate the coming to power of isolationist right-wing forces in America.”

Host Wagner then got very specific, adding, “Russia very much wants the Marjorie Taylor Greene’s to continue doing exactly what they are doing, because it serves Russia’s interests.”

Bottom line folks, host Alex Wagner and the Washington Post are absolutely correct. Trump GOP’s opposition to Ukraine funding is not rooted in some legitimate conservative ideology as they would like the public to believe. Instead, it is a shameless assist to Russia’s strongman Vladimir Putin, who they are banking on to help them win Congress and possibly the White House in 2024. You read that right, a win for Trump in 2024 is a win for Vladimir Putin.

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

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More

Posted on

Is Sen Mike Lee Angling For A SCOTUS Appointment With Trump Endorsement?

$upport via Cash App

Interesting segment on MSNBC’s Alex Wagner Tonight show (01/19/24) delved into the conspiracy theories currently being spewed out there by right wing activists about the yet unsolved mystery surrounding the January 6th pipe bomb. Apparently, even sitting U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is now pertaking in this conspiracy theory, per his recent social media post which Wagner cited.

Host Alex Wagner then dropped a bombshell on “constitutional conservative” Senator Lee’s strange fawning over former President Trump, including his latest endorsement of the former president for the upcoming 2024 election, saying it may all be about Senator Lee’s ambitions for the United States Supreme Court. Yeah, you read that right. Senator Lee may be angling for a Supreme Court seat.

You’ll remember that Senator Lee was also intricately involved in efforts by then outgoing President Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 election using the fake elector scheme.

Host Alex Wagner(2:49): “Senator Lee joins 25 of his Republican colleagues in the Senate, who have endorsed Donald Trump as of this evening, but his special distinction is that he was twice on Trump’s short list to be a Supreme Court justice. In 2018 Senator Lee interviewed for the seat that eventually went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and with Justice Clarence Thomas approaching 80, and Justice Samuel Alito hitting 74 this year, who knows, if Donald Trump is re-elected in November, the man who believes January 6th was an inside job could just get another crack at a seat on the highest court in the land.”

Bottom line folks, as much as I have been critical of “constitutional conservative” Senator Lee over his strange support of Trump despite his authoritarian tendencies, I readily admit that this Supreme Court ambition theory makes me ease up on him a little bit. I’m not saying I condone his strange support for authoritarian Trump, but that at least, it makes me understand why he’s doing it.

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

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More