Tag: hearing

Posted on

Rep Liz Cheney Discusses Primary Loss, Future Plans On ABC’s This Week Show

$upport via Cash App

Rep Liz Cheney(R-WY) sat down for an interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl, three days after her landslide primary loss to Trump-backed challenger Harriet Hageman, to discuss her future political plans. The interview aired on ABC’s This Week show (08/21/22) and as many expected, Cheney’s lopsided loss was in no way shape or form, an end to her political career, but rather, a beginning of a new political chapter.

Rep Cheney said this moments after her loss to Hagenan on 08/16/22: “We must be very clear-eyed about the threat we face, and about what is required to defeat it. I have said since January 6th, that I will do whatever it takes to ensure Donald Trump is never again anywhere near the Oval Office, and I mean that.”

Asked whether she regretted the fact that her staunch opposition to former President Trump had cost her a leadership position in the House and eventually her seat, Rep Cheney responded (2:51): “No regrets. You know, I feel sad about where my party is, I feel sad about the way that too many of my colleagues have responded to what I think is a great moral test and challenge of our time, a great moment to determine whether or not people are going to stand up on behalf of the democracy, and on behalf of our republic.” Rep Cheney added that she has heard from several prominent leaders after her primary loss, thanking her for putting the country over her party. One such call, she said, came from President Biden.

Asked what Trump’s continuing grip on the GOP says about the party, Rep Cheney said the party, both at the state and national level, “is very sick.” She specifically said(4:11):“I think one, it says that people continue to believe the lie, they continue to believe what he’s saying, which is very dangerous. I think it also tells you that large portions of our party, including the leadership of our party, both at the state level in Wyoming, as well as on a national level with RNC, is very sick, and that we really have got to decide whether or not we are going to be a party based on substance and policy, or whether we are going to remain as so many of our party are today, in the grips of a dangerous former president.”

Asked about the argument by former President Trump and others, that her landslide primary loss is proof that the principles she is fighting for are not shared by the GOP, Rep Cheney responded (5:03): “Well, doesn’t that tell you something? What I’m fighting for is the Constitution. What I’m fighting for is the perpetuation of the republic, what I’m fighting for is the fact that elections have to matter, and that when the election is over and the courts have ruled, and the electoral college has met, that the president of the United States has to respect the results of the election, and if Donald Trump’s spokesman says that those are principles that are inconsistent with Donald Trump’s views, and inconsistent with the Republican Party’s views, I think that ought to give every American pause about who Donald Trump is, and about what the Republican Party stands for today.”

Asked about what her new political organization is going to focus on, Rep Cheney said one of her primary objectives will be to campaign against “election deniers”.

Asked about her views on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and specifically, whether he should become Speaker if the GOP takes over the House, Rep Cheney said (6:22): “My views about Kevin McCarthy are very clear. The Speaker of the House is the second in line for the presidency. It requires somebody who understands and recognizes their duty, their oath, their obligation, and he’s been completely unfaithful to the constitution, and demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the significance and importance of the role of Speaker, so I don’t believe he should be Speaker of the House, and I think that’s been very clear.”

Asked whether she would support Trump’s acolytes like Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX) or Josh Hawley(R-MO) if one of them secured the GOP presidential nomination in 2024, Rep Cheney responded (9:50): “It would be very difficult when you look at somebody like Josh Hawley, or somebody like Ted Cruz, both of whom know better, both of whom know exactly what the role of Congress is in terms of our constitutional obligations with respect to presidential elections, and yet both of whom took steps that fundamentally threatened the constitutional order and structure in the aftermath of the last election, so in my view, they both have made themselves unfit for future office.”

Asked about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who many view as the number two contender for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination after Trump, Rep Cheney said(10:28): “DeSantis is somebody who is right now campaigning for election deniers, and I think that is something that people have to have real pause about. Either you fundamentally believe in and will support our constitutional structure, or you don’t.”

Asked whether if she runs for president in 2024, it will be out of a genuine desire to win, or simply sending a pro-democracy message, Rep Cheney responded in relevant part(10:59):“Any decision that I make about doing something that significant and that serious, would be with the intention of winning, and because I think I would be the best candidate.” She punted when asked whether running as an Independent remained an option for her saying(11:19), “I’m not going to go down that path anymore in terms of speculating.”

Bottom line folks, Rep Liz Cheney is not going anywhere. Her primary loss will free her from the bondage that is Trump’s GOP, and allow her to pursue loftier goals–the fight for democracy. She said one of her primary goals will be to defeat “election deniers”, which Yours Truly hopes includes one Senator Ted Cruz, who is up for reelection in 2024. We’re going to need you Liz, in the Lone Star state.

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@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Posted on

FBI Forwaded Tip Line Complaints About Kavanaugh To White House Counsel Without Investigation

$upport via Cash App

FBI Director Christopher Wray appeared for a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 08/04/22. One of the most interesting moments in the hearing, especially for Supreme Court enthusiasts like Yours Truly, came during the questioning by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse(D-RI). Senator Whitehouse’s questions focused on the supplemental background investigation (B.I.), the FBI conducted on then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a topic that has been the subject of much speculation on social media.

Senator Whitehouse has been in a battle with FBI Director Wray since 2019, trying to get to the bottom of whether the FBI thoroughly investigated the numerous tips it received from the public regarding then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

This intro by Senator Whitehouse is important for establishing the context for the ensuing questioning: “As you know, we are now entering the fourth year of a frustrating saga that began with an August 2019 letter from me and Senator Coons, regarding the Kavanaugh supplemental background investigation, and I’d like to try to get that matter wrapped up.”

Senator Whitehouse(video at 0:23): “First, is it true that after [Justice] Kavanaugh-related tips were separated from the regular tip line traffic, they were forwarded to White House counsel without investigation?”

Director Wray(0:47): “When it comes to the tip line, we wanted to make sure that the White House had all the information we have, so when the hundreds of calls started coming in, we gathered those up, reviewed them, and provided them to the White House.”

At that point Senator Whitehouse interjected, “Without investigation”, to which Director Wray responded, “We reviewed them and then provided them to the White House.”

Sen. Whitehouse:“You reviewed them for the purposes of separating them from the tip line traffic, but did not further investigate the ones that related to Kavanaugh, correct?”

Director Wray:“Correct.”

Senator Whitehouse: “Is it also true that in that supplemental B.I., the FBI took directions from the White House as to whom the FBI would question, and even what questions the FBI could ask?”

Director Wray:“It is true that consistent with the longstanding process that we have had going all the way back to at least the Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, and continue to follow currently under the Biden administration, that in a limited supplemental B.I., we take direction from the requesting entity which in this case, was the White House, as to what follow up they want. That’s the direction we followed, that’s the direction we’ve consistently followed throughout the decades, frankly.”

Director Wray went on to add, “It is true as to the ‘who’, I’m not sure as I sit here, whether it’s also true as to the ‘what questions’, but it is true as to the ‘who’ we interviewed.” In other words Director Wray agreed that in a supplemental B.I., it is true that the White House tells the FBI who to question, he’s just not sure yet, whether the White House also tells the FBI what questions to ask the people they question.

Senator Whitehouse:“By the way, is it true that even today we have not been provided by the FBI, it’s written tip line procedures?”

Director Wray: “Senator, I know that we have provided a lot of information to the committee and to you. I would have to check on that specific item. I know there is some information that you have requested that is not our call to provide, that has to do with interaction, communication with the White House.”

There’s no other way to interpret Director Wray’s responses to Senator Whitehouse’s questions other than (I’ll be happy to stand corrected of course), during the highly contentious Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the complaints the FBI received through its tip line regarding Kavanaugh, were not investigated by the FBI, but instead, forwarded to the White House Counsel. The White House Counsel then told the FBI who among the complainants, the FBI was to question, and possibly, even what questions to ask them.

Folks, no reasonable person presented with this information can ever conclude that the supplemental background investigation into Kavanaugh was “thorough”, as had been portrayed by Senate Republicans during his confirmation hearings. Director Wray argues that this is the same supplemental B.I. process the FBI has used for decades, but as we all know, none of Kavanaugh’s predecessors faced as many serious complaints about their character, requiring a thorough independent investigation. So, while Director Wray raises a valid point regarding consistent FBI practice, reasonable people will agree that Kavanaugh’s case was markedly different, and called for a thorough investigation by the FBI.

Bottom line folks, we’ll wait for Senator Whitehouse’s final report on this issue. As he indicated to Director Wray, he’ll give the FBI one more month to comply with his information requests, after which he will produce a final report on the Kavanaugh supplemental B.I. saga. One only hopes that if Senator Whitehouse’s investigation reveals that there were serious credible allegations against Kavanaugh that went uninvestigated, then an independent investigation will be launched into them immediately.

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@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Posted on

Senator Collins Slams Justices Kavanaugh & Gorsuch Over “Inconsistent” Roe v Wade Decision

$upport via Cash App

An interesting segment on Fox News’ The Story w/Martha MacCallum(06/24/22) delved into the feud brewing between Senator Susan Collins(R-Maine) and conservative Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch over the decision by the high court to overturn Roe v Wade, a 1973 precedent that legalized abortion in the United States. According to Fox News Congressional Correspondent Aishah Hasni, Senator Collins is not just upset because she was misled during the Senate confirmation hearings on questions about respecting precedents, but also because this bombshell decision comes at a time of great division in the country, and she fears the decision will only widen the divisions.

Senator Collins issued a statement saying:“This ill-considered action will further divide the country at a moment when, more than ever in modern times, we need the Court to show more consistency and restraint. Throwing out a precedent overnight that the country has relied upon for half a century is not conservative. It is a sudden and radical jolt to the country that will lead to chaos, anger, and a further loss of confidence in our government.”

Senators Collins and Lisa Murkowski(R-Alaska) have apparently introduced a bill which aims to codify Roe v Wade, so we’ll see how far that goes.

Bottom line folks, Republicans routinely dismiss criticisms of the out-of-touch Roberts Supreme Court as simply “rantings of the radical left.” it will be interesting to see how they deal with the very sharp criticisms leveled at the high court by moderate Republican Susan Collins, and especially, her written assertion–not AOC’s or The Squad’s–that what the court engaged in re Roe v wade was “not conservative” but rather, “a sudden and radical jolt to the country that will lead to chaos, anger, and a further loss of confidence in our government”, which essentially translates to an extremist 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@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Posted on

Former Assistant AG Jeffrey Clark Discusses FBI Raid On His Home On Tucker Carlson Show

$upport via Cash App

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Clark, who’s currently a Senior Fellow at the Center For Renewing America, appeared on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson show(06/23/22) to discuss the FBI’s predawn raid on his home, which presumably, is related to his role in the fake electors scheme that was meant to thwart the certification of President Biden’s electoral college win.

Clark did not directly address the fake elector scheme during his interview on Tucker Carlson show and instead, attacked the time and manner of the FBI raid, which he shockingly referred to as “Stasi-like”. Stasi is of course the term that was used to refer to Adolf Hitler’s ruthless Ministry of State Security. He also characterized the raid as part of a coordinated nationwide political attack on him and other backers of former President Trump.

Clark told host Tucker Carlson(video at 1:38):“Yeah, I think this is highly politicized and it’s also part, Tucker, if you didn’t know it, of a nationwide effort yesterday. There were multiple states where multiple people were roughly simultaneously raided for their electronic devices, and that obviously requires a high level of coordination, and look, with the hearing[January 6th Committee]that was pointed at me, and targeting me today, with the special audience member of Sean Penn–so you know this is Hollywood– the very next day, you know, it looks highly coincidental. I just don’t believe in coincidences.”

There’s no other way to interpret Clark’s rambling and rather incoherent response other than, he is framing this as some sort of made-for-television political attack against him(the Senn Penn reference). This displays a shocking level of tone-deafness on his part, given the volume of evidence adduced so far, regarding the fake elector scheme. Clark may not realize this, but many consider him very lucky to have gone this far without any criminal prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He is the last person who should be surprised about a search warrant being executed at their home, given the volume of evidence already out there regarding the fake elector scheme.

It also bears pointing out that at his testimony before the January 6th Committee, Clark responded to virtually every question by pleading the 5th(right against self-incrimination), which every reasonable person would agree, demonstrates at the very least, some consciousness of guilt on his part.

Interestingly, he never mentioned the fake elector scheme during his interview on the Tucker Carlson show. Most innocent people would use such venues to reiterate the fact that they did nothing wrong. Clark appeared only bothered by the fact that the FBI showed up at his house very early in the morning, before he could put on his favorite pants, and that they showed up with “electronic sniffing dogs”, which he claimed he has “never seen before, or heard of.”

Bottom line folks, reasonable people will agree that the January 6th Committee has provided enough evidence so far regarding Clark’s role in the fake elector scheme, to justify his criminal prosecution. As I stated earlier, Clark should consider himself lucky that he has not been criminally charged yet, and should be the last person surprised, or upset, by an FBI raid on his home.

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@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Posted on

Is It Time To Hold Fox News Accountable Over Its Role In The January 6th Insurrection?

$upport via Cash App

An interesting segment on MSNBC’s Katie Phang Show(06/11/22) delved into the burning question among members of the public, as to whether Fox News should be held accountable for what many believe, was an incitement by some of its leading hosts towards the violent insurrection at the Capitol on 01/06/2021. This question is resurfacing because a former senior editor at Fox News, one Chris Stirewalt, who was known to openly criticize the network’s super close ties to the Trump administration and its far right extremist backers, is set to testify at the January 6th Committee’s second public hearing set for Monday(06/13/22). It is expected that Stirewalt will draw a direct connection between some of the leading insurrectionists and Fox News’ hosts. Katie Phang’s guest Danielle Moodie, who hosts the Woke AF Podcast, thinks Fox News should absolutely be held accountable for it’s role in the January 6th insurrection.

Host Katie Phang:“One of the witnesses on Monday, we know, is Chris Stirewalt. He was fired from Fox after calling Arizona for Biden. He’s also been known to say Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party. Do you think the committee is going to start zeroing in on the White House’s[Trump’s] interactions with the network Fox News?”

Danielle Moodie:“I would love for them to do that. I would love for the Department of Justice to do that, I’d love for the FCC to do that, I mean the reality here is that Fox News for the longest time, is the propaganda arm, it is a dangerous entity, and so I think it is incredibly important for them not to just look at this and say, ‘Oh well, freedom of speech, we can’t touch it’. We have to see how all of these pieces fit together, and I think that without Fox News, you wouldn’t have the kind of amplification of the insurrection, and replacement theory, and all of the things that we know that these militias…and the Trump base holds dear, and so yes, I think that they absolutely should be zeroing in on Fox at some point, and I hope it’s soon.”

Bottom line folks, we can complain about the rise of White nationalism and other far right violent extremist groups all we want, but unless we are willing and able to confront the Fox News engine that we know, powers all these dangerous groups, then we might as well start preparing for the next, possibly successful insurrection. If the January 6th Commitee is serious about its stated goal of preventing another violent insurrection, then as Danielle Moodie correctly points out, it necessarily has to deal with the role of Fox News in the 2021 insurrection, and potentially, a future one. Put another way, it’s about time Fox News’ freedom of speech defense got put to the test. Incitement to violence is a well known exception to a freedom of speech claim.

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@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Posted on

Dahlia Lithwick: 1/6 Hearing Established Requisite Intent For Trump’s Criminal Prosecution

$upport via Cash App

Slate writer Dahlia Lithwick appeared on MSNBC’s The Beat w/Ari Melber(06/10/22) where she made the most compelling legal case yet, for criminally prosecuting Trump. Lithwick told host Ari Melber that the televised January 6th hearings established the mens rea–the requisite intent for such criminal prosecution. Put another way, DOJ has enough evidence to initiate a criminal prosecution against Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 elections because he was told by people he trusts that what he was doing was wrong, potentially criminal, but he proceeded to do it anyway. The only question left is whether AG Merrick Garland wants to criminally prosecute him.

Dahlia Lithwick(1:30):“When[Rep] Liz Cheney said he lit the match, he set the fuse, that is Donald Trump, and it seemed to me the entire organizing theme of last night’s hearing was, this starts at the top…this starts with Trump. And I think it’s almost impossible to look at the videos you just sort of showed in that montage, and not see this animating theme, which is, everyone around Donald Trump told him no. Mark Short, Joint Chiefs, Vice President Pence, his own Attorney General said this is unlawful, you have no basis for this, and he went forward, and so to the extent that there is mens rea–the intent to do something that you know is illegal–we’ve always heard, ‘Oh, Donald Trump can’t form the requisite intent, he didn’t know what was going on, he’s delusional’, well now we know, that’s why Ivanka is important, that the one person he listened to, evidently told him no, and when you have everyone around him telling him no, he can no longer say, ‘I’m not culpable because I didn’t understand what was happening’…”

It cannot be restated enough just how significant, Lithwick’s legal analysis is. The decision by most prosecutors on whether or not to pursue criminal charges against someone, almost always comes down to that Latin phrase–mens rea. If they can show that you knew the conduct you are about to engage in is illegal, and you did it anyway, then that is a case they can secure a conviction for, and you are almost definitely getting prosecuted/charged with a crime. This by the way, is also the reason insane people get off the hook even for serious crimes–prosecutors can’t establish the requisite intent(that the insane person knew what they were doing was wrong). 

Bottom line folks, as Dahlia Lithwick brilliantly laid it out on MSNBC’s The Beat show, after only one public hearing by the January 6th Committee, the mens rea requirements for a potential criminal prosecution of Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results have already been met and surpassed, meaning DOJ can easily secure a conviction against Trump if it chooses to criminally prosecute him. The only question left is whether AG Garland has the fortitude, or desire, to do so. 

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@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Posted on

House Intel Hearing On Russia-Ukraine Provides Rare Oversight Of Our Intel Agencies

$upport via Cash App

Intel Chiefs from Left to right–Chris Wray(FBI), General Nakasone(NSA), Gina Haspel(former CIA Director), William Burns(CIA Director) and Lt. Gen Scott Berrier(DIA)

A House Intelligence Committee hearing on the Russia-Ukraine war provided a rare opportunity for members of Congress to conduct a backhanded oversight of our intelligence agencies. The hearing, which assembled all the alphabet agency chiefs(FBI, NSA, CIA & DIA) in one room(a very rare occurrence), afforded members of Congress a unique opportunity to raise other domestic issues of public concern regarding our intel agencies. Oversight of our intelligence agencies, as you may know, is an issue Congress has dragged its feet on, ever since the terrorist attacks in September 2001, so this was a breath of fresh air.

Rep Chris Stewart(R-UT) questioned FBI Director Wray about the controversial NSO Spyware Pegasus , which several media reports indicated last year, was being used by dictators worldwide, to illegally track/spy on political dissidents and even journalists. Rep Stewart wanted to know whether Pegasus was being used on U.S. persons for investigative purposes. Director Wray assured Rep Stewart that the FBI purchased Pegasus in 2019 only for “testing and evaluation purposes“, adding that it has never been used on any U.S. person for investigative purposes.

Rep Stewart then asked why the FBI would test a spying software if it didn’t intend to use it? Director Wray, acknowledging that this was a good question, maintained that Pegasus has never been used for investigative purposes on U.S. persons, and that FBI routinely tests products out there, that could be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Rep Joaquin Castro(D-TX) followed up on Rep Stewart’s questioning re Pegasus software. He wanted to know whether foreign governments have used Pegasus to target U.S. persons. Director Wray indicated that such a question would be better answered in a classified setting, so we are left hanging on that issue. Yay!!

Another interesting line of questioning came from Rep Elise Stefanik(R-NY) who brought up a very troubling case of an FBI counterterrorism informant, who was not only known to have violated the law multiple times, but whose Limo company led to the deaths of some 20 innocent New Yorkers, ruining the lives of their surviving family members. The crux of Rep Stefanik’s question, an excellent one that quite frankly isn’t asked often enough, was whether informants used in counterterrorism cases, are vetted to make sure they are not criminals. Director Wray assured Rep Stefanik that there are strict rules in place regarding the conduct of FBI informants, even when it comes to counterterrorism cases. This was a very important question because there is a widely held belief out there that in counterterrorism cases, “anything goes”, including the use of criminals/criminal gangs to go after/harass terrorism suspects–people who often times, have not been convicted of anything. A sad state of affairs indeed.

Bottom line folks, the hearing today showed just how important it is to have proper oversight of our intelligence agencies, something Yours Truly has been screaming about. There is absolutely no reason why questions about Pegasus spyware and other intelligence-related questions cannot be aired in a public forum like it happened today. Simply put, not every intelligence-related hearing has to be in a private setting. There are enough topics of public interest that can be safely discussed in public. Hopefully when U.S. Senators get their go-around with these intelligence chiefs, somebody will pop the $1 million question–the plight of targeted individuals in the U.S., which maybe, just maybe, may solve the Havana Syndrome mystery.

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