Tag: office

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

Trump’s Attorney Christina Bobb Addresses Bombshell News Of Nuclear Documents At Maralago

$upport via Cash App

Former President Trump’s Attorney Christina Bobb appeared on Fox News’ Ingraham Angle (08/11/22) to address the bombshell revelation by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, that among the documents sought by the FBI at Trump’s Maralago residence, were classified documents related to our nuclear capabilities, which of course have serious national security implications.

Asked to confirm whether there were classified nuclear documents at Maralago, Christina Bobb said she didn’t think so, but wasn’t sure because she had not spoken to former President Trump about the issue–a strange answer indeed.

Host Ingraham(1:18): “Okay Christina, just so I’m clear about this, I want to be really clear. Is it your understanding that there were not documents related to our nuclear capabilities, or nuclear issues that had national security implications in the president’s possession when the agents showed up at Maralago?”

Christina Bobb:“That’s correct, I don’t believe they were…”

Ingraham: “Well, do you know for a fact? Do you know for a fact they weren’t? Have you spoken to the president about it?”

Bobb: “I have not specifically spoken to the president about what nuclear materials may or may not have been in there. I do not believe there were any in there. The legal team had done a very thorough search, and had turned over…everything that we found, that we had, so it’s my understanding on very good belief, based on a thorough investigation, that there was nothing there.”

Any reasonable person presented with Attorney Christina Bobb’s remarks on the Ingraham Angle show, would find it very strange that she went on the show to discuss the bombshell news of possible nuclear documents at Maralago without first discussing the matter with her client(Trump). That just doesn’t add up, and to her credit, host Laura Ingraham’s tone suggested that she wasn’t buying it either.

The interview then moved on to the other big topic as to whether the feds provided Trump’s attorneys with a copy of the items taken from Maralago, the so-called “inventory list”. This is important because another Trump attorney, Lindsey Halligan, had stated on Fox News’ Hannity show the day before, that the feds never provided the inventory list. Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara, had also said on various TV shows that Trump’s attorneys told her, they were not shown the warrant during the FBI raid.

Asked about her on-scene interaction with the feds, Christina Bobb responded(8:17): “Well, initially, it started out a little heated. I was upset and they were not excited to see me, so we had a little bit of an incident initially, just me wanting access to the warrant. They didn’t believe they needed to even show me the warrant so we fought about that, not for very long, maybe a minute, not more than two, and I did have an opportunity to see it. They didn’t give it to me…”

So she clearly admits that she was shown the warrant(read it), something the other lawyer and Lara Trump say never happened. Also, crucially, the fact that she was shown the warrant means that she knows exactly what criminal statute is at play here.

Then this interesting exchange took place. Host Ingraham(9:13): “Did they give you the inventory list before they left, or while they were doing the raid that they don’t want to call a raid?”

Christina Bobb:“Yes…we do have the inventory list as you can expect, it’s not particularly helpful so, yes, I kind of have the inventory list, they gave me the official receipt…”

So Christina Bobb clearly admits that she was shown the warrant, which means she knows exactly what the applicable criminal statutes are, plus she admits to having a copy of the inventory list, something Lara Trump and the other attorney(Lindsey Halligan) maintain they were not given. Folks, a total mess.

Bottom line folks, there’s a lot of confusion coming from Team Trump regarding the Maralago raid. First they said they were not shown the warrant, which apparently they were, then they said they were not given the inventory list, which apparently they were, and now they are denying that the search had anything to do with nuclear-related documents, something that must have been very clear to Attorney Christina Bobb from the warrant she was shown. Is this a case of innocent incompetence, or willful lying to the public? Hmm, as Trump famously used to say, “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 also Cash App

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

Posted on

Senator Mitch McConnell Discusses Inflation Reduction Bill On Fox News’ Special Report Show

$upport via Cash App

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) appeared on Fox News Special Report w/Bret Baier (08/03/22) to discuss the Inflation Reduction Act currently being negotiated in the U.S. Senate. Senator McConnell said he found the way Democrats characterized the bill “laughable”, because in his opinion, the bill actually increases inflation. Senate Democrats appear poised to approve the measure on a straight party vote.

Senator McConnell said this about the Inflation Reduction Act (0:27): “First, I think all of us were somewhat shocked by Senator Manchin’s reversal of positions he’d taken as recently as last week, against raising taxes. This raises taxes, it increases the burden of taxation on lower income people significantly. Calling it inflation reduction bill is rather laughable. Independent analysis indicates it actually increases inflation in the next two years, and may have an impact over ten years, and their policies from last year have already produced 40-year high inflation, so it’s a terrible package. It appears as if they are all in line, but one, it will be up to Senator Sinema from Arizona, who’s quite independent, to determine what the final contours of the bill are.”

Asked about the charge by irate Republicans, that he was “played” by Democrats regarding the reconciliation bill, McConnell responded (1:28): “Reconciliation is something done by one party only. There’s nothing we could have done to prevent the Democrats from doing a bill that only they will vote for, so it’s not a question of being played here, what’s the story line here is that Senator Manchin had agreed to something that he had said publicly and privately over the last two weeks that he would never agree to. We’re not involved in the reconciliation bill. There won’t be a single Republican vote for it. There’s nothing we could do to deter it, other than to criticize it publicly, and that’s what we’re doing right here.”

Host Bret Baier then cornered Senator McConnell with a very interesting question as to why he has repeatedly cited renowned economists Larry Summers and Jason Furman on ways to tackle the current record inflation, yet now he refuses to follow their advice that the Inflation Reduction Act will help reduce inflation? Senator McConnell accused the economists of trying to appease President Biden. He specifically said (2:41):“The quotes they used me in, were Summers’ observations about what they [Biden Administration] did last year. Two trillion dollars they dumped on the economy, that both Furman and Summers predicted would produce rampant inflation, and it did. What they’ve done this year is kind of fall in line, and I assume they wanted to get back on the White House Christmas card list, but people who are not active Democrats, independent observers have said it has no impact on inflation, at all, over the long term, and actually increases it slightly in the short term. So Furman and Summers were certainly helpful as active Democrats in describing last year’s bill, but this year they’re sort of falling in line because I think they want to get back in the good grace of the White House.”

Asked about criticism from House Republicans, some of whom don’t want him as Senate Majority Leader any more, over what they perceive as him being “played” repeatedly by Democrats, and making President Biden look good, McConnell responded(3:55): “Well, I guess they’ve forgotten the Supreme Court that I’ve helped usher into–three new Supreme Court justices, the 2017 tax bill…I think just because you have closely divided government doesn’t mean you do nothing. The past two administrations tried to achieve bipartisan infrastructure, didn’t get it done, we needed to rescue the post office. Just because it’s a Democrat in the White House, I don’t think means Republicans should do nothing that’s good for the country. In the meantime, on the big issues, we are totally opposed to what this administration is trying to do, but on things like school safety, mental health, infrastructure, postal reform, why would we not want to make progress for the country no matter who’s in the White House?”

Asked about reservation by some Republicans, that expanding NATO to include Sweden and Finland, increases the likelihood of sending our troops into combat in Europe, Sen McConnell responded (5:08): “The NATO alliance is the most successful military alliance in world history. The way to prevent Americans from having to actively get involved in combat is to prevent it in the first place, and that’s what NATO is about. It won the cold war without firing a single shot. Putin has succeeded not only in actually expanding NATO and making it even more effective as a deterrent. Remember Reagan said peace through strength, and that’s what NATO is all about, and that’s why Finland and Sweden add a lot to NATO.”

Asked to pick between the Russia-Ukraine war, and the situation at our southern border, which one was a bigger national security threat to the United States, McConnell said both were threats that needed to be dealt with seriously–probably not the answer Fox News viewers obsessed with the southern border, wanted to hear.

Importantly, when asked about his earlier prediction that there would be a “red wave” in this year’s midterm elections, McConnell appears to have had a change of mind (probably due to Kansas), saying now that it will be a “very tight” election. McConnell specifically said (7:02): “I think it’s going to be very tight, we have a 50-50 Senate now, we have a 50-50 nation, and I think when the Senate race smoke clears, we are likely to have a very, very close Senate still, with either up slightly, or the Democrats up slightly”–a far cry from the “red wave” talk we heard earlier in the year from McConnell and his fellow Republicans.

Asked about the Kansas abortion vote heard around the world, McConnell responded (7:35): “I think what the Supreme Court has done is said people who are elected by the American people are going to deal with this highly sensitive issue, and it will be playing out all year, and I don’t think we really know until the end of the year, what kind of an impact putting this issue back into the hands of those of us who are elected, as opposed to nine unelected judges, will have on the country. We’re in the process of finding that out…It tells us that there are a lot of people interested in the issue in Kansas, there’s no question about that.”

Asked whether he would survive his leadership role if “Trumpified” candidates(J.D. Vance, Oz, Blake Masters, Ted Budd etc) win this November, Sen McConnell responded (8:37): “I’ve been elected eight times without opposition. I don’t own this job, and there’s always an election every two years for leader. If anybody wants to challenge me, have at it.” McConnell added that he will still hang on as Minority Leader if Republicans don’t take over the Senate this Fall.

Asked whether, given his lengthy career in the U.S. Senate, there is a single issue the modern Republican Party gets right, which the old Republican Party got wrong, McConnell was all over the place. He didn’t give an answer that specifically answered the question.

Bottom line folks, the key takeaway from Senator McConnell’s interview on Fox News is that the “red wave” fantasy is gone. Republicans now acknowledge that even with the challenging economic times, and President Biden’s low approval numbers, the 2022 midterm elections will be very competitive. Reasonable politicos will agree that given historical trends re midterms, the fact that Dems are even still in the ball game, tells you all you need to know about the state of affairs at Trump’s GOP. 

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 Nikki Haley Running For President In 2024? Sure Looks Like A YES

$upport via Cash App

Nikki Haley on Fox News’ America Reports show(07/19/22)

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, appeared on Fox News’ America Reports show (07/19/22) for an interview that raised a lot of eyebrows because it is the strongest indication yet, that she is indeed running for president in 2024. When asked by the Fox News hosts about a hypothetical match-up pitting her against Democrats Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or even California Governor Gavin Newsome, the usually reserved Haley appeared uncharacteristically upbeat, telling the Fox News host, “bring it”–a clear indication that that she’s up for the challenge.

America Reports host (video at 3:22): “In terms of 2024…Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsome reaching out to some big money Wall Street donors about a potential run for 2024. When you take a look at Joe Biden’s polling numbers in that Sienna poll, he is well under water with every major demographic. Do you believe he’ll be the nominee in 2024?”

Nikki Haley: “I don’t know who they’re going to decide. I would love it if it is Biden, I’d love it if it is Kamala, I’d love it if it is Gavin Newsome, because we can beat them all day long, bring it. If that’s all they’ve got, bring it, because at the end of the day, we know what the American people want, and they want freedom, and they want to get government out of the way, and they want to make sure that their dollar is valued, and they want to make sure their kids have a better life, and that we have a strong America…that’s what they care about…”

She was then asked about her recent remarks at the Christians United For Israel(CUFI) event where she said this while talking about the Iran nuclear deal(video at 5:43): “No deal is better than a bad deal, and if this President[Biden]signs any sort of deal, I’ll make you a promise. The next President will shred it on her first day in office. Just saying, sometimes it takes a woman.” There was a long applause from the crowd, which obviously noted the “her first day in office” reference in her remarks. There’s absolutely no question that the politically savvy Haley intended for this to be a hint to the CUFI crowd and Americans generally, that she is strongly considering seeking the GOP presidential nomination in 2024.

Pressured by the Fox News hosts to elaborate further on her remarks at the CUFI event, Nikki Haley said(6:29): “Do I think the first female president, that it would be great if it was a strong conservative Republican? Of course I do. And sometimes does it take a woman? I mean we’ve tried men for a while, maybe a woman is what we need, but I don’t think I have to make that decision until the 1st of next year. Right now if we don’t win in 2022, there is no 2024.”

Asked whether she had the fire in the belly to mount a presidential run in 2024, she responded in the affirmative, saying: “I have the fire in the belly for America. I always have, and my parents reminded us every day how blessed we were to live in this country. All I’ve ever known to do is to fight for her, and so whether I run or not, I’m going to fight for this country until my last breath. It’s all I know to do.”

Bottom line folks, it has been widely speculated, including by Yours Truly, that Nikki Haley will mount a presidential run in 2024, so this should come as no surprise. It is however interesting because she took a few steps back on the issue in 2021 when it appeared that former President Trump had taken notice of her presidential ambitions and was displeased by them. Haley backtracked a little after that, saying she would not run for president if Trump was running. Has she now decided to run regardless of whether former President Trump runs? Hmm, sure seems like it, given her latest interview on Fox News’ America Reports show.

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

Harris County Cop Accused Of Robbing Local Asian Businesses While in Uniform

$upport via Cash App

Harris County Precinct 4 Deputy Constable Bobby Espinoza running away from KPRC2 Reporters in what appears to be an industrial Tyvek suit(04/16/22)

A shocking report by Houston’s KPRC2 TV station(04/16/22) says a Deputy Constable with the Harris County Precinct 4 Constable’s office, was arrested and charged with felony theft over a months-long scheme(09/2021-03/2022) that involved him harassing and robbing four local Vietnamese businesses. What has shocked Houston residents even more, is the fact that he is alleged to have committed these crimes while in his uniform, and using his patrol unit–all reasonable indicators of a hardened criminal.

KPRC2 reporter Bill Barajas specifically said: “Not only is Bobby Espinosa alleged to have taken thousands from area businesses, he is alleged to have done it while in uniform and in his patrol unit…Espinosa, a Deputy Constable with the Harris County Precinct 4 Constable’s office, was arrested and charged with felony theft…He has bonded out on a $30,000 bond…Espinosa, wearing a mask and in all white, was quiet. He refused to answer my questions before disappearing underneath a nearby bridge. Court documents obtained by KPRC say Espinosa was with the Harris County Precinct 4 Constable’s office for seven and a half years. He is accused of demanding a total of $5,700 from four Vietnamese businesses in our area, the scheme allegedly starting in September of 2021, and lasting through March of this year. A probable cause court judge said Espinosa would make customers at the businesses leave, unplug surveillance cameras, and force employees to open up the cash register. He is also alleged to have pried open a game machine.”

Reasonable people will agree that given the fact that this was a months-long scheme, plus done while in his official uniform, there is reason to believe deputy constable Espinosa may have engaged in other criminal conduct during his seven year tenure at Harris County Pct4. It also raises some serious questions about the state of affairs at the Harris County Precinct 4 Constable’s office. Often times shocking stories like these involving police officers, are usually symptoms of much bigger problems at the police department. Did his peers, for example, know what he was doing, but chose to look the other way? Prior to these criminal charges, was Espinosa ever the subject of a complaint from the public and/or disciplinary action? Was it for similar conduct?

Bottom line folks, these are questions that need to be raised with the Harris County Constable’s office as this shocking case plays out in the courts. Yours Truly, a resident of Precinct 4, will certainly keep up with this shocking case to make sure that Deputy Constable Espinosa is not a symptom of much bigger problems at the Harris County Precinct 4 Constable’s office. And if it turns out that he is, then other heads need to roll.

**Updated on 04/19/22 to include formal response by Harris County Precinct 4 Constable Mark Herman, to the news of Bobby Espinosa’s arrest**

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.com

Posted on

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