Tag: house

Posted on

Did FBI Director Patel Lie Under Oath?

In a striking segment on MSNOW’s Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, host Lawrence O’Donnell raised a provocative and consequential question: did FBI Director Kash Patel mislead Congress under oath during his exchange with Congressman Eric Swalwell about Donald Trump’s presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files? During that hearing, Swalwell pressed Patel directly on whether Trump’s name appeared in the Epstein material and sought clarity about the extent and significance of those references. Patel did not provide a numerical estimate, nor did he use the phrase “very few,” but his answer was widely interpreted as downplaying the frequency and importance of Trump’s appearance in those records. He framed his response in a way that suggested there was nothing substantial or alarming tied to Trump in the context of the FBI’s investigative findings.

Since that testimony, claims have circulated asserting that Trump’s name appears in the Epstein files far more extensively than Patel’s response implied. Some reports and political commentators have cited extraordinarily large raw reference counts, arguing that Trump’s name appears hundreds of thousands or even more than a million times across various forms of Epstein-related material, including emails, contact directories, flight records, investigative notes, and digital indexing systems. Even accounting for duplication, automated references, and database artifacts, such figures—if accurate—would appear difficult to reconcile with the general impression Patel conveyed during his testimony. The core issue is not whether Patel gave a precise number, because he did not, but whether his answer created a misleading impression that minimized the scale of Trump’s documented presence.

Whether that impression rises to the level of criminal conduct is a much more complex question. Federal law makes it a crime to knowingly provide false or materially misleading testimony to Congress, but the key word is “knowingly.” Prosecutors would have to prove that Patel was aware, at the time he testified, that his characterization was materially inconsistent with the actual scope of the records. That is a high bar. The Epstein files are massive, technically complex, and include raw, unfiltered material alongside analyzed investigative conclusions. It is entirely possible that Patel relied on summaries prepared by subordinates or focused specifically on references deemed relevant to criminal conduct rather than raw textual mentions. Under that interpretation, his testimony could be defended as reflecting his understanding of investigative significance rather than literal database frequency.

At the same time, Patel’s role as FBI Director weakens any argument that he lacked access to critical information. As head of the bureau, he has the authority to receive detailed briefings on major investigative matters, especially one as high-profile and politically sensitive as Epstein’s network and its associated records. Critics argue that it strains credibility to believe that the FBI Director would be unaware of the general magnitude of references to a former president in such a consequential investigative archive. If evidence were to surface showing that Patel had been briefed specifically about the scope or frequency of Trump-related references before his testimony, it could support the argument that his answer was not merely cautious or incomplete, but intentionally misleading.

On the other hand, defenders of Patel would likely emphasize the distinction between raw data mentions and meaningful investigative findings. Large digital archives often contain inflated reference counts due to repetitive indexing, duplicate communications, or incidental references that carry no investigative weight. A person’s name might appear thousands of times without indicating wrongdoing or even direct interaction. From that perspective, Patel could argue that his testimony reflected the FBI’s substantive investigative conclusions, not superficial database metrics. Courts have historically been reluctant to criminalize testimony that can reasonably be interpreted as technically accurate or dependent on interpretation, particularly when the witness avoids making precise factual claims.

The political implications of this controversy are significant and could shape how the matter unfolds. If a future Democratic administration were to take office, there would likely be pressure from some quarters to investigate whether Patel’s testimony crossed the legal line. Such an inquiry could take the form of a congressional referral, a Justice Department investigation, or the appointment of a special counsel. Any decision to prosecute would ultimately depend on whether investigators could uncover clear evidence of intent—such as internal communications, briefing documents, or witness testimony showing that Patel knowingly conveyed a misleading impression. Without that level of proof, the matter would likely remain in the realm of political controversy rather than criminal prosecution.

At the same time, the broader political climate has changed dramatically in recent years. Actions that were once considered unthinkable—such as investigating or prosecuting senior federal law enforcement officials—are now part of the modern political landscape. That reality cuts both ways. Any future administration pursuing such a case would face accusations of political retaliation, while declining to act could fuel claims of unequal accountability. Ultimately, the question of whether Patel misled Congress may hinge less on public debate over document counts and more on what evidence exists about his state of mind when he testified. Without clear proof that he knowingly created a false impression, the controversy may never evolve into a criminal case—but it will remain a potent flashpoint in the ongoing struggle over truth, accountability, and political power at the highest levels of government.

Posted on

Another Epstein Files Release Deadline Passes

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

A segment on MSNOW’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell focused on yet another missed deadline for the release of the Epstein files under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. O’Donnell noted that Friday, 01/16/26, was the date by which Trump’s Department of Justice was required either to release the documents or explain to a federal court why it could not do so. Even as he laid out the requirement, O’Donnell expressed skepticism that the administration would comply.

That skepticism proved well founded. The DOJ did not release the Epstein files by the deadline, nor did it offer a straightforward justification for continued secrecy. Instead, it submitted a filing advancing a far more provocative claim: that the federal court itself lacks the authority to impose disclosure deadlines on the DOJ under the transparency law. In effect, the department argued that judicial oversight does not extend to enforcing Congress’s mandate for public release.

The filing struck many observers as both evasive and revealing. The DOJ had no shortage of familiar excuses it could have relied upon. It could have requested additional time, citing the need to review millions of Epstein-related files it now claims to have “discovered” years after Epstein’s death—an explanation that few in the public find credible, but one that would have followed the well-worn script of bureaucratic delay. Instead, the department chose to challenge the court’s authority outright, a move that signaled a deeper resistance to transparency rather than a temporary logistical problem.

That posture stripped away any remaining doubt about the administration’s intentions. From the beginning, critics warned that Trump’s DOJ would engage in procedural gamesmanship—offering symbolic compliance while ensuring that the most consequential material never sees the light of day. The latest filing suggests those warnings were prescient. By disputing the court’s power to impose deadlines, the DOJ is effectively asserting the right to delay disclosure indefinitely, regardless of statutory language, judicial orders, or public demand.

At this point, what once sounded like cynical speculation is hardening into an unavoidable conclusion. Despite sustained public outcry, congressional action, and repeated court-imposed deadlines, less than one percent—one percent—of the Epstein files have been released. That figure alone tells the story. At this pace, full disclosure is not merely delayed; it is effectively being denied. The administration appears content to manage optics rather than deliver transparency, releasing token material while the core of the record remains sealed. With each missed deadline, the promise of accountability fades further, leaving the public with a grim realization: the dream of a full Epstein files release may never be realized, and the cynics may have been right from the very beginning.

Posted on

Less Than One Percent Of The Epstein Files Have Been Released Thus Far

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

A recent segment on MSNBC’s Weeknight featured Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who joined the program to discuss his ongoing efforts to force the release of the Epstein files. What he revealed caught many viewers off guard. Despite the passage of the Epstein Transparency Act, Garcia said the Department of Justice has released less than one percent of the total body of material related to Jeffrey Epstein. For an audience that assumed the law had jump-started a meaningful disclosure process, the figure landed like a gut punch.

While few people believed the government had released anything close to half of the files, most assumed the number was at least significantly higher than one percent. Garcia clarified that even within that already minuscule fraction, extensive redactions further limit what the public can actually see. In other words, the amount of usable, unredacted information is effectively even smaller. The disclosure process, far from accelerating, appears to be stalled almost entirely, raising serious questions about whether the law is being honored in anything more than name.

The segment also revisited Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent appearance before the U.S. Senate, including pointed questioning from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Bondi’s posture during the hearing was notably defiant, offering little indication that the Justice Department feels compelled to move faster or provide fuller transparency. If that testimony is any guide, expectations for a voluntary release of the Epstein files remain exceedingly low, regardless of statutory requirements.

Garcia noted that House Democrats are now planning to call Bondi before the House Oversight Committee to explain why the DOJ continues to withhold the vast majority of the files despite the clear intent of the Epstein Transparency Act. That hearing could become a pivotal moment, not only in determining whether the law has any real enforcement power, but also in testing whether congressional oversight will be allowed to function at all. The looming question is whether Bondi will bring the same combative resistance to the House—and whether House Republicans will once again enable stonewalling rather than demand answers the public has been waiting years to hear.

Posted on

Minneapolis ICE Shooting Deepens the Trump Administration’s Credibility Crisis

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

The fatal shooting of a 37-year-old American woman in Minneapolis by an ICE agent has once again thrown a harsh spotlight on a problem that has increasingly defined Trump administration 2.0: a deepening credibility crisis. What began as a disturbing law-enforcement encounter quickly metastasized into something larger—another episode in which the public was asked to accept an official account that appeared to conflict with what many people could see with their own eyes.

This credibility gap did not emerge overnight. Over the past year, Americans have grown increasingly skeptical of information coming from the administration, including economic data once treated as authoritative, public-health guidance from HHS, representations made in court filings, and on-the-record statements from senior officials. Americans have always practiced a degree of “trust but verify” when it comes to government pronouncements, but the level of doubt now surrounding official statements is markedly different—more pervasive, more reflexive, and more corrosive.

In the Minneapolis case, video of the encounter circulated quickly on social media, allowing the public to assess the incident independently. To many observers, the footage appeared to show a verbal confrontation between the woman and ICE agents, followed by her attempt to leave the scene in her vehicle. Based on the available video, critics argued that the use of deadly force was unnecessary and disproportionate, raising immediate questions about judgment, training, and accountability.

Those questions intensified when DHS Secretary Kristi Noem addressed the incident publicly. Her description of events sharply diverged from what many believed the video showed. She claimed the woman had “run over” an ICE agent, sending him to the hospital, and went further by characterizing the incident as an act of domestic terrorism. These assertions were widely challenged and fueled accusations that the administration was misrepresenting the facts rather than awaiting a full investigation. President Trump later echoed the secretary’s account on social media, amplifying a narrative that many Americans had already begun to doubt.

While the president relied on information provided by his cabinet, the responsibility for accuracy rested squarely with the Department of Homeland Security. It is the job of senior officials to verify facts from agents on the ground before presenting a definitive account to the public—particularly in cases involving lethal force. When that process fails, the damage extends far beyond a single incident.

As a result, what might have remained a grave but contained use-of-force controversy instead became another data point in the administration’s broader credibility problem. MSNBC contributor Eddie Glaude captured this sentiment on Deadline: White House, noting that the administration now faces a public conditioned to doubt its word. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz echoed similar concerns, emphasizing the importance of transparency and factual accuracy as the situation unfolded.

If this were an isolated misstatement—an early briefing that later required correction—the public might have been more forgiving. But because the Minneapolis shooting followed a series of prior episodes in which official accounts were revised, contradicted, or quietly abandoned, skepticism hardened almost instantly. Each incident compounds the last, reinforcing a perception that truth is being shaped to fit political needs rather than facts.

In a democratic society, credibility is not a cosmetic asset; it is foundational. When government officials lose the public’s trust, even accurate statements are greeted with suspicion, and accountability becomes harder to achieve. The Minneapolis shooting underscores how urgently the Trump administration must confront this problem. Leveling with the public is not optional—it is essential to restoring confidence in institutions meant to serve, protect, and answer to the people.

Posted on

Is Mike Johnson The Weakest Speaker Of All Time?

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

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

Speaker Johnson Called Out For Not Swearing In Adelita Grijalva

House Speaker Mike Johnson is under growing fire after a tense exchange with Senator ___ (D-AZ), who publicly accused him of deliberately refusing to swear in newly elected Democratic Representative Adelita Grijalva. The senator alleged that Johnson’s delay is a calculated move to stall an upcoming House vote on whether to release the long-suppressed Epstein files—documents that could expose the full extent of Jeffrey Epstein’s powerful network of associates.

The confrontation reportedly took place during a joint leadership meeting on Capitol Hill, where the Arizona senator pressed Johnson on the delay. Witnesses say Johnson attempted to deflect, citing “procedural timing issues,” but the senator shot back that the Speaker was “weaponizing procedure to shield the guilty.”

Johnson, who has cultivated an image as a devout Christian and moral conservative, now finds himself in an increasingly awkward position—forced to reconcile his public faith with what critics see as a willingness to protect the powerful at the expense of truth and transparency. “You can’t claim to walk in the light while covering for people who trafficked in darkness,” one Democratic aide remarked after the exchange.

The late financier Jeffrey Epstein was famously connected to some of the most influential figures in politics, business, and entertainment. Among them was Donald Trump, then a New York real estate mogul and now President of the United States. The Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files has only fueled suspicion that critical evidence—particularly anything implicating high-level figures—is being withheld from public view. Officials have repeatedly promised a “measured” release, but months of delays have left watchdogs, journalists, and victims’ advocates convinced the White House is hiding something.

Privately, some insiders suggest that Speaker Johnson may personally favor full transparency. However, given the Trump administration’s well-documented record of punishing perceived disloyalty, Johnson is said to be under immense pressure to toe the line. The Speaker, they claim, fears political retaliation—or worse, a full-scale MAGA backlash—if he defies the administration’s wishes and allows the House to move forward on the Epstein vote.

For now, the standoff continues. Representative-elect Grijalva remains in limbo, waiting to be officially sworn in while the partisan tug-of-war plays out behind the scenes. Whether Johnson’s delay is a procedural quirk or a deliberate act of political obstruction, one thing is certain: the issue isn’t going away. At some point, Speaker Johnson will have no choice but to seat the incoming Democrat from Arizona—and when he does, the House may finally be forced to confront the explosive truth behind the Epstein files.

Posted on

Three Questions Alex Acosta Must Answer Re Epstein

MSNBC’s Legal Analyst Lisa Rubin appeared on the 09/19/25 edition of Deadline White House show where she made a compelling argument as to how Congress can and should go about getting Jeffrey Epstein-related information from former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta.

Rubin said that there are a bunch of Epstein-related documents that Acosta either saw, or was involved in creating. This, she argued, meant the said documents were either currently in the possession of the Department of Justice, or even by Acosta himself.

The first question Congress needs to ask Acosta is about the 60-count federal indictment drafted by prosecutor Ann Marie Villafaña in 2007. DOJ definitely has this document, and the allegations therein, may shed a lot of light as to Epstein’s illicit operation, and potentially, the actions of his his co-conspirators, most of who were later granted immunity.

The second question regards the lengthy prosecution memo that aforementioned Villafaña wrote regarding the federal case re Epstein. Rubin says this can shed a lot of light as to the evidence the feds had against Epstein to support the 60-count indictment

Finally, Rubin says Congress should ask Acosta about his own interview transcript from the office of professional responsibility investigation that was conducted at DOJ in 2020. That was an investigation started at the instigation of Republican Senator Ben Sasse. Rubin argues that Acosta must have that transcript in his possession because he and his lawyers were given an opportunity to review it and suggest any corrections.

Long story short, the lingering questions about Jeffrey Epstein and his child sex trafficking operation must be answered, and key players like Acosta must not be allowed to come before Congress and just gaslight the public. These crucial documents are currently in the possession of the DOJ and/or Acosta, and the public deserves to see them.

An alternative route would be to have Ann Marie Villafaña testify before Congress. Who knows, she might have “kept receipts”.

Posted on

New Questions About Trump And His Former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta

As the Jeffrey Epstein scandal continues to heat up, new questions are being raised about the infamous 2008 sweetheart plea deal he received from then U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, who later joined the Trump administration as Labor Secretary in 2017

The running narrative thus far, has been that after details of the sweetheart plea deal started getting a lot of media coverage, the Trump administration was forced to cut ties with Acosta—he became a liability, if you will.

However according to Kristy Greenberg, herself a former federal prosecutor, President Trump might have known all along about Alex Acosta’s shady Epstein deal when he made him his labor secretary. As Greenberg further put it, “he [President Trump] didn’t seem to care.”

If Greenberg’s account holds up, it would reflect very poorly on the president as America’s moral leader. Republicans have for decades, put a premium on moral values, so it will be interesting to see how they navigate this Trump-Acosta relationship. 

Posted on

House Speaker Grilled Over “Big Beautiful Bill”

$upport via Cash App👇

House Speaker Mike Johnson appeared on CBS’ Face The Nation (05/25/25) to discuss among other things, the recent House passage of the Trump administration’s budget bill—dubbed “Big Beautiful Bill”. The Bill’s fate now lies with the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.

Among the issues raising concerns with the budget bill, is that it is projected to increase the national debt significantly, something Republican lawmakers lamented throughout the Biden administration. The bill also makes significant cuts to Medicaid and food stamps(SNAP), programs crucial for working families generally, and specifically, the working poor.

Speaker Mike Johnson’s Louisiana is one of the poorest states in the nation, so cuts to Medicaid and food stamps are bound to have relatively more disastrous effects on families there. Asked by host Margaret Brennan how he can justify pushing such cuts knowing full well that his state is one of the poorest in the nation, Speaker Johnson responded that all the bill cuts is waste, fraud and abuse.

It will be interesting to see how Speaker Johnson and other House Republicans use this excuse once their poor constituents start complaining about the cuts. Even more interesting, will be the way Republicans defend this tricky position as we approach the 2026 midterm elections. 

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

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempoliticst.com

Posted on

Dem Sen Murphy Accuses Trump-Vance Of Steering America Towards Kleptocracy

Support via Cash app👇

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) appeared on CNNSOTU (022825) where he dropped a bombshell, telling host Dana Bash that the shouting match we recently witnessed at the White House between President Trump, his VP Vance, and the President of Ukraine, was not an anomaly, but rather, a conscious effort by Trump-Vance to steer America towards kleptocracy.

The characterization by the mainstream media thus far, has been that the confrontation at the White House was just an unfortunate case of a good meeting gone bad—something that happened out of happenstance.

What Sen Murphy is saying however, is markedly different, and that is, this was a pre-meditated, conscious effort by Trump-Vance to humiliate the President of Ukraine for the benefit of Vladimir Putin. Furthermore, Sen Murphy adds that this is part of their larger effort to align America with dictators around the world, so as to make it easier for them to transform America into a kleptocratic oligarchy like Russia.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the CashApp “tip jar” below 👇

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com