#I guess all ops chiefs get some kind of news attention with their line of work so she probably just saw him on TV

[bubble-popping]

HOLD ON LI LING JUST SHOWED UP IN ONE OF MELANIE'S BOUNTIES????? Spoilers in case u haven't read it yet and want to(it's called roller skating barkeep). I'm only gonna be talking abt the part he's in

look at his angy face he's gonna rip someone's head off he's so cute ❤️❤️

It was strange at first to think he'd get possessive over teaching someone?? 😭 But this is also Li Ling we're talking abt, ofc he'd get jealous over smth that petty. Always gotta be the best at everything 🙄

[yourcutelittlegayfriend]

Heya Can I please uh Get a sett x vastaya reader Scenario where she comes to his pit to fight because she needs money to help her tribe get rebuilt?

Ok so first of all thanks for the request and sorry for a very very late post and second if you're like referring to rebuilding houses in a tribe you actually can't cuz vastayan people live harmony with nature so that means no cutting trees and you get your needs from nature....... but I'll think of something like a money crisis or something.

Yeah sorry.........again.

•=•=•=•=•=•

SETT X VASTAYAN READER

For many years, your people live in peace. away from the dangers of the outside world but that doesn't mean you were selfish and un-kind, instead they used magic not for fighting but to offer help to other vastayan, they would take refugees, heal them, and take care of other Vastayans that were scarred by the war.

Decades past many happened in Ionia but being seculded in the hidden forest in the land, generations of your tribe have forgotten what's the outside world like and believe that it's only a myth.

Then an unexpecting day came. Since your tribe offers help more and more Vastayans seek their hand for help and that cause a problem.

A big problem.

There was too much population and your home became overcrowded after a new tribe came, said they were attack overnight and barely survived, it was no problem in sharing and rationing your supplies but nature had given too much.

Being the Chief's eldest daughter you volunteered to search outside your hidden home to find a way to help them.

So with a heavy heart your family and people bid you good luck and safe travel.

Days past you discovered many things and places, you found different kinds of Vastayans, good and also bad people.

One day you came to a Forest market you ask many people but some spoke in a strange language while some walked away from you until you meet this cute Vastayan couple named Rakan and Xayah, you were surprised that they can speak (mainly Xayah) using the old Vastayan Language.

From Xayah's stories she is looking for her lost tribe and planned on making a rebellion or something? While Rakan only follow and support his lover.

You told them about your problem and they suggested that you go far towards the main city, you took the suggestion and thank them for their help, bidding them good bye you turned into leave but not before Xayah called you back.

"Hey not being a bother or anything but you said there was a new tribe that came to yours right?, Is there perhaps a man-." She then continued to explain a man who she claim her father and ask if he was in the same tribe, shaking your head you said that you haven't see anyone that look like her father.

"Don't worry Xayah I'm positive they're out there somewhere and you'll find them I believe in you, just don't lose hope ok?". You re-assured her as she thanked you.

"Here Y/N don't forget to hide does ears and tail of yours, they're a dead give away." She held out a dark cloak made from a smooth Ionian silk, after that you waved them goodbye.

"Good luck and don't get yourself killed kid!! See ya, Hey Xayah wait for meeeeee!!!." Rakan shouted before chasing after his beloved.

"You do know I'm quite older than you right?." You asked him well more to yourself before shrugging it off and beginning your journey towards the city in Ionia.

It took a whole day getting there making you arrived at night. you then wore the cloak Xayah gave you and blend in with the crowd, it was similar as back in the Forest market but instead of Vastayan or shape-shifters that was walking around it was full on strange creatures that you believe were humans like the elders told in their stories and unlike back home with of trees and nature instead it was this weird tall structures and no Vastayan in sight.

then your ears hear this wired clinking of metal that you decided to investigate, looking around you found the source and saw a human passing three of those round gold things in exchange for a fruit then you saw another and another.

It was some kind of currency just like yours but a little different.

You then followed a big human man that was carrying a huge sack of those while being vigilant, you then came across a much more big architecture with a lot of suspicious people entering inside.

Moving forward, you see the man you followed giving it towards a round hat wearing man and seeing that some were doing it too.

You perk up along with other people when you hear a feminine voice at the passageway then people run towards the voice being unlucky you got shove in, you tried squeezing your body in the crowd, few tries you finally reach the end but loss you footing, you catch yourself by slamming your hand in a flat wooden furniture.

startled the man and the woman who you believe was yelling looked at you with widen eyes they talked to you in a much more different language, you look at them dumbfounded before shrugging you shoulders.

The woman rolled her eyes before grabbing a hold of your right arm and pulled you, being curious you let her.

Walking deep inside you tried talking to her but she didn't payed you attention, a short walk you were then push towards an opening.

You stumbled before getting blinded by a golden light you raised an arm to cover your face, turning back you looked and see the woman on the tunnel motioning you to walk, looking behind you see a stone platform.

"Huh?." you pipe up looking back at her, you point yourself and then towards the platform.

She nod her head yes then showing you her thumbs pointing upwards before turning around and walked back, you look down at you hands and trying to copy what she did while walking towards the platform.

( ՞ਊ ՞）→ Sett's POV :

Another night with a line people that aren't strong enough to beat me.

"Welp who can say no to money anyway?." I chuckled cracking my knuckles and do small stretching.

I look below on the balcony to see a cloaked figure walking in the middle of the pit, I see their attention in their hands.

You're fighting me and you're already scared?, pathetic.

I scoff before walking back and down towards the pit.

A few seconds later I walked out and face them.

"Hey! you're the first contender?, Guess this will be an easy win." I stare at my clenched fist after wearing my golden brass knuckles.

Smirking I turned my head but to my surprise they we're still busy with the hands.

"Oi!, Are ya' listening to me or you're deaf?." I shouted by now the people were listening to me watching in interest.

I growled, losing my patience I stomp towards them right arm pulled back.

"I said are ya' deaf or stupid?." Reaching them I throw my right straight to there face. before my knuckles can touch there face they simply blocked it with their palm.

They looked up making me see their- I mean her face, she looked at me with her E/C colored eyes before glaring at me, She jumped back looking at her palm then back to me.

"Heh, good to have your attention. Now can you fight?." I punch my hand to my palm smirking, she tilted her head then she move to take off her cloak.

Once the clothing was off my widen when I see a pair of ears on top of her head like mine with a long thick fur tail swishing behind her.

"Vastayan?." I growled "then I guess I'll be lying when I say this won't hurt." I then charge at her.

We both begin to fight I keep punching her but she dodges fast while we were does this she keep talking in a weird ass language I can't understand.

She then growled in annoyance before tackling me with a surprising strength, strandling me she clunch the neckline of my clothes and smash her lips on mine.

I stared with wide eyes at her. the kiss didn't last long she quickly stood up and talk finally in a language I can understand.

"Sorry I had to do that it was the fastest way I can learn you language." She apologize before holding out her hand at me.

"Here let me help you." She said I grab it and she pulled me up without breaking a sweat.

•=•=•=•=•=•

"So your telling me? You came from your invisible home-."

"Hidden actually-."

"To find what exactly?." I asked feeling a tick mark growing in my forehead still feeling a little embarrassed from the kiss earlier.

"Something to help them like finding extra supplies using that." She pointed behind me and I turned my hand and see the money we collected from different bets.

"Ya want Noxian money?." I questioned

"If that's what you call it yes." She said without hesitation.

"Ha! Look girly I ain't a charity work I own that money and I'm not just about to give that to some Vastayan tribe, they can starve for all I care." I puff out my chest laughing at her.

"Fine then I'll do anything you want but in exchange I need a few sack of those what about that?." She growled not liking what I just said about her tribe.

"Hmm, guess I can't let a good deal like that fly away then exchange for maybe 5 of those you have to fight in my pit for a whole month, deal?." I hold out my hand.

"I do not know how long this month you are talking about but sounds delightful to me, sure!." She grab my hand tightly and shook it with great force.

"Ok! Ok! Stop it." I snatch my hand away shaking off some off the pain from her grip.

How is she so strong?!

"Be here tomorrow early in the morning then we'll talk business." I turned around walking away from her, but few steps away I can hear someone following me.

I look over my shoulder and see her behind me.

"Why are you following me?." I asked gritting my teeth.

"Well since we made a deal it's a tradition to follow the dealer for a better end of-". I cut her off.

"You don't have a place to sleep do you?."

"Yes! Can I sleep with you?". She didn't even feel ashamed of herself.

"OH FOR THE LOVE OF-!".

•∆•∆•∆•∆•∆•

Sett's a bit OP but...........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Yeah I don't have a good reason

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Last week, congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib captured headlines for breaking with House Democrats and Nancy Pelosi on an emergency border aid bill that lacked protections for migrant children.

This wasn’t the first time the so-called “Squad” broke ranks. Or the first time their public disagreement with House leadership has led to sniping in the press (Pelosi told New York Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd that “All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”)

But it’s not just Democratic leadership taking aim. Republicans have tried to paint “the Squad” as part of the “radical left,” and the direction the party is moving in. And on Sunday, President Trump sparked a firestorm — at least among Democrats — when he tweeted that “‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen” should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

So what is it about the Squad that has captured the attention of both Republicans and Democrats? Let’s try to tackle this in two parts: 1) What role do we think the Squad has in pushing the Democratic Party in a new direction? 2) And what, if any, do we think will be the electoral repercussions in 2020?

To get us started, what do we make of the news surrounding the Squad and their split from Pelosi and House Democrats on the emergency border aid bill?

julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): Well, I can start from providing the view from poli sci Twitter, which tends to be a fairly pro-party group of people (and leans Democratic/anti-Trump). So in response to the Twitter fight between the House Democrats’ account and AOC’s chief of staff, there was a lot of talk like “have these fights behind closed doors, don’t have a big, public blowup.”

But I disagree. Party infighting should not be done in a smoke-filled room. That’s just not what people want from politics anymore, and I think when that does happen, it contributes to further institutional distrust and disengagement.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I’d note that AOC has a Trump score of 18 percent, meaning that she’s voted in line with Trump’s position 18 percent of the time. But according to her data, you’d expect her to vote with Trump about… 0 percent of the time based on how liberal her district is.

So she’s actually proving a bit problematic for Pelosi, in the sense that she should be a guaranteed vote, but Pelosi is only getting her ~80 percent of the time. Except none of this has really mattered since Pelosi has room to spare in the House, and a lot of legislation that passes the House has no chance of passing a GOP-led Senate anyway.

sarahf: Is there at least an argument to be made that Pelosi and the Squad should take fewer swipes at each other over their disagreements, as too much of a focus on intraparty fighting can’t be good for the party?

julia_azari: So here’s my galaxy brain take.

natesilver:

julia_azari: It’s good for the Squad for Pelosi, at least, to take swipes at them. After all, part of the anti-establishment brand is to be in tension with, well, the establishment. And it’s possible that leaders like Pelosi know this! What I’m not really sure about is how good the Squad (so much shorter than typing all their names) is for the Democratic Party.

I don’t think they’re a problem, but it’s too early to gauge their party-building potential. And obviously, they make some people nervous. But if the goal is to engage young people, women and people of color, and keep the left flank of the party somewhat happy, they seem like a good bet.

I am really long-winded today. #sorrynotsorry

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): It would be smart for the party establishment to think of this as natural tension between the wings of the party.

The problem is I don’t think they actually do, which is one of the reasons why this is all so interesting. (The House leadership’s official Twitter account attacked AOC’s chief of staff over the weekend, with the implication that she should fire him.)

sarahf: To Julia’s point about the Squad’s party-building potential, isn’t there an argument to be made that they don’t even need to have that? Their ethos is that they’re here to do away with the old system. They agitate for change; they don’t need to bridge consensus within the party, unlike say, Pelosi, who has a very different role to play.

And the fact that virtually all of the 2020 Democratic candidates have a position on the Green New Deal is a testament to their effectiveness at pushing the party in new directions, no?

julia_azari: Right. Which maybe Pelosi likes and maybe she doesn’t. Obviously, moving to the left carries risks. But (and this is where I got into it with a bunch of people on Twitter on Sunday), it’s not clear to me that Democratic leaders actually want to go back to the 1990s and early 2000s.

Yes, the party was more “professionalized,” and less split internally, than it is now. It also won two plurality elections and lost to George W. Bush. Not to mention, voter turnout was low.

So one lesson you might learn from the 2008 period onward is that the party does well with fresh faces, even if it also has to win suburban swing districts that might not view AOC and Rashida Tlaib all that favorably.

perry: But the Democratic establishment (I don’t know about Pelosi, personally) seems to think that the prominence of these four women is not a natural, healthy tension, and instead is broadly bad for the party.

And I think their preferred outcome is that the AOC wing basically stays quiet until December 2020 (after the presidential election). That’s where the real tension is.

julia_azari: We’ve (and here, I specifically mean academics and the media) way overemphasized the concept of party unity.

sarahf: I guess I just don’t understand why the Democratic establishment is making this into such a big deal. But I agree with Perry that they definitely would prefer the AOC wing of the party stay quiet, especially when polls like this are leaked. (Axios wouldn’t disclose the group that conducted the poll, so there’s a lot we don’t know about it, and its findings should be treated with skepticism. But it reportedly found that many likely general election voters who are white and have two years or less of college education had a negative opinion of AOC and socialism.)

julia_azari: For the record, that Axios piece is extremely misleading.

sarahf:

It’s just hard for me to believe that these four women really would have that much of an impact on 2020?

natesilver: I kinda come back to Occam’s razor on this. When you have a bunch of new members who want to push the party in a more ideological direction, it usually entails electoral risk. But the benefit, potentially, is that you also shift the party’s platform in that direction.

perry: Yes, but so many party establishment people want to take away any unnecessary election risks–and I think they would argue AOC talking about getting rid of the Department of Homeland Security, for example, is an unnecessary election risk.

natesilver: It’s also probably a very marginal electoral risk in a world where Donald Trump is president and there’s much bigger news all the time.

julia_azari: Part of the problem is that the lessons of 2016 aren’t clear. You could say that 2016 showed that there was a real push to move Democrats to the left. Or you could say that 2016 was about how Democrats lost groups of voters to Republicans (e.g. the diploma divide among white voters). And those forces push the party in different directions.

perry: The party establishment is probably overstating the rise of the AOC wing in terms of affecting the 2020 elections. But their risk assessment, I think, is driving these tensions–leading Pelosi to bash the AOC wing fairly often, for example.

natesilver: But it’s not crazy for the party establishment to be worried about it! Sometimes I think everyone in this discussion is not always clear about what they think will be electorally advantageous versus what they do — or don’t — like policywise.

julia_azari: Most of this in relation to the Squad is marginal, though, no matter how many hot headlines Axios posts with polls that don’t actually say anything about AOC being the face of the party or about swing states.

natesilver: Journalistic malpractice on Axios’s part TBH to publish a poll without even listing who conducted the poll.

We don’t even know who leaked it. We don’t even know if the poll was real. We should be that skeptical when basic facts and details about a poll are missing like that.

sarahf: That’s fair. And I know we’ve talked about this before, but I think part of what we’re seeing play out here, especially with AOC, is there is now a group of politicians that aren’t willing to play by the old rules. And they will use their large social media followings to get their message across, and on their terms.

So maybe party leadership is scared of losing control?

And so we see Pelosi snipe about how they’re only four votes.

Maybe the Freedom Caucus and the headaches it has caused for the Republican Party has so scarred Democratic leadership that they’ll do anything to stop this faction of their party from growing.

But is this kind of fear misplaced? How much is the Squad really moving the party to the left?

natesilver: Clare said this yesterday on the podcast, but the Squad are very effective at getting media attention, and the media is quite happy to play up the “Democrats IN DISARRAY!” storylines. So in that sense it does seem like a mistake for Pelosi et al. to hit back at them.

perry: About a third of the 235 House Democrats (CNN has this number at 82) support starting an impeachment inquiry into Trump.

Ninety-five support the Green New Deal; 118 support Medicare for All. So just in terms of raw numbers, the positions of the AOC wing are much broader than four people.

I think the big shift for Pelosi is that she has never had a vocal, powerful group saying that she is too far to the right. For basically the entire time Pelosi has led the House Democrats, her biggest tension has been with the right flank of the party — some conservative Democrats in the House thought that she was too far to the left.

But now, Pelosi is being attacked from the left in a serious way, for the first time. And I actually think she and Biden are responding in similar ways to these attacks from the left.

My sense is they both see themselves as liberal icons–the man who helped elect the first black president, the woman who pushed through a huge health care reform that extended insurance to millions. And I think this criticism from the younger generation of Democrats makes them mad. Pelosi seems indignant at times, so does Biden.

julia_azari: Biden and Pelosi also managed to establish themselves as liberals when cultural/LGBT issues were on the rise in the party, and you didn’t have to do anything particularly radical to be liberal enough on economics and race.

In 2019, it takes more to be a liberal icon.

natesilver: I mean… I don’t know that the Squad always pick their battles all that well, and in that sense they are pretty Freedom Caucus-like. On the other hand, they have a lot more star power than the Freedom Caucus. There is a lot of political talent there.

And they’re all pretty young. So a lot of my critiques of Bernie Sanders’s campaign, for instance, i.e. that he doesn’t have a good plan to expand his base, definitely doesn’t apply to the Squad when they can unify leftist Democrats with nonwhite Democrats.

sarahf: Something I think we’re all touching on here is the fact that it is four women of color pushing the party to the left and challenging the status quo. And that matters. Each of them have made appeals to their background and how they represent people who historically haven’t had a seat at the table.

And this probably, to put it bluntly, does make certain older vanguards of the party uncomfortable, because they consider themselves to be liberal, and that now they’re forced to reckon with the idea that they’re maybe not as liberal as they think.

perry: I want to come back to something Nate said earlier that I think is essential.

“Sometimes I think everyone in this discussion is not always clear about what they think will be electorally advantageous versus what they do — or don’t — like policywise.”

The AOC wing at times says its ideas, like Medicare for All, are both the right thing to do on policy AND will help Democrats electorally, by either increasing turnout among people who might not otherwise vote or appealing to swing voters. Whereas the establishment wing often says a policy is bad on substance and that it will hurt Democrats’ chances in 2020.

To me, both sides are overconfident in saying that their policy views are the best electoral position, too.

natesilver: I get annoyed by this sort of question for a couple of different reasons. On the one hand, I think it’s generally bullshit to think that a policy that polls as being quite unpopular will magically turn out to be electorally helpful because it motivates the base or whatever.

On the other hand, there’s a lot of bullshit in which more establishment/centrist Democrats will deride a policy for being unpopular, when their real motivation against it is that they don’t like the policy.

perry: I know it’s our job to analyze elections. But I think it’s really hard to figure out exactly how policy ideas and outcomes affect election results. So I find claims people make suggesting “Policy X is unpopular so Candidate Y will lose” to be way too overconfident at times. At the same time, we can make some judgements.

For example, “Medicare for everyone who wants it’ (the basic position of Biden, Pete Buttigieg and other more centrist Democrats) is probably a safer political position than “Medicare for everyone and change the whole system” (the stance of AOC and Sanders). I say that even though Medicare for All might be a better health care policy.

natesilver: “Medicare for everyone who wants it” is indeed quite a bit more popular than “Medicare for all,” and one of the reasons “Medicare for all” polls well is because people assume “Medicare for all” means “Medicare for everyone who wants it.”

julia_azari: So my view on the policy thing is complicated. Nate has the Occam’s razor view that I think makes sense, but here’s another galaxy-brain take. I spend most of my time in Wisconsin, a state with a long anti-establishment political tradition, and around a lot of younger people (my students), so my sense of how popular some anti-establishment and left-leaning policies are is probably inflated. But in general, I think most people are NOT sophisticated on policy specifics, but they are sensitive to scary images and wording. There’s even evidence that policies that sound too left-leaning or disruptive are especially vulnerable to scary images and messaging. So while it might seem like a lot of people are not happy with the status quo, that does not mean major, risky policy change isn’t still intimidating.

perry: That’s well put. Medicare for All is very vulnerable to scare tactics.

sarahf: Especially when abolishing private insurance enters the equation.

natesilver: I don’t know. I sort of agree with Vox’s Matt Yglesias that people are learning the wrong lesson from Trump. He was actually perceived as a relative moderate by voters in 2016.

perry: I understand many voters said that Trump was more moderate than Clinton.

But I just have a hard time with this idea that the candidate who ran calling for a ban on Muslims traveling to the United States and suggested that he would “lock up” his opponent was the moderate candidate.

natesilver: IDK, I think we’ve shifted from a media environment in which a lot of outlets took an (implicitly center or center-left) “view from nowhere” to one in which the media is more outspoken, and the difference between partisan and nonpartisan media is a little blurrier.

And I think that’s shifted the assumptions about whether centrism is electorally advantageous in a direction that claims that, actually, elections are all about turning out your base. But I don’t think there’s actually any evidence that how you win elections has changed.

julia_azari: I don’t think I read Matt’s piece but that’s not gonna stop me from saying I’m not sure I think the discussion around moderate candidates is useful. Even if Trump was thought of as a moderate, he ran in a way that criticized the status quo.

Basically I’ve become one of those Twitter trolls who reads the headline and then makes a critique.

natesilver: Trump also won independents 46-42 though!

sarahf: We can’t downplay just how much Clinton and Trump were disliked in 2016, though. Yes, Trump won, but that might say more about how we think about women in politics more than anything else.

natesilver: What if Clinton had run as more of a centrist, though? Would she have gotten more than 8 percent of the Republican vote? The Democrats had a pretty darn liberal platform.

julia_azari: My suspicion is that it’s a wash, but I may be discounting the impact of Democrats being perceived as too left/liberal.

sarahf: If Clinton had higher favorables, I don’t think it would have mattered how she ran, i.e. centrist or super liberal.

perry: So that gets to the real question. Would Democrats be marginally better off if AOC

and company were a little less prominent till December 2020?

sarahf: Yes, I think that’s the argument Pelosi and leadership are making. I just don’t think it’s particularly salient. But I also haven’t seen the attack ads yet, I suppose.

perry: My own, non-data judgement, is yes, Democrats would be slightly better off if AOC and her allies were less prominent in the run-up to the 2020 election. Why? Because having issues of race and identity (like immigration policy and four very liberal, female people of color) being central to the presidential election is hard for Democrats. They have become the party of people of color but most voters are white and this is especially true in key swing states (in particular, Michigan and Wisconsin). Also, Trump is likely to run a 2020 campaign about race and identity that raises the question of who should represent America–forcing voters to take sides.

Pelosi, I assume, does not want the 2020 election to be seen by the public as a battle between AOC’s vision of America (even if Biden is the Democratic nominee) and Trump’s vision of America. And I think she is right to be concerned about that. This is not a new challenge for Democrats. Hillary Clinton was probably not helped by the rise of Black Lives Matter preceding the 2016 election, and backlash to the civil rights movement arguably helped Richard Nixon win the 1972 election.

natesilver: I guess the counterargument, which folks were sorta alluding to above, is that Pelosi can push back against the Squad to show that actually she’s the “reasonable,” moderate one. I’m not sure I buy that counterargument, but it’s an argument.

julia_azari: YES, THE GALAXY BRAIN TAKE.

My read on this is that this stuff is always bubbling under the surface, also. Like you can’t indefinitely ignore race issues because they’re tricky politically.

natesilver: Democrats derive certain benefits from having a more diverse coalition, one of which is that the coalition is simply broader — more people identify as Democrats in this country than Republicans. It also entails certain costs, including tension among different parts of your constituency that can have racial undertones (or even overtones).

The hard part for Democrats right now is that nonwhite voters are significantly disempowered by the Electoral College, and especially by the Senate.

[go-redgirl]

Exclusive — Republicans Mull Ethics Charges Against Schiff Ally as Democrats Turn Back to Failed Russia Strategy

House GOP leaders are considering pursuing ethics charges against Democrat Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) for alleged misconduct he engaged in against Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) at an Intelligence Committee meeting on Wednesday morning.

“He was very rude,” Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR) told Breitbart News on Wednesday evening of Maloney’s behavior towards Nunes and others during the committee meeting earlier in the day. “Members don’t question other members in hearings. This wasn’t on the agenda for the meeting. It was really inappropriate in my opinion, and pretty childish.”

Others familiar with the incident told Breitbart News that when a transcript of the incident—with the exact words of Maloney’s accusations and questions of Nunes during the meeting—becomes available, House GOP leadership lawyers familiar with parliamentary rules will consider bringing formal ethics charges against Maloney for his alleged misconduct toward Nunes during the meeting.

The standing rules of the House of Representatives make it such that one member cannot accuse another member of lying, and also cannot hurl insults at them. Depending on the exact wording of what Maloney said, when the transcript becomes available in the coming days, GOP lawyers may seek formal action against him by the House Ethics Committee.

The background of what led up to the Maloney incident is as follows: House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is gearing up yet again to try to level more baseless accusations against allies of President Donald Trump, this time over packages that were sent to a number of Trump allies inside and outside of Congress during the lead-up to the House impeachment of Trump last year.

What’s more, the Democrats appear to have leaked classified information to Politico in order to weaponize the narrative to the media and are now engaged in over-the-top tactics that may be in violation of House ethics rules to boot.

In reality, however, the broader picture here—Nunes told Breitbart News–is that Schiff is doing the Russians’ bidding.

“They’re clearly conducting election interference right now, either wittingly or unwittingly on behalf of Vladimir Putin,” Nunes said in an interview on Wednesday evening. “Putin doesn’t have to do anything. He doesn’t have to run one real op. But they just run around ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ all the time. Well, they’re the ones doing it. They’re the ones who went to Russia to get information. Not Republicans. Republicans never went to Russia to get anything. Democrats did. Four years of disinformation, and they’ve been proven wrong all the time, and they’ve turned the committee into a dungeon of conspiracy theories. They don’t even do real work on Intel.”

Last week, Politico reported leaked details—including citing what it said was classified information, which is illegal to leak—about supposed packets of information sent to congressional allies of Trump last year to hurt presumptive Democrat nominee former Vice President Joe Biden.

“Top congressional Democrats are sounding the alarm about a series of packets mailed to prominent allies of President Donald Trump — material they say is part of a foreign disinformation plot to damage former vice president Joe Biden, according to new details from a letter the lawmakers delivered to the FBI last week,” Politico’s Natasha Bertrand, Kyle Cheney, and Andrew Desiderio wrote.

In the second paragraph of the article, the Politico scribes revealed what they said was classified information. Politico wrote:

The packets, described to Politico by two people who have seen the classified portion of the Democrats’ letter, were sent late last year to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and then-White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. The packets were sent amid a Democratic push to impeach Trump over his effort to pressure Ukraine’s president to investigate Biden and his son Hunter the sources said. Graham and Grassley denied having received the material, and Mulvaney and Nunes declined repeated requests for comment. One person familiar with the matter said the information was not turned over to the FBI. The FBI declined to comment.

Members of Congress, especially those on the Intelligence Committee, are regularly sent stuff from overseas powers. There exist a number of protocols, whereby staffers send such materials to the proper authorities for vetting.

“If you’re a Republican and you get on the Intelligence Committee, anything you get from a foreign country, it gets sent off to the proper authorities, and likely you would never even touch it or see it because the people who get the mail do that for us,” one member told Breitbart News. “That’s at the committee and your personal office and your district offices, and for sure your home.”

So while the latest attacks from Schiff seem like an interesting narrative or storyline from the establishment media, it is in reality fairly meaningless and mundane.

But all of a sudden Schiff called a committee meeting behind closed doors on Wednesday morning. There, a party-line vote was held to reveal certain pieces of the information about these packages to the whole Congress. But then things got ugly when Maloney began verbally accosting Nunes—the GOP ranking member—and hurling insults at him and at Republicans in general.

While Maloney’s office has not replied to a request for comment telling his side of the story, Republicans like Crawford were quick to come out and point out how out of line they think the top Democrat ally of Schiff was behaving during this exchange.

“He just kind of kept on the issue of these alleged items being sent to the committee,” Crawford told Breitbart News. “So obviously Devin Nunes didn’t comment on that. Here’s the thing: it’s standard practice that if you get a package from unknown source in a foreign country, it’s probably a good idea to call the FBI and let them handle it and not handle those packages and don’t open them and go, ‘Hey I wonder what this is? I guess it’s Christmas came early this year.’ No, you follow the protocol, which is you turn that over to the FBI. That’s what happened.”

Crawford added that Maloney seemed to be, at Schiff’s direction, trying to “goad” Nunes and Republicans into some kind of response that would then be weaponized and leaked. “It was mostly trying to goad … particularly Ranking Member Nunes, but also our side writ large, trying to goad us into making a comment,” Crawford said. “The thing is you don’t want to engage. It’s like trolls on social media. They want the attention and so you don’t want to give it to them.”

Then, if they said something, Schiff’s team would turn around and leak it to the press before it came out when the transcript of the meeting would eventually be made public.

“That’s the whole point, and that’s what this committee has devolved into under Schiff’s leadership—or lack of leadership would be the better term,” Crawford said. “It’s purely turned into an oppo research arm for the DCCC and more. This is an important committee, and it has a long history of acting in a bipartisan way, but Schiff has broken that.”

Crawford added that Schiff and his allies like Maloney behaving like this on the committee means that HPSCI, which is supposed to focus on intelligence threats to the United States, is now a laughingstock shell of its former glory.

“We’ve got a lot of threats, a very diverse threat matrix that exists around the world, and what have we been able to do in this committee under his leadership?” Crawford said. “Virtually nothing, and that’s because he’s been so focused on political advances and trying to position himself and take down Trump that they haven’t done anything even remotely related to intelligence and everything we’re charged with in that committee. It’s a mockery, it’s a complete travesty, and this is why the American people need to know this is how bad his tenure has been – would continue to be – if he were allowed to continue in that position.”

The Federalist’s Sean Davis on Wednesday published a deep dive debunking this latest scandal. His piece goes into depth about it all. But asked in a brief interview on Wednesday evening about the whole thing, Nunes told Breitbart News this is just the latest example of Schiff and his allies cooking up more nonsense within 100 days of the election.

“They never stop,” Nunes said. “The Democrats never stop with conspiracy theories and politicization of intelligence. They just read through intelligence reports to decide what they can leak to tie something back to Russia. The irony of this is they’re the ones who colluded with Russians. It wasn’t us. In 2016, they’re the ones who did it. You can’t even make this up. It’s so wacko. They just continue to push conspiracy theories that are nothing more, nothing less than that. How many times do they have to get busted on this? We have receipts of them doing it. We have court documents of them doing it. We have plenty of declassified information now from Horowitz and everywhere else that they were the ones doing this. They won’t give up trying to cover up what they were doing in 2016—and they’re doing it right now.”

Nunes added he believes the Democrat playbook will fail again, just like it did in 2016.

“They’re doing the same thing again,” Nunes said. “They’re running the same playbook as they did in 2016 over again. It’s pretty obvious. But we’re onto them this time. But all we can do is talk to people like you and say, ‘Hey just go back and look at the last four years. They were the ones colluding with Russia, not us.’”