#Remove Rep. Devin Nunes | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mojave-pete · 4 years ago

Text

COLLUSION

COLLUSION How The Obama Administration Set In Motion Democrats’ Coup Against Trump Rep. Devin Nunes realized the purpose of Obama’s dossier. 'Devin figured out in December what was going on,' says Langer. 'It was an operation to bring down Trump.' By Lee Smith OCTOBER 28, 2019 The following is an excerpt from Lee Smith’s book out October 29, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History.”

AFTER DONALD TRUMP was elected forty-fifth president of the United States, the operation designed to undermine his campaign transformed. It became an instrument to bring down the commander in chief. The coup started almost immediately after the polls closed.

Hillary Clinton’s communications team decided within twenty-four hours of her concession speech to message that the election was illegitimate, that Russia had interfered to help Trump.

Obama was working against Trump until the hour he left office. His national security advisor, Susan Rice, commemorated it with an email to herself on January 20, moments before Trump’s inauguration. She wrote to memorialize a meeting in the White House two weeks before.

On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present.

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book.” The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia. . . .

The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.

The repetition of “by the book” gave away the game—for there was nothing normal about any of it.

Rice wrote an email to herself. It commemorated a conversation from two weeks before. The conversation was about the FBI’s investigation of the man who was about to move into the White House—an investigation from which Obama was careful to distance himself. During the conversation, the outgoing president instructed his top aides to collect information (“ascertain”) regarding the incoming administration’s relationship with Russia.

“To any rational person,” says Nunes, “it looks like they were scheming to produce a get-out-of-jail-free card—for the president and anyone else in the White House. They were playing Monopoly while the others were playing with fire. Now the Obama White House was in the clear—sure, they had no idea what Comey and Brennan and McCabe and Strzok and the rest were up to.”

Boxing Trump in on Russia Meanwhile, Obama added his voice to the Trump-Russia echo chamber as news stories alleging Trump’s illicit relationship with the Kremlin multiplied in the transition period. He said he hoped “that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia.”

The outgoing president was in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss everything from NATO to Vladimir Putin. Obama said that he’d “delivered a clear and forceful message” to the Russian president about “meddling with elections . . . and we will respond appropriately if and when we see this happening.”

After refusing to act while the Russian election meddling was actually occurring, Obama responded in December. He ordered the closing of Russian diplomatic facilities and the expulsion of thirty- five Russian diplomats. The response was tepid. The Russians had hacked the State Department in 2014 and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2015. And now Obama was responding only on his way out.

Even Obama partisans thought it was weak. “The punishment did not fit the crime,” said Michael McFaul, Obama’s former ambassador to Russia. “The Kremlin should have paid a much higher price for that attack.”

But the administration wasn’t retaliating against Russia for interfering in a US election; the action was directed at Trump. Obama was leaving the president-elect with a minor foreign policy crisis in order to box him in. Any criticism of Obama’s response, never mind an attempt to reverse it, would only further fuel press reports that Trump was collaborating with the Russians.

Spreading Intelligence to Spring Leaks In the administration’s last days, it disseminated intelligence throughout the government, including the White House, Capitol Hill, and the intelligence community (IC). Intelligence was classified at the lowest possible levels to ensure a wide readership. The White House was paving the way for a campaign of leaks to disorient the incoming Trump team.

The effort, including the intended result of leaks, was publicly acknowledged in March 2017 by Evelyn Farkas, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration.

Obama’s biggest move against Trump was to order CIA director John Brennan to conduct a full review of all intelligence relating to Russia and the 2016 elections. He requested it on December 6 and wanted it ready by the time he left office on January 20. But the sitting president already knew what the intelligence community assessment (ICA) was going to say, because Brennan had told him months before.

Brennan’s handpicked team of CIA, FBI, and NSA analysts had started analyzing Russian election interference in late July. In August, Brennan had briefed Harry Reid on the dossier and may have briefed Obama on it, too. Earlier in August, Brennan sent a “bombshell” report to Obama’s desk.

When Brennan reassembled his select team in December, it was to have them reproduce their August findings: Putin, according to Brennan, was boosting the GOP candidate. And that’s why only three days after Obama ordered the assessment in December, the Washington Post could already reveal what the intelligence community had found.

“The CIA,” reported the December 9 edition of the Post, “has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system.”

The story was the first of many apparently sourced to leaks of classified information that were given to the Post team of Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima, and Greg Miller. The reporters’ sources weren’t whistle-blowers shedding light on government corruption— rather, they were senior US officials abusing government resources to prosecute a campaign against the newly elected commander in chief. The article was the earliest public evidence that the coup was under way. The floodgates were open, as the IC pushed more stories through the press to delegitimize the president-elect.

A Wave of Leak-Sourced Stories All Saying the Same Thing The same day, a New York Times article by David E. Sanger and Scott Shane echoed the Post’s piece. According to senior administration officials, “American intelligence agencies have concluded with ‘high confidence’ that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump.”

A December 14 NBC News story by William M. Arkin, Ken Dilanian, and Cynthia McFadden reported that “Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.”

The ICA that Obama ordered gave political operatives, the press, and his intelligence chiefs a second shot at Trump. They’d used the Steele Dossier to feed the echo chamber and obtain surveillance powers to spy on the Trump campaign. The dossier, however, had come up short. Trump had won.

But now, on his way out of the White House, Obama instructed Brennan to stamp the CIA’s imprimatur on the anti-Trump operation. As Fusion GPS’s smear campaign had been the source of the preelection press campaign, the ICA was the basis of the postelection media frenzy. It was tailored to disrupt the peaceful transition of power and throw the United States into chaos.

Because Trump hadn’t been elected by the US public, according to the ICA, but had been tapped by Putin, he was illegitimate. Therefore, the extraconstitutional and illegal tactics employed by anti-Trump officials were legitimate. The ultimate goal was to remove Trump from office.

“If it weren’t for President Obama,” said James Clapper, “we might not have done the intelligence community assessment . . . that set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today.”

Nunes agrees. “The ICA,” he says, “was Obama’s dossier.”

Changing the Intelligence Assessment Nunes is sitting in his office in the Longworth House Office Building along with his communications director, Jack Langer, a forty-six-year-old former book editor and historian with a PhD from Duke University.

“The social media attacks on Devin began shortly after the election,” Langer remembers. “They’re all hinting at some vast conspiracy involving Russia that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee is part of. And we have no idea what they’re talking about.”

Nunes points out that his warnings about Russia fell on deaf ears for years. “And all of a sudden I’m a Russian agent,” says the congressman.

Now Langer and Nunes see that the attacks were first launched because the congressman had been named to Trump’s transition team. “I put forward [Mike] Pompeo for CIA director,” says Nunes. “He came from our committee.”

The attacks on Nunes picked up after the December 9 Washington Post article. The assessment provided there was not what the HPSCI chairman had been told. The assessment had been altered, and Nunes asked for an explanation. “We got briefed about the election around Thanksgiving,” he says. “And it’s just the usual stuff, nothing abnormal. They told us what everyone already knew: ‘Hey, the Russians are bad actors, and they’re always playing games, and here’s what they did.’”

By providing that briefing, the IC had made a mistake. When it later changed the assessment, the November briefing was evidence that Obama’s spy chiefs were up to no good. “I bet they’d like to have that back,” says Nunes. “They briefed us before they could get their new story straight.”

‘They Kept Everyone Else Away from It’ Nunes acknowledges that he was caught off guard by many things back then. “We still thought these guys were on the up and up,” he says. “But if we knew, we’d have nailed them by mid-December, when they changed their assessment. ‘Wait, you guys are saying this now, but you said something else just a few weeks ago. What’s going on?’”

After the Post story, Nunes wanted an explanation. “We expressed deep concern, both publicly and privately,” says Langer. “We demanded our own briefing to try to determine whether that Post story was true or false. They refused to brief us. They said, ‘We’re not going to be doing that until we finish the ICA.’”

Nunes says the fact that the IC conducted an assessment like that was itself unusual. “I don’t know how many times they’d done that in the past, if ever,” he says. “But if the IC is operating properly, when someone says what can you tell me on X or Y or Z, they have it ready to pull up quickly. The tradecraft is reliable, and the intelligence products are reliable.” That was not the case with the ICA. There were problems with how the assessment had been put together.

“If you really were going to do something like an assessment from the intelligence community, then you’d get input from all our seventeen agencies,” says Nunes. “They did the opposite. It was only FBI, CIA, NSA, and DNI. They siloed it, just like they had with Crossfire Hurricane. They kept everyone else away from it so they didn’t have to read them in.”

‘Manipulation of Intelligence for Political Purposes’ Nunes released several statements in the middle of December. The HPSCI majority, read a December 14 statement, wanted senior Obama intelligence officials “to clarify press reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it has not shared with us. The Committee is deeply concerned that intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.”

After the statements warned of political foul play in the IC’s assessments, the social media attacks on Nunes became more regular. “They were constant,” says Langer.

Anti-Trump operatives recognized that Nunes was going to be a problem. The HPSCI chair had previously called out the IC for politicizing intelligence. “They said that we had defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria,” says Nunes, “and I knew that wasn’t true. Then they withheld the Osama bin Laden documents to conceal that Al Qaeda worked with Iran, because the administration was protecting the Iran deal. So when I saw them changing this assessment of the 2016 election in midstream, I knew it was the same old trick: they were politicizing intelligence.”

The speed with which Brennan’s handpicked analysts produced the ICA and then got a version of it declassified for public consumption was another sign that something wasn’t right. “All throughout Obama’s two terms, his IC chiefs aren’t paying attention to Russian actions,” says Nunes. “We give them more money for Russia, which they don’t use. But now they know so much about Putin that they manage to produce a comprehensive assessment of Russian intentions and actions regarding election interference in a month—at Christmastime, when everything slows down. And then they produce a declassified version in a manner of weeks. None of this is believable.”

Three different versions of the ICA were produced: an unclassified version, a top secret one, and another highly compartmentalized version. According to a January 11, 2017, Washington Post story by Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Karen DeYoung, an annex summarizing the dossier was attached to the versions that were not declassified.

‘Designed to Have a Political Effect’ The FBI had been working from Steele’s reports for more than half a year. Including the dossier along with the ICA would provide Comey with ammunition to take on the president-elect. Both he and Brennan were manipulating intelligence for political purposes.

“A lot of the ICA is reasonable,” says Nunes. “But those parts become irrelevant due to the problematic parts, which undermine the entire document. It was designed to have a political effect; that was the ICA’s sole purpose.”

The assessment’s methodological flaws are not difficult to spot. Manufacturing the politicized findings that Obama sought meant not only abandoning protocol but also subverting basic logic. Two of the ICA’s central findings are that:

Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. Putin and the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. To know preferences and intentions would require sources targeting Putin’s inner circles—either human sources or electronic surveillance. As Nunes had previously noted, however, US intelligence on Putin’s decision-making process was inadequate.

But even if there had been extensive collection on precisely that issue, it would be difficult to know what was true. For instance, the closest you can get to Putin’s inner circle is Putin himself. But even capturing him on an intercept saying he wanted to elect Trump might prove inconclusive. It is difficult to judge intentions because it is not possible to see into the minds of other people. How would you know that Putin was speaking truthfully? How would you know that the Russian president didn’t know his communications were under US surveillance and wasn’t trying to deceive his audience?

Quality control of information is one of the tasks of counterintelligence—to discern how you know what you know and whether that information is trustworthy. There was no quality control for the Trump-Russia intelligence. For instance, Crossfire Hurricane lead agent Peter Strzok was the FBI’s deputy assistant director of counterintelligence. Instead of weeding out flawed intelligence on Russia, the Crossfire Hurricane team was feeding Steele’s reports into intelligence products. Yet the ICA claimed to have “high confidence” in its assessment that “Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President- elect Trump.” What was the basis of that judgment?

According to the ICA:

Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.

“Most likely” and “almost certainly” are rhetorical hedges that show the assessment could not have been made in “high confidence.” Putin may have held a grudge against Clinton, but there is no way of knowing it.

The supporting evidence deteriorates more the farther the ICA purports to reach into Putin’s mind.

Beginning in June, Putin’s public comments about the US presidential race avoided directly praising President-elect Trump, probably because Kremlin officials thought that any praise from Putin personally would backfire in the United States.

This is absurd. Part of the evidence that Putin supported Trump is that he avoided praising Trump. It is difficult enough to determine intentions by what someone says. Yet the ICA claims to have discerned Putin’s intentions by what he did not say.

There is no introductory philosophy class in logic where reasoning like that would pass muster. Yet Brennan’s handpicked group used it as the basis of its assessment that Putin had helped Trump.

Moscow also saw the election of President-elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

This may be an accurate description of how Putin saw Trump. But Trump’s predecessor also wanted to coordinate anti- ISIS operations with Moscow. On this view, Trump would have represented a continuation of Obama’s ISIS policy. Why would this make Trump’s victory suspicious to Obama’s intelligence chiefs?

Curious Inaccuracies about Russia’s RT Network The ICA also pointed to documentary evidence of Putin’s intentions: English-language media owned by the Russian government, the news site Sputnik, and the RT network, were critical of Clinton.

State-owned Russian media made increasingly favorable comments about President-elect Trump as the 2016 US general and primary election campaigns progressed while consistently offering negative coverage of Secretary Clinton.

Curiously, just days before the election, the informant the US government sent after the Trump campaign praised the Democratic candidate in an interview with Sputnik. “Clinton would be best for US-UK relations and for relations with the European Union,” Stefan Halper told the Kremlin-directed media outlet. “Clinton is well-known, deeply experienced, and predictable. US-UK relations will remain steady regardless of the winner although Clinton will be less disruptive over time.”

The ICA includes a seven-page appendix devoted to RT, the central node, according to the document, of the Kremlin’s effort to “influence politics, fuel discontent in [sic] US.”

Adam Schiff appeared on RT in July 2013. He argued for “making the FISA court much more transparent, so the American people can understand what’s being done in their name in the name of national security, so that we can have a more informed debate over the balance between privacy and security.”

RT’s editor in chief, Margarita Simonyan, is a master propagandist, according to the ICA. The document fails to mention that Simonyan heads another Moscow-owned media initiative, Russia Beyond the Headlines, a news supplement inserted into dozens of the West’s leading newspapers, including the New York Times. Russia Beyond the Headlines has been delivered to millions of American homes over the last decade. By contrast, RT’s US market share is so small that it doesn’t qualify for the Nielsen ratings. Virtually no one in the United States watches it.

Taking the logic of Brennan’s handpicked team seriously would mean that the publishers of the New York Times played a major role in a coordinated Russian effort to elect Donald Trump.

‘It Was an Operation to Bring Down Trump’ Nunes realized even then the purpose of Obama’s dossier. “Devin figured out in December what was going on,” says Langer. “It was an operation to bring down Trump.”

There was no evidence that any Trump associate had done anything improper regarding the Russians, and Nunes was losing patience. “We had serious things the committee wanted to do,” he says. “With Trump elected, we could do some big stuff, like with China.”

Still, it was important for HPSCI to maintain control of the Russia investigation. Otherwise, Democrats and Never Trump Republicans were likely to get their wish to convene a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference—with the purpose of turning it on Trump.

“Before they started floating the idea of a special counsel, the big idea was a special commission like the 9/11 Commission,” says Langer. It was outgoing secretary of state John Kerry who first came forward with the proposal.

The point was to change the power dynamic. “In a normal committee,” says Langer, “the majority has the power, and that happened to be us. They wanted to strip our power and make it fifty-fifty.”

“Bipartisan” was a euphemism for “anti-Trump.” “It would have been a complete joke,” says Nunes. “A combination of partisan hacks from the left and people who hated Trump on the right.”

Democrats led by Schiff and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer were joined by the late John McCain, the most active of the Never Trump Republicans. After the election, the Arizona senator had instructed his aide David Kramer to deliver a copy of the Steele Dossier to Comey.

“God only knows who they’d have populated that committee with,” says Nunes. “Anyone they could control. It would have been a freak show.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan defended HPSCI’s independence. On the Senate side, Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr had only one move. To deflect demands for an independent commission, he effectively ceded control of the Senate investigation to his vice chair, Democrat Mark Warner.

No Evidence of Collusion Years Later Still, Nunes believed that all the talk of Trump and Russia was a waste of time. “They kept promising us evidence of collusion, week after week, and they came up with nothing.”

Nunes’s disdain for the ICA forced the Crossfire Hurricane team’s hand. “Right around the time that they came out with the ICA, they kept saying that we were waiting on something to show us, something important that was coming in,” he says. “They said it was some significant figure who they couldn’t quite track down yet.”

But the FBI knew exactly where its missing link was, the piece of evidence that they thought would convince hardened skeptics like Nunes that collusion was real. They didn’t have to chase him down, because he was sitting at home in Chicago. He submitted to a voluntary interview January 27 and without a lawyer because he had no idea what the FBI had in store for him.

The Crossfire Hurricane team was figuring how they were going to set up the Trump adviser they’d used to open up the investigation in July 2016: George Papadopoulos.

Lee Smith is the media columnist at Tablet. Photo White House / public domain

57 notes · View notes

verycleverboy · 4 years ago

Link

"If Mitch is a yes, he’s done.”

From our “Hell freezes over” department: Don’t get your hopes up, but the second impeachment may have gained an unlikely supporter:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated that he believes that impeaching President Donald Trump will make it easier to get rid of the President and Trumpism from the Republican Party, according to a source with knowledge of the matter.

Another person with direct knowledge told CNN there's a reason McConnell has been silent on impeachment as other Republicans have pushed back: he's furious about last week's attack on the US Capitol by the President's supporters, even more so that Trump has shown no contrition. His silence has been deliberate as he leaves open the option of supporting impeachment.

McConnell has made no commitments on voting to convict Trump, and wants to see the article itself before voting. It's a stark contrast to the President's first impeachment when McConnell repeatedly spoke out against Democratic intentions to hold Trump accountable for a pressure campaign on the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and his family.

McConnell has been steadily moving his conference away from Trump for weeks. While he knows they all aren't there with him, the Kentucky Republican believes the party needs to turn the page.

Several GOP sources said on Tuesday that if McConnell supports conviction, Trump almost certainly will be convicted by 67 senators in the impeachment trial.

"If Mitch is a yes, he's done," said one Senate GOP source who asked not to be named.

(continue reading)

Where everything else stands right now:

Vice-President Mike Pence, who nearly one week ago was hiding in place while an angry pro-Trump mob ransacked the Capitol baying for his blood, has made it clear he has no intention of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the man who sent them after him. In a letter to Nancy Pelosi, he urged her and all the other members of Congress to “work with us to lower the temperature and unite our country”.

As for who this “us” Pence is referring to, he couldn’t possibly be talking about the guy who sent the angry mob after him, the guy who delivered the final blow to break the country. Maybe Mike’s got a mouse in his pocket now? If so, good for him. Everybody needs a friend.

Nevertheless, the House is voting on the non-binding resolution that Pence has already given an answer to, in what one House Dam calls “a total waste of time.”

So tomorrow, Donald John Trump is expected to become the first president in US history to face impeachment twice, this time on the charge of incitement to insurrection. But as the McConnell story indicates, things are a little bit different this time.

At least one source says we might be able to expect 20 House Republicans to break with the party and vote for impeachment, which would be an improvement on the party-line vote for the Ukraine charges. Rep. John Katko (NY) was the first to publicly declare his voting intention, followed by third-ranking GOP House member Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (IL). However, don’t expect miracles. The majority of the Republican side of the House is presumed to be in lock step, in spite of literally everything that’s happened in the past week.

One obvious lock against impeachment is recent Medal of Freedom recipient Rep. Devin Nunes (CA), who earlier tonight told true believers on Fox News,: “Look, the President makes a lot of mistakes. All presidents make mistakes...”, leaving out that no American president has made this “mistake” before.

Meanwhile, there’s still no guarantee that the Senate trial won’t be held over until after Biden’s first hundred days, a deeply baffling option I still can’t get my head around, Trump is still mulling over the self-pardon option, and people with guns are making ominous noises. I hate this type of series finale...

#Donald Trump #impeachment #2021 insurrection #capitol riot

2 notes · View notes

ydraznin21ahsgov · 4 years ago

Text

California Proposition Assessment

California Proposition 20 in 2020

1. Proposition #20: Restrict parole for some offenses deemed non-violent and change some misdemeanors to felonies.

2. Prop 20 looks to add crimes to the list of violent felonies whose access to early parole is restricted, and to change the category of theft and fraud crimes.

3. the fiscal effect would be “Increased state and local correctional costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily related to increases in county jail populations and levels of community supervision.” (California Prop 20)

4. California Proposition 20 did not pass, as 9.6 million people or 61.9% of California voters voted “NO” on this proposition. 5.9 million or 38.1% voted “YES”. I was not surprised by these results because this proposition would not help to reform the criminal justice system at all. It would make it so that more people with more crimes cannot receive parole.

5. Some major supporters of California Proposition 20 were: Albertsons Safeway, U.S Rep. Devin Nunes(R), the Republican Party of California, Orange County, and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. I was surprised when I saw that Safeway supported Prop 20. Why would a grocery store need to support a proposition about adding crimes to a list of felonies?

6. The pros for Prop 20 are that it would make crimes like assault with a deadly weapon, rape, and child abuse to be considered as violent crimes. It would also not increase prison populations, but would ensure that people who commit the crimes stated above serve their full sentences.

The cons for Prop 20 are that prison reforms will cost millions of dollars annually for taxpayers. Prop 20 will also get rid of mental health and rehabilitation programs for prisoners upon release. Prop 20 will result in extreme sentences for non-violent crimes like petty theft.

7. I voted NO on this proposition. This is because I think that it is not worth it to add 3 crimes to the list of felonies. Even thought the crimes that Prop 20 states are horrible crimes, the criminals still get punished, and it is not worth millions of dollars to change this. Also the mental health and rehabilitation institutes are very important to me and prisoners seeking reform, so removing them is a bad idea.

8. Prop 20 also requires the collection of DNA for some specific misdemeanors. What do police or prisons need with the DNA of some felons, and why is it only for a select few types of misdemeanors?

Past California Propositions

1. Proposition #57 in 2016: Criminal Sentences. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

2. Prop 57 allows parole to be considered an option for non-violent felons, and rewards sentence credits for rehab, good behavior, and education. It also allows a juvenile court judge to decide whether a juvenile will be prosecuted as an adult.

3. The fiscal effect would be “Net state savings likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to reductions in the prison population. Savings would depend on how certain provisions are implemented, and net county costs of likely a few million dollars annually.” (California Proposition 57)

4. California Proposition 57 passed with 8.7 million or 64.4% of California voters voted “YES”. 4.8 or 35.6% of voters voted “NO”. I was not surprised by these results because this prop is a good way to encourage good behavior in prison, and can allow prisoners to return as functioning members of society.

5. Some supporters of c California Proposition 57 were: Governor Gavin Newsom, Senator Loni Hancock, League of Women voters, the Green Party of California, the California Democratic Party, and the California Federation of teachers. I was not surprised by any of these supporters, as they are mostly democratic, and support criminal justice reform.

6. the pros for California Proposition 57 are that prisoners would get rewarded for good behavior, education and rehabilitation while in prison. Dangerous offenders would not be released, and would save taxpayers millions of dollars.

the cons for California Proposition 57 are that criminals convicted of rape, lewd acts against a child, and human trafficking would be allowed to be released early from prison. It could also higher crime rates, and treat career criminals as first offenders.

7. I would have voted YES on California Proposition 57 because i think that it is important to treat criminals as people who made mistakes, and we should help them to try and be better, without sacrificing taxpayer money.

8. I find it interesting how the prop says that a judge can determine “ whether juveniles age 14 and older should be prosecuted and sentenced as adults for specified offenses .” Children often make mistakes, and should not be treated as adults in a court of law.

2 notes · View notes

muddypolitics · 5 years ago

Photo

(via Oh The Places The GOP Will Go To Defend Donald Trump | Talking Points Memo)

Republicans pretzeled themselves Monday into ever-more contorted defenses of President Trump’s Ukraine pressure scheme.

If you missed the House Judiciary Committee hearing, here’s a quick rundown of the more contrived GOP defenses:

Biden Did The Actual Quid Pro Quo

In perhaps the purest form of the diversion strategy, several committee Republicans claimed that the real quid pro quo happened when then-Vice President Joe Biden conditioned U.S. loan guarantees on the removal of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor. Never mind that Biden was pursuing stated U.S. policy.

“You’re investigating the wrong guy,” Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) said, twice.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) posited that if Biden were elected President in 2020, Republicans could just slot his name into the same impeachment “forms” Democrats are now using to impeach Trump.

If Trump Did The Crime, He Would Have Talked About It

By late August, the whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s pressure campaign had reached the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, who later testified that he quickly shared it with the White House counsel’s office: The White House knew the President was in hot water. Nevertheless, Republicans pointed to Trump’s conversations after that point to claim, yet again, that they showed Trump’s innocence.

“There would be no reason for the President to be anything less than candid during these private conversations,” Castor argued, referring to Trump’s private assertions of “no quid pro quo!” to his allies.

Gordon Sondland, Meet The Bus We’re Throwing You Under

Despite key aspects of the EU ambassador’s explosive testimony being corroborated by several others, Republicans tried to paint Sondland, who Trump made a pointman on Ukraine, as an unreliable witness. No matter that Trump nominated him and the Republican Senate confirmed him for the ambassador job.

Sondland was the “one witness who they relied on and built there report around,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said at one point, before attempting to undermine the ambassador. While Sondland is far from reliable — the hotelier Trump donor has misremembered a lot, to say the least — more reliable witnesses taking contemporaneous notes backed up the most important parts of his testimony.

Its’s Not That Trump Obstructed — It’s That Dems Didn’t Try Hard Enough

The impeachment investigation might have gotten a lot farther had key witnesses, such as Mick Mulvaney, Rick Perry or John Bolton, not been ordered by the White House not to cooperate. But Republicans ignored that order, and focused instead on its practical effects — fewer first-hand witness depositions.

Castor pointed to the National Security Council staffer Charles Kupperman, who sued Congress and the White House rather than testify, because he claimed Trump’s order not to testify despite the congressional subpoena had put him in an impossible situation.

Facing a months-long court battle, Democrats dropped the Kupperman subpoena, “which raises questions about whether the committee is really interested about getting to the bottom of some of these issues,” Castor snarked.

How Dare You Reveal Chairman Nunes Spoke To Giuliani’s Henchmen

The recently released House Intelligence Committee majority report featured, surprisingly, the revelation that ranking member Devin Nunes (R-CA) was in touch with key players in Trump’s pressure campaign, including Rudy Giuliani and the since-indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas. These revelations were the result of congressional subpoenas for Giuliani and Parnas’ phone records — not Nunes’ — but that didn’t stop Republicans from ringing the alarm.

“You don’t just all of the sudden pick up numbers in which you have to match those numbers to actually show where they are and you don’t come up with them!” Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) bellowed at one point, drawing an understated response from Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman: “Actually, what you just described is exactly how it happens.”

The Ukrainians Say It’s All Good!

As if a hostage, with gun to head, can objectively absolve his hostage taker, Republicans have repeatedly pointed to Ukrainians who claim they did not feel pressured by Trump. The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky continues to rely on the Trump administration for military aid in the ongoing war with Russia, and Zelensky has yet to meet Trump at the White House — he received only a side-bar chat at the U.N. General Assembly in September.

“Because President Zelesnky would be the target of any alleged quid pro quo scheme, his statements denying any pressure carry significant weight,” Castor said. “He is, in fact, the supposed victim here.”

Castor separately asserted that the Ukrainians weren’t aware of a tie between the nine-figure U.S. aid package Trump held up and the announcement of investigations Trump was pressuring them for. But as Sondland testified, the link between the two things was as simple as a “2+2” equation.

#politics #impeachmment #GOP corruption #any calm in a storm

43 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 4 years ago

Link

Republicans have a tendency to get into public disputes over fictional characters. When Trump campaign flunky Jenna Ellis compared Sen. Kamala Harris to Marge Simpson, Marge issued a response to Ellis.

Of course we all remember how Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA-22) famously sued a fake cow.

Devin Nunes can’t sue Twitter over statements by fake cow, judge rules

Don’t be terribly surprised if we see headlines similar to these.

Louie Gohmert blames Veronica from Riverdale for his COVID-19 infection

Jared Kushner refers to Mr. Krabs as ‘A model businessman‘

Stephen Miller calls the Andals ‘illegal aliens’ who took over Westeros

Susan Collins tells constituents that The Joker tricked her into voting against removing Trump in the impeachment trial

The inability of Republicans to grasp reality is one of the reasons the US still leads the world with COVID-19 infections including 170,000 deaths from the virus.

#republicans #reality #jenna ellis #the simpsons #devin nunes #fake cow #kamala harris #donald trump

1 note · View note

dragoni · 5 years ago

Link

PSA: Adam Schiff only has to prove that Trump asked the Ukraine President to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.

The testimony from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, William Taylor, Timothy Morrison, text messages provided by Kurt Volker and Trump’s own tweets and interviews confirm just that.

Then Trump pilled on by asking China. 😂 China rejected Trump’s call to investigate Joe Biden and his son. 😂

A quid pro quo is NOT required — no matter what Trump, Republicans, Fox News or far right media says. If it was, Mick Mulvaney admitted on live TV there was a quid pro quo with the Ukraine 😂

The House of Representatives approved its first resolution related to their impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump in a Thursday morning vote.

This vote was not, of course, about whether Trump should be impeached. If that happens, it will come further down the road. Instead, the resolution before the House was a set of procedures proposed by Democratic leaders for how the impeachment inquiry will function going forward. You can read its text here.

The Vote

The resolution passed by a vote of 232 to 196, almost entirely along party lines.

Collin Peterson and Jeff Van Drew are DINO’s - Democrats in NAME ONLY.

Two Democrats — Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ) — dissented from their party to vote no.

Former Republican Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI), who left the party earlier this year, joined Democrats to vote yes.

All current Republicans voted no.

Rules according to the Resolution

#1 House Intelligence Committee will host the hearings not the Judiciary Committee

the committee that will hold those hearings is the House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Schiff. That makes sense, because the whistleblower complaint made its way to Schiff in the first place (his committee oversees the intelligence community). And it’s Schiff’s committee that has been holding closed-door depositions of Trump administration officials for the past month

Still, the move raised some eyebrows, because traditionally, the Judiciary Committee has taken the lead in impeachment.

#2 Gives some details on how those hearings will be conducted

Schiff and Devin Nunes will each get to question witnesses for longer than the traditional five minutes — up to 90 minutes in total.

They can also designate staff members to do this questioning. ... it would allow witnesses to be questioned for lengthier periods by skilled attorneys

#3 Nunes can ask for his own witnesses with pre-conditions

Nunes can ask for his own witnesses to be invited or subpoenaed to testify, but there’s a catch. Nunes must give “a detailed written justification of the relevance” of each witness’s testimony

and either Schiff or a majority vote on the committee would have to approve it.

This is an effort to prevent Republicans from playing political games by demanding that irrelevant witnesses appear.

#4 How this phase of the impeachment inquiry will end

Schiff’s Intelligence Committee will hold public hearings and eventually write a report.

Nadler’s Judiciary Committee will then review that report and likely draft and vote on articles of impeachment for Trump.

Any articles of impeachment improved by the Judiciary Committee would then go before the full House for the actual vote on whether Trump would be impeached.

It isn’t clear how long each of these phases will last.

“If Trump is impeached by the House then the Senate would hold a trial to determine whether to remove him from office.”

2 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 6 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

When President Trump entered office, it wasn’t clear if he would consolidate control of the Republican Party — or even his own administration. We used to write a lot about various power centers in his administration, for example. But the president gradually forced out people who didn’t agree with him. Congressional Republicans buck the White House on occasion, but that’s more the exception that proves the rule. And special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe ending without the president being directly implicated, according to the attorney general, both removes any doubt that Trump will be running for president in 2020 and gives Republicans skeptical of Trump one less argument to make against him, thereby strengthening his influence within the GOP.

So describing Republicans as divided between pro-Trump and anti-Trump forces no longer makes much sense — the GOP is overwhelmingly a pro-Trump party. That said, just like Democrats, the broader Republican Party does have some distinct blocs and factions worth understanding. The parties don’t have the same kinds of differences. Democrats have deep divides over policy. In contrast, Republicans, at both the state and federal levels, are largely unified around an agenda of cutting spending for programs such as Medicaid that are targeted at low-income people, defending Americans’ ability to own and purchase guns, limiting abortion, and reducing regulations and taxes on businesses.

Instead, the most important dividing line in the Republican Party right now is probably this: How much should the GOP adhere to Trumpism?

We don’t have an official definition of Trumpism, but we’re describing it here in terms of four areas where Trump is somewhat distinct from previous Republican presidents: (i) Anti-institutionalism (his attacks on the Justice Department and the media, for example); (ii) Economic protectionism (his wariness about international trade agreements); (iii) Foreign policy (his hostility to NATO); and (iv) immigration and race (the border wall, the travel ban).

Vrtually all Republicans in elected office are generally aligned with the president and will support him in seeking a second term. But many Republican officials don’t fully (or really at all) embrace those four facets of Trumpism. That creates tensions between the president and people in his party that play out regularly in Washington.1 I’d put modern Republicans into five main groups (ordered roughly from most to least aligned with Trumpism):

The Trumpists

Often join Trump on immigration policy and in attacking institutions; largely avoid criticizing him publicly on foreign policy and trade even if they don’t fully embrace his views on those issues; strongly defend him in almost every instance.

Prominent examples: Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Fox News, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, Rep. Devin Nunes of California, Sen. David Perdue of Georgia.

This is not the biggest wing, but it may be the most important. People in this bloc forcefully take on some of the president’s biggest critics (Jordan and Meadows leading the attacks against Trump-fixer-turned-antagonist Michael Cohen at a recent congressional hearing, for example.) They will often defend Trump’s behavior when other Republicans won’t (Perdue suggested Trump did not use the phrase “shithole countries” to describe nations like Haiti in a meeting last year, even as other attendees confirmed that he did.)

During the Mueller investigation, this bloc was particularly helpful to Trump. They not only cast the investigation that Mueller was conducting as unfair and biased against Trump, but conducted a counter-investigation, aggressively questioning the Department of Justice officials who had launched the probe about Trump and his campaign during 2016.

The Pro-Trumpers

Support the president as a default, but hold views similar to George W. Bush or Paul Ryan on policy issues and not truly aligned with most of the four aspects of Trumpism; occasionally disagree with Trump publicly, particularly on foreign policy, but usually with careful language.

Prominent examples: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Charles and David Koch, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

I would put most elected Republicans on Capitol Hill and in governors’ mansions in this group. They do agree with some aspects of Trumpism — in particular, Trump tends to use more inflammatory rhetoric on immigration issues, but his policy stances aren’t all that far from GOP orthodoxy. But these figures aren’t attacking the media as “fake news” or particularly enthused about say, removing U.S. troops from Syria. They usually avoid criticizing Trump in public. And if they do, that criticism is usually expressed in very polite terms — and often not followed up by much action.

Trump critics often cast this group as “enabling” Trump or even handing full control of the GOP over to him. Many in this bloc do, in fact, have high Trump scores.2 And while Republicans in this bloc didn’t attack Mueller’s investigation as the Trumpists did, they largely took positions that helped the president amid the probe. McConnell never pushed for a vote on a measure that would have made it harder for Trump to fire the special counsel, and this week blocked a provision pushed by Democrats that would require Attorney General William Barr to publicly release Mueller’s full report.

But as the political scientist Matt Glassman has described, the relationship between these Republicans and Trump is best understood not as Trump forcing ideas down this bloc’s throats. Instead, Glassman argues that McConnell and other congressional Republicans are pushing a fairly traditional Republican agenda, like tax cuts, and Trump largely goes along with it. The unwritten contract between this bloc and Trump seems to be that they will not break with Trump in public (even when he is, say, bashing the late and revered-among-Republicans John McCain) as long as he does not stray too far from establishment Republican policies. Their mantra can be summed up by one word: “judges.” (However erratic and unpredictable Trump may be in personality and on some issues, he is appointing conservative judges who will be on the bench long after he leaves the White House.)

Trump-Skeptical Conservatives

Generally aligned with Trump, but tend to break with him in somewhat noisy ways and generally by casting the president as insufficiently conservative.

Prominent examples: Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

This is a fairly small bloc among elected Republicans. But in a closely divided Senate, Lee and Paul in particular really matter. Their opposition in 2017 to the party’s push to roll back parts of Obamacare — arguing the provisions written by congressional Republican leaders kept too much of the law in place — was a significant factor in the GOP never actually passing anything. Lee and Paul were two of only five Senate Republicans who earlier this month backed both the legislation to end the U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war and the legislation to stop Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to build the border wall. Paul had the second-lowest Trump Score among Senate Republicans in 2017-2018, Lee the fourth-lowest. In the House, Amash backed the president’s position just 54 percent of the time in 2017-2018, putting him behind all but one Republican and also behind some House Democrats.

In all, this group, driven more by doctrine and ideology than the other blocs, is the clearest remainder in the GOP of what the tea party movement espoused.

Trump-Skeptical Moderates

Generally aligned with Trump on policy, but wary of Trumpism; often criticize the president sharply and publicly, particularly his anti-institutionalism and his policies and remarks on racial issues.

Prominent examples: Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah

Think of this group as the “very concerned” Republicans. They often verbally tsk-tsk about Trump, but then, say, vote for Brett Kavanaugh, irritating Democrats who want to see them marry their words with actions. This group is most important because they are likely to be the most forceful critics if, for example, Trump seems too chummy with Vladimir Putin. That occasional forcefulness makes this group different from the generally Pro-Trump bloc I described. And this strong criticism matters — Trump sometimes reverses himself in the face of it.

You might object to the term “moderate” here — Romney for example, is quite conservative on most policy issues. But being hostile to the media and at times to minorities is an important part of Trump’s political approach and increasingly that of the Republican Party’s. Being openly resistant to that drift in the party, like Romney, is a point of distinction between him and Republicans in the first two blocs.

Anti-Trumpers

Never really embraced Trump as the leader of the GOP and seem open to supporting a primary challenger to him.

Prominent examples: Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, conservative activist Bill Kristol, former Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.

This is the smallest bloc and it includes very few elected officials — illustrating how Trump has largely won over a Republican Party that was resistant to him basically up until the day he was elected president. Hogan, who just won reelection in 2018 in a fairly blue state, is hinting that he is considering a run against Trump. But he would be a long shot — and one reason is that he would have almost no support among Republican Party powerbrokers.

As long as Trump is in power, I don’t expect these blocs to feud much. They might differ on tactics or strategy in the run-up to the 2020 campaign. But if they want to win in 2020, all the blocs but the final, most anti-Trump one are probably better off aligning with one another and with Trump.

But if Trump loses reelection in 2020, these blocs are a useful guide to a post-Trump GOP. The old divides between the GOP establishment and the tea party or moderates and conservatives are now outdated ways of looking at the GOP. The former insurgents in the GOP now run the party — Trump is the president and one-time House Freedom Caucus member Mick Mulvaney is the president’s chief of staff. Many of the party’s remaining moderates lost in 2018 to Democratic opponents.

Instead, the new dividing lines in the party are likely to be about how various Republicans dealt with Trump and Trumpism. If Trump loses in 2020, I would expect some Republicans, particularly the Trumpists, to argue that many in the party were insufficiently loyal to Trump and Trumpism, dividing the GOP and making it harder for the president to win a second term. Other Republicans, particularly the Anti-Trumpers and the Trump-Skeptical Moderates, are likely to argue Republicans lost the presidency because the party didn’t try hard enough to either get a less polarizing 2020 nominee or push Trump to be less polarizing.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Perry Bacon Jr.

4 notes · View notes

shihtzuman · 6 years ago

Text

Activist denies fellow Nunes’ supporter used hate symbol | The Sacramento Bee

Craig Stellmacher originally shared:

How many times do you have to deny this is the white power sign?

"A photo showing two local far-right activists and Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare, made the rounds on social media this week after supporters of Nunes challenger Andrew Janz claimed one of the men used a hand gesture related to the white power movement and white nationalism.

A screenshot of Ben Bergquam’s photo with Rep. Devin Nunes, center, and Josh Fulfer, who appears to be using a hand gesture some deem racist. This photo has since been removed from Bergquam’s Facebook page.

The photo, taken at a private Nunes campaign event Tuesday night, shows Ben Bergquam and Josh Fulfer on either side of Nunes. Fulfer is clearly making a hand gesture, and other photos posted to Bergquam’s Facebook account show Fulfer repeating the gesture.

Bergquam, who has since taken down the photo, posted a video Thursday saying the sign represents two things for him: The “A-OK” sign traditionally associated with the gesture, and “the 3 percent” – “Those who are willing to stand up and put their lives on the line for this country if called upon.”

Bergquam slammed “leftists” who claim the gesture means otherwise. But many on social media said they believe Fulfer’s gesture had racist connotations, with several tweets racking up thousands of retweets in less than 24 hours."--Sacramento Bee 09/20/2018

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article218763830.html#storylink=cpy

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article218763830.html#storylink=cpy

5 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Are There Republicans On The House Intelligence Committee

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/are-there-republicans-on-the-house-intelligence-committee/

Are There Republicans On The House Intelligence Committee

Gop Delay In Naming House Intelligence Committee Members May Have Cost Mueller

Republicans On House Intelligence Committee Call On Adam Schiff To Resign

WASHINGTON House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., formally named the nine Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee Wednesday, ending a weekslong delay that may have cost special counsel Robert Mueller valuable time to act on potential leads the panel could offer just as he appears close to wrapping his investigation.

Democrats now in the majority on the Intelligence Committee had vowed that one of their first acts would be to authorize the release of more than 50 witness interview transcripts to Mueller to aid in his probe. At the least, members have said they had reason to believe some witnesses lied to the panel, something that has already led Mueller to bring charges against Trump allies.

It is likely that Mueller and his team of investigators have had access to the committees transcripts, two sources familiar with the matter tell NBC News. But while the committee voted unanimously last September to authorize the release of redacted transcripts of most of their Russia-related interviews, the then-GOP majority rejected a Democratic motion to provide all transcripts, including classified materials, directly to Mueller.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the committee, told NBC Wednesday that even if Muellers team has seen the transcripts, they have been limited in what they could do with that information.

Schiff said that Republicans had done own party a disservice in waiting so long to name members.

House Intel Republicans Plan To Wall Off Their Aides From Democratic Staffers

In a sign of increasing partisan hostilities, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee plan to construct a wall — a physical partition — separating Republican and Democratic staff members in the committee’s secure spaces, according to multiple committee sources. It’s expected to happen this spring.

For now, some Republican committee members deny knowing anything about it, while strongly suggesting the division is the brainchild of the committee’s chairman, Devin Nunes, R-California.

“I’m not part of that decision,” said Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas. “You’ve got to talk to Devin. I don’t know what they’re trying to do one way or the other.”

“I swear to God I didn’t know that,” said Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Florida, when asked about the plan. While acknowledging a wall might not be constructive for the committee’s work, he said, “The level of trust and the level of everything down there is — it’s poison. It’s absolute poison down there.”

Rooney said one reason for the tension is an erosion of trust, exacerbated by an ongoing ethics investigation into the “entire Republican staff,” including “the woman up front that answers the phone” for alleged leaks. He later added that the matter was being handled by the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Bipartisanship, he said, “is gone. It’s gone from that committee.”

The ranking member of the committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, does not want to see a partition built.

United States House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence

Seal of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence History Jurisdiction Purpose to “oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government” Oversight authority

Strategic Technologies and Advanced Research Subcommittee

Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation

Intelligence Modernization and Readiness

Defense Intelligence and Warfighter Support

Website .gov

The United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence , also known as the House Intelligence Committee, is a committee of the United States House of Representatives, currently chaired by Adam Schiff. It is the primary committee in the U.S. House of Representatives charged with the oversight of the United States Intelligence Community, though it does share some jurisdiction with other committees in the House, including the Armed Services Committee for some matters dealing with the Department of Defense and the various branches of the U.S. military.

The committee was preceded by the Select Committee on Intelligence between 1975 and 1977. House Resolution 658 established the permanent select committee, which gave it status equal to a standing committee on July 14, 1977.

Don’t Miss: What Is The Definition Of Republicanism

Devin Nunes Republican Of California The Ranking Member

Mr. Nunes, 46, who led the committee until Democrats reclaimed the House this year, came under pressure and stepped aside from the panels inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election after the House Ethics Committee announced it was investigating accusations that he had disclosed classified intelligence reports. His home newspaper, The Fresno Bee, called him Trumps stooge after he sought to release a secret Republican memo that suggested the F.B.I. and the Justice Department abused their authority to obtain a warrant to spy on a former Trump campaign adviser. Mr. Trump calls Mr. Nunes an American hero. A former dairy farmer, Mr. Nunes has also made headlines for , .

Cowardly Clarification: Adam Schiff Says The Essence Of Muellers Testimony Is That Trump Is Unpatriotic

Rep. Adam Schiff weighed-in on Robert Muellers disastrous testimony Thursday afternoon; saying the essence of the former special counsels testimony is that the President is unpatriotic.

Rep. Adam Schiff: “Even though was reluctant, as you can imagine, to provide the soundbite ‘the President is immoral, the President is unpatriotic,’ that is the essence of what he had to say.”

The Hill

He was a reluctant witness Even though was reluctant, as you can imagine, to provide the soundbite the President is immoral, the President is unpatriotic, that is the essence of what he had to say, clarified Rep. Schiff.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi doubled-down on her Obstruction of Justice accusations against President Trump Wednesday evening; saying the American public must understand what President Trump is trying to cover up.

As we legislate for the good of the American people, we are also investigating to make sure that Americans have the truth and understand the gravity of the threat to our democracy. They must understand what is trying to cover up, posted Pelosi on social media.

Nancy Pelosi

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “The American people now realize more fully the crimes that were committed against our Constitution.”

The Hill

Read Also: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Mccarthy Sought Democrats Removal Following Axios Report About Suspected Chinese Spy

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., walks inside the Capitol on Feb. 10.

Print icon

Resize icon

WASHINGTON The House has dismissed a Republican attempt to remove California Rep. Eric Swalwell from the House intelligence panel over his contact more than six years ago with a suspected Chinese spy who targeted politicians in the United States.

Democrats scuttled the effort from House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, 218-200, after he forced a vote. His resolution against Swalwell cited information, first reported by;Axios,;that the suspected spy, Christine Fang, came into contact with Swalwells campaign as he was first running for Congress in 2012. She also participated in fundraising for his 2014 campaign and helped place an intern in his office, the report said.

Federal investigators alerted Swalwell to their concerns and briefed Congress about Fang in 2015, at which point Swalwell says he cut off contact with her. Authorities have not charged him with any wrongdoing.

McCarthy requested his own briefing about Swalwell after the Axios report in December. After the briefing, which was also attended by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, McCarthy said he thought Swalwell should be removed.

Swalwell has been one of Trumps sharpest critics, and served as a House impeachment manager during the former presidents second impeachment trial last month. He briefly ran for president in 2019.

Republicans argued then that Democrats shouldnt decide who Republicans appoint to committees.

Eric Swalwell Democrat Of California

Mr. Swalwells short-lived presidential campaign has raised his profile, and he is a frequent guest on cable news shows. A staunch critic of Mr. Trumps foreign and immigration policy, Mr. Swalwell, 38, also serves on the House Judiciary Committee, which means that after hearing evidence against Mr. Trump, he will also participate in drafting impeachment articles. Donald Trump is going to be impeached whether it is by the ballot box or Congress, Mr. Swalwell said this year. It will just be a matter of which one comes first.

You May Like: When Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Platforms

Russian Lawyer At Trump Tower Meeting Had Closer Ties To Kremlin Than Previously Disclosed

Democrats contend a more rigorous investigation would have shown otherwise. In their Minority Views report that was also released Friday, they point to a strong possibility that then-candidate Donald Trump himself was communicating with his son as he worked to schedule the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting in June of 2016 with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer.

Their report also details how George Papadopoulos, dismissed by Trump advisors as a low-level coffee boy, was regularly in touch with Kremlin-linked individuals and top Trump officials during both the campaign and transition. Papadopoulos was informed in April 2016 that the Kremlin had dirt on Clinton in the form of emails, well before the Clinton campaign or DNC officials were aware of hacking.

And the Democrats findings include efforts by the Kremlin to establish a first contact with the Trump campaign through an intermediary at the National Rifle Association. In May 2015, the NRA member reached out to Rick Dearborn, a longtime aide to then-Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., now the attorney general, to inform him of Russias interest in connecting with the campaign.

For reasons that we can discuss in person or on the phone, the Kremlin believes that the only possibility of a true re-set in this relationship would be with a new Republican White House, the NRA member wrote in an email turned over to the committee. Putin is deadly serious about building a good relationship with Mr. Trump.

Top Gop Lawmakers Call For Swalwell To Be Removed From Intelligence Committee

Top Republican on US House Foreign Affairs Committee says Taliban holding Americans

Top Republicans in the House are calling for Rep. Eric SwalwellEric Michael SwalwellOvernight Defense & National Security Milley becomes lightning rodThe Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by National Industries for the Blind – Schumer: Dem unity will happen eventually; Newsom prevailsHow lawmakers aided the Afghan evacuationMORE to be removed from the Intelligence Committee following reports that he was allegedly targeted by a woman believed to be a Chinese spy.;

In a letter sent Tuesday to Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Because of Rep. Swalwells position on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, his;close;interactions with Chinese intelligence services, however unintentional they may be, are an unacceptable national security risk, they wrote.;

It said the panel handles some of the most sensitive information our government possesses,” and that as a result Swalwell should be removed from his position.;

Axios first reported that Swalwell had been targeted by an alleged Chinese Ministry of State Security operative named Christine Fang, who also goes by Fang Fang. The woman, according to the report,;helped Swalwells fundraising during his 2014 reelection campaign and she also helped place an unpaid intern inside his office.;

The lawmakers said that Swalwell should be held to the same standard as Sessions, arguing that his interactions with the Chinese agent were more dangerous.

Fang left the country in 2015 during the FBI investigation into her activities.;

Don’t Miss: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Were Also On Social Media

GovTrack.us is an independent website tracking the status of legislation in the United States Congress and helping you participate in government. Now were on Instagram too!

Follow on Instagram for new 60-second summary videos of legislation in Congress.

Follow on Twitter for posts about legislative activity and other information were tracking, and some commentary.

And please consider supporting our work by becoming a monthly backer on Patreon or leaving a tip.

Officers Give Harrowing Testimony On Their Experience Defending The Capitol On Jan 6

Pelosi previously rejected two of the five Republican members originally selected for the panel by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio citing “statements and actions” made by the pair that she felt would “impact the integrity of the committee.” Both Banks and Jordan had publicly expressed concerns over the panel itself.

“The unprecedented nature of Jan. 6 demands this unprecedented decision,” Pelosi said.

McCarthy called Pelosi’s move “an egregious abuse of power” and pulled all of his five picks from the panel, announcing that Republicans will conduct their own separate investigation into the Capitol attack.

Here’s a closer look at the panel’s nine members.

You May Like: Republican Challengers To Trump 2020

Join Govtracks Advisory Community

Were looking to learn more about who uses GovTrack and what features you find helpful or think could be improved. If you can, please take a few minutes to help us improve GovTrack for users like you.

Start by telling us more about yourself:

We hope to make GovTrack more useful to policy professionals like you. Please sign up for our advisory group to be a part of making GovTrack a better tool for what you do.

Young Americans have historically been the least involved in politics, despite the huge consequences policies can have on them. By joining our advisory group, you can help us make GovTrack more useful and engaging to young voters like you.

Our mission is to empower every American with the tools to understand and impact Congress. We hope that with your input we can make GovTrack more accessible to minority and disadvantaged communities who we may currently struggle to reach. Please join our advisory group to let us know what more we can do.

We love educating Americans about how their government works too! Please help us make GovTrack better address the needs of educators by joining our advisory group.

Would you like to join our advisory group to work with us on the future of GovTrack?

Email address where we can reach you:

Thank you for joining the GovTrack Advisory Community! Well be in touch.

Val Demings Democrat Of Florida

Ms. Demings, 62, is the no-nonsense former chief of the Orlando, Florida police department, the first woman to hold the position. The youngest of seven children, she likes to tell the story of how she was born in a two-room wood-frame house in Jacksonville to parents of very modest means; her mother worked as a maid and her father was a janitor. Like Mr. Swalwell, she is also on the Judiciary Committee, which means she will both listen to evidence and help draft any impeachment articles. In questioning witnesses, she often draws on her law enforcement experience.

Don’t Miss: Why Are Republicans Wearing Blue Ties

House Intelligence Committee Releases Full Report On Russia Investigation

WASHINGTON The House Intelligence Committee on Friday released the final full report on its controversial investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, detailing work that led Republicans to conclude there was no evidence of collusion with the Trump campaign.

Democrats on the committee said the final 250-page document only shows the lengths to which GOP leaders went to shield President Donald Trump and his top allies from scrutiny, and used their own rebuttal to introduce to the public new information about repeated Russian efforts to establish contact with key Trump campaign officials and Trump himself.

And they say Republicans refused to press key witnesses for further testimony or documentation that might have further established the Trump campaigns complicity in an effort to tilt the election against Hillary Clinton.

Mccarthy Tasks House Intelligence Republicans To Investigate Nsa

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy directed Republicans on the Intelligence Committee to investigate the National Security Agency over concerns of “politicization.”

There has been a “disturbing trend” at the agency, the California Republican said Wednesday, following the Biden administration’s move to sideline Michael Ellis, a top NSA lawyer picked by former President Donald Trump, extending to this week when Fox News host Tucker Carlson claimed he was being spied on by the NSA.

“Earlier this year, I sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Austin expressing concern over the politicization of the Agency through the sidelining of Michael Ellis as NSA General Counsel,” McCarthy said in a statement. “I asked that Mr. Ellis be reinstated and expressed my concern regarding undue political influence in NSA placing Mr. Ellis on administrative leave.”

MATT GAETZ CALLS FOR INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION INTO TUCKER CARLSON NSA ALLEGATIONS

“The NSA cannot be used as a political instrument, and House Republicans will ensure accountability and transparency,” he added.

McCarthy also insisted the agency has “refused to deliver information requested by the Republican Members on the House Intelligence Committee.”

The latest incident outlined by McCarthy broke into the public eye on Monday when Carlson said a government whistleblower told his team the NSA is “spying” on their electronic communications and is “planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off the air.”

You May Like: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

House Shoots Down Gop Leaders Effort To Eject Eric Swalwell From Intelligence Panel

The House shot down a bid from the Republican leader Thursday to kick Rep. Eric Swalwell from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence over allegations that a Chinese spy raised funds for his congressional campaign years ago.

Democrats rejected the resolution from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on a party-line vote of 218 to 200, in which three Republicans voted present refusing to take a stand for or against McCarthys measure. Those Republicans were Reps. Kelly Armstrong , Michael Guest and David Joyce .

McCarthys resolution sought to oust Swalwell from the intelligence panel over the fact that he has not denied public reporting that a suspected Chinese intelligence operative helped raise money for his campaign and helped interns seek potential positions in his congressional office.

The resolution marks an escalation in McCarthys campaign to see Swalwell removed from the panel, which began in earnest late last year when the allegations about Swalwells ties to a suspected Chinese operative known as Fang Fang, or Christine Fang, first emerged in a story in Axios.

The speaker and minority leader appoint members to serve on the Intelligence Committee without the formal input of other members.

Leading Democrats again defended Swalwell on Thursday in the face of McCarthys latest move.

Every Democrat is now on the record, he . They chose politics over national security.

0 notes