Republican Rep Jim Jordan has written letters to DHS Alejandro Mayorkas and DOJ head Merrick garland asking them to explain their policies regarding attacks on federal property and employees in the city of Portland, Oregon.
Although he did not say it, he is obviously curious as to why they have been overcharging people who were in Washington on January 6th, while totally ignoring antifa rioting and the destruction of federal property, and attacks on federal officials.
The federal courthouse in Portland has been the target of many attacks on federal property, not to mention the bricks, rocks, and attacks with laser pointers that have left federal authorities blinded at least temporarily. But, since President Trump left office there seems to be no action taken against the rioters. Jordan wants to know why. In Portland, antifa rioted for over 100 days in a row but the riot in Washington lasted just three hours.
The DHS was recently forced to reinstall fencing around the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse just days after they removed it due to attacks on the building.
Once the fence was removed the attacks started up again. The city of Portland tried to force Trump to remove the fencing but he refused even after Portland tried to levy fines against the federal government.
Jordan has given both Mayorkas and Garland until April 12th to reply. But, I do not expect answers and if he does receive them I imagine their explanations will be pure propaganda. We now live in a country where American lives don’t matter.
Fortunately, it will cost the Democrats dearly. Already moderate incumbent Democrats in the House are looking for other offices to run for because the Republicans look like a shoo-in for the 2022 elections.
Jordan cited journalist Andy Ngo’s February 2021 testimony in front of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security in both letters. He noted that Ngo testified about “antifa and left-wing anarchists” developing “a riot apparatus that included streams of funding for accommodation, travel, riot gear, and weapons, which resulted in a murder, hundreds of arson attacks, mass injuries, and mass property destruction.”
In the letter to Mayorkas, the Ohio lawmaker requested an explanation on what the DHS or the Federal Protective Service (FPS) is doing “to protect federal personnel and federal property” in the city. The letter also asked for explanation on what is being done to prevent further destruction to federal property as well as whether the DHS “still believes that it has the authority, the mission, and the intent to enforce federal law and protect federal property in Portland.”
US Attorney John Durham has announced that he will be leaving that post effective February 28th. He will, however, continue in his role as special counsel, investigating Russiagate.
AG Bill Barr appointed him as such before he left office. But if Merrick Garland is confirmed as the new Attorney General, I think one of his very first acts will be to fire him. We just don’t know if he will be replaced or whether someone will take his place like Eric Holder.
In any case, a replacement would be assured to kill the investigation once and for all. No one can cover up crimes like the Democrats can because they have no shame at all.
The media will play along. They harassed President Trump by constantly starting rumors that Trump planned to fire Robert Mueller. But of course, he never did. If Merrick fires Durham, you won’t hear a peep.
Durham has been the US Attorney for three years but has been a federal prosecutor for 38 years. I guess he decided to0 pack it in since Biden was going to fire him from the US Attorney’s job anyway.
Earlier this month Biden asked all US Attorneys appointed by Trump to resign. Therefore Durham would be leaving that job soon at any rate and he decided the time was right to just pack it in.
Barr said at the time of his appointment of Durham as special counsel that Durham’s investigation had narrowed to investigating FBI agents involved in the coup attempt.
He has already gotten one conviction of former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith who got less than a slap on the wrist for forging documents to the FISA Court.
A DOJ official told FOX61 News on Friday that Durham will “stay in that role” as special counsel in the Russia probe investigation.
“My career has been as fulfilling as I could ever have imagined when I graduated from law school way back in 1975,” said U.S. Attorney Durham in a statement. “Much of that fulfillment has come from all the people with whom I’ve been blessed to share this workplace, and in our partner law enforcement agencies.”
He continued: “My love and respect for this Office and the vitally important work done here have never diminished. It has been a tremendous honor to serve as U.S. Attorney, and as a career prosecutor before that, and I will sorely miss it.”
President Trump battled the swamp for four years and as he neared the end of his presidency tried to release classified documents that would reveal just how deep the coup attempt went.
But both Gina Haspel of the CIA and Christopher Wray of the FBI, both traitors to the American people in my mind, stonewalled him until there was just not enough time to get them made public.
People who have seen these documents attest to their exculpatory nature for Trump and just how criminal the hierarchy at the FBI and CIA were.
Right now, half of the Obama administration should be at Ft Leavenworth, Kansas. It was a real coup attempt by Democrats as opposed to the three-hour riots in Washington that Democrats and the media falsely described as an armed insurrection.
Where were the guns? Nowhere.
Kash Patel, whose work on the House Intelligence Committee helped unearth U.S. intelligence malpractice during the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe, says he does not know why Trump did not force the issue. But after fighting the stonewalling for four years, he knew he could not get it done in a matter of days.
Look for Merrick Garland to fire Russiagate special prosecutor John Durham to further cover up the crimes of the many.
…he said senior intelligence officials “continuously impeded” their release – usually by slow-walking their reviews of the material. Patel said Trump’s CIA Director, Gina Haspel, was instrumental in blocking one of the most critical documents, he said.
Patel, who has seen the Russia probe’s underlying intelligence and co-wrote critical reports that have yet to be declassified, said new disclosures would expose additional misconduct and evidentiary holes in the CIA and FBI’s work.
“I think there were people within the IC [Intelligence Community], at the heads of certain intelligence agencies, who did not want their tradecraft called out, even though it was during a former administration, because it doesn’t look good on the agency itself,” Patel told RealClearInvestigations in his first in-depth interview since leaving government at the end of Trump’s term last month, having served in several intelligence and defense roles (full interview here).
Although a Department of Justice inspector general’s report in December 2019 exposed significant intelligence failings and malpractice, Patel said more damning information is still being kept under wraps. And despite an ongoing investigation by Special Counsel John Durham into the conduct of the officials who carried out the Trump-Russia inquiry, it is unclear if key documents will ever see the light of day.
Wednesday night, the GOP lawmakers sent a letter asking Durbin to schedule hearings into the conduct of the Cuomo administration since it has been reported that it intentionally withheld the COVID-19 death numbers from nursing homes after Cuomo forced COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes with the most vulnerable of our society for this pandemic virus, the elderly.
“The American people deserve to know the extent to which Governor Cuomo and his senior staff violated the civil rights of New York seniors, lied to the Department of Justice about their actions, and violated federal civil and criminal laws in the process,” the lawmakers wrote.
“That so many people needlessly lost their lives because of the failed policies of Governor Cuomo’s administration — an administration that many have lauded over the past year — is tragic and deserves a full investigation and accounting.”
Of course, you just know that Durbin and his cohorts in the party are going to use the Cuomo administration’s lie that they did it because President Donald Trump was pressuring them on Twitter.
In the letter sent to Durbin, the senators said they expect Merrick Garland, President Joe Biden’s attorney general nominee, to commit to investigating this growing scandal.
“When Judge Garland testifies before this Committee, we expect him to commit the Department of Justice to fully investigating this cover-up to determine whether any criminal laws were violated and to prosecute any violations,” they wrote. Not that it will ever happen, because while Democrats make things up against Republicans out of thin air, they rarely ever go after one of their own, and the tyrant governor of New York is most definitely one of their own.
Richard Azzopardi, a spokesman for the governor, slimed on about Cruz’s request, “Every death in this pandemic is a tragedy and shame on the Treason Caucus for exploiting them to distract from fermenting the Capitol insurrection that resulted in the death of a police officer.”
Can you believe that? This putz (a little cultural appropriation) tried to dilute the scandal by referring to a fake scandal against Senator Cruz where in the wake of the Capitol riot on January 6, the Democrats have tried to accuse Cruz of helping to incite the riot while he was inside the Capitol building doing exactly what the Democrats did for the last three Republican White House victories. Azzopardi accused Cruz and the other Republicans of doing exactly what he did in the context of his accusation. The Democrats are sick people.
Last week we reported that a Cuomo top aide, Melissa DeRosa, admitted to a bunch of state Democrats lawmakers that they withheld the COVID-19 nursing home death count over the fear that the numbers would be “used against us” by federal authorities. Isn’t that called obstruction? I thought the Democrats really hated obstruction.
This scandal was made public after New York Attorney General Letitia James reported that she discovered that COVID-19 nursing home deaths were 50 percent higher than Cuomo and the administration claimed.
Also on Wednesday Assemblyman Ron Kim (D-Queens) said he received a threatening phone call from Cuomo last week telling the assemblyman that he’d be “destroyed” if he didn’t help contain the situation. Can you imagine?
Kim said he was “in the middle of bathing my kids,” when Cuomo asked him to write up a statement that would say that DeRosa told state lawmakers that they would comply with federal prosecutors.
Folks, that’s manufacturing false evidence, something the Democrats accused Trump of doing, except unlike the former president, Cuomo allegedly actually did if Kim is telling the truth.
Kim said that during the call Cuomo threatened him saying, “You have not seen my wrath. I have been biting my tongue for months.” The assemblyman said Cuomo then told him, “I can tell the whole world what a bad person you are and you will be finished.” Kim said, and concluded that the governor told him, “You will be destroyed.”
This is worse than any of the lies the Democrats made up about Republicans and apparently it’s a real scandal.
Last month, Cruz introduced an amendment to the COVID-19 relief package that called for a Department Of Justice investigation to determine if officials like Cuomo could be criminally or civilly liable for forcing COVID-19 patients into nursing homes. The senator from Texas shouldn’t hold his breath because there is no way, no how that the Biden DOJ will ever hold Democrats accountable for what they did that ended up killing thousands of seniors.
Cuomo made good on his threats. During a press conference on Wednesday, the governor attacked both Assemblyman Kim and the New York Post for having the gall to expose the nursing home scandal.
It now appears that fellow Democrats, who put up with Cuomo’s arrogance for way too long during the COVID-19 crisis, are now turning on him. On Tuesday, nine state Assembly Democrats accused the governor of federal obstruction of justice in a letter that asks that Cuomo’s COVID-19 emergency powers be stripped. Multiple state Senators asked for the same.
I am admittedly a partisan conservative, but I don’t take too much pleasure watching someone have the world come down on them, but in this case, I think it’s completely justified. Andrew Cuomo has been an obnoxious and arrogant tyrant who not only botched his handling of the pandemic for New Yorkers and not only tried to blame everyone else for his and his administration’s negligence over the nursing home debacle, but he actually wrote a book about what an awesome job he did as governor handling the COVID-19 pandemic.
But, absolutely nothing will happen on the federal level as we now know that President Biden chose not to discuss the scandal during his White House meeting with the governor on Friday, saying “it was not a focus of their conversation or a topic.”
For those of you reading this who are admitted leftists I want you to do something for me. I want you to close your eyes, take some deep, slow breaths, and once your mind has been cleared of everything, think to yourself, what if it was Donald Trump.
House Democrat progressives who make up “the Squad” didn’t waste a minute on Monday, calling for packing the court almost immediately after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.
“Expand the court,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) (D-NY), said in a nasty response.
Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), copycat the brain dead AOC “Expand the court.”
These clowns have no idea that they come across like petty, petulant little children who didn’t get their way and want to “get even” with Republicans for doing something that is 100 percent legal, and their obligation.
The dirty little secret that will never come out of the mouth of a CNN reporter is that Democrats have radical ideas that the overwhelming majority of Americans reject, so they have always looked to activist courts to give them what they couldn’t achieve legislatively. Now, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court, there will be a 5-4 majority in favor of the US Constitution, and that is devastating to liberals.
Monday’s vote came after weeks of partisan attacks by Democrats over the rationale for confirming justices before an election. Every one of them has lied about the circumstances, claiming it is hypocrisy for Republicans to have rejected Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia during an election year. The truth of the matter is that the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stood in the firm tradition of the Senate on the matter. Since 1880 no Senate has given a confirmation hearing to a nominee where the president is of the other party during an election year. In that case, the American people were split on who they thought should decide who should sit on the Supreme Court. However, when the Senate and the president are of the same party, the American people already decided they wanted that party to decide. Obama was a Democrat and the Senate was controlled by Republicans, so Obama’s nominee didn’t get a hearing. By the same token, the Senate was reelected majority in 2018 and President Donald Trump is a Republican, therefore Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court. It’s really that simple, but crying Democrats would have you believe the Republicans did something wrong. And don’t think for a New York second that the Democrats wouldn’t have done the exact same thing if the shoe were on the other foot.
“We are going to take back the White House & Senate next week with a resounding mandate from the people to fight back against Trump’s illegitimately stacked judiciary,” Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), tweeted after Barrett’s confirmation. “We must expand the Court if we’re serious about the transformational change the people are crying out for.”
After Senate Democrats warned America that they would take drastic measures in response to Barrett being confirmed, the former vice president, Joe Biden, refused to say whether he would pack the courts. The man running for president told reporters that he was concerned that his answer would become the next day’s headline, which immediately highlighted the “Duh” factor.
Another “Squad” usual suspect, Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), tweeted a photo of herself, with the words, “We reject this injustice. We will fight for our rights. We will legislate our values.”
So much for the tolerant Left. Their problem is they’re like a bunch of spoiled children who were just told that life doesn’t always work out the way we want it to, but you have to grow up and learn to deal with a loss.
Right before the Senate’s confirmation vote, Biden floated the idea that he could move justices around to other courts. I supposed the Senate could try, but I assure you that Article II does not give the president any powers to play Shuffle the Courts.
“There is some literature among constitutional scholars about the possibility of going from one court to another court, not just always staying the whole time in the Supreme Court but I have made no judgement,” Biden said at a campaign stop in Chester, Pennsylvania. What Joe Biden calls Constitutional scholars are progressive lawyers who sit around thinking of ways to abuse the Constitution to give Democrats power.
He went on to say that, “there are just a group of serious constitutional scholars, have a number of ideas how we should proceed from this point on.”
Former failed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, took to social media to urge her coven to vote Republicans out of office.
“Senate Republicans just pushed through a Supreme Court justice who will help them take away Americans’ health care in the middle of a pandemic. For them, this is victory. Vote them out.”
Of course, like every other Democrat who says this, it’s a completely fabricated accusation. No Republican ran for office promising to take away Americans’ health care. They did run on removing Obamacare, which is not health care, but a government-run health insurance disaster program that has caused millions of Americans to lose their health care plans and their doctors. Millions of Americans have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket thanks to this horrible law. That’s what Democrats call health care.
On Sunday, the US Senate voted 51-48 to limit the time for debate on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, setting up a vote on her confirmation for Monday night. That means the Democrats have all day Monday to trash Barrett, one of the most qualified nominees for the High Court.
Sunday’s vote limited debate over President Donald Trump’s court appointee to 30 hours, meaning the full Senate will be able to hold a confirmation vote Monday beginning at approximately 7:26 p.m. e.t.
“Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is a stellar nominee in every single respect,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on the Senate floor following the vote. “Her intellectual brilliance is unquestioned. Her command of the law is remarkable. Her integrity is above reproach.”
Two Republicans voted against ending debate, Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Murkowski has said she will vote to confirm Barrett. Collins is in the political fight of her career over her vote for now Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which was the right thing to do.
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), fumed against Republicans who he says are quickly moving to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in the weeks before a presidential election, after refusing to fill the vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia during the final year of President Barack Obama’s presidency when Obama nominated Merrick Garland.
“Republicans promised they’d follow (their own standard if the situation was reversed,” Schumer said. “Guess not.”
Actually, the Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, are following the standard and doing exactly what tradition has expected them to do. You have to go back to 1880 to find a Senate that held a confirmation hearing for a presidential nominee of the opposing party in an election year. It has been understood for one hundred and twenty years that if the Senate and White House are split by party, the American people should decide in the upcoming election who should seat Supreme Court vacancies, but when the Senate and the president are of the same party then the American people have already decided that they should fill vacancies on the High Court. Chuck Schumer knows this, he’s just lying.
Democrats took to Twitter to voice their opposition to Barrett before voting against moving forward with the confirmation process.
“Judge Barrett’s nomination poses a direct threat to members of the LGBT community,” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), pointing to an upcoming Supreme Court case dealing with adoption in the LGBT community. This from a woman who threw a religious litmus test at Barrett when she was being confirmed to the appellate court, which is specifically forbidden in the Constitution, so pardon us if we don’t care what this nitwit has to say.
In the past, Supreme Court confirmation hearings needed to clear a 60-vote threshold to advance to the High Court, a tradition that forced nominees to win bipartisan support. McConnell changed things back in 2017 to allow for a simple majority, a move that allowed for the confirmation of President Trump’s first two nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Scumbag-Nev) first eliminated the 60-vote threshold in 2013 to overcome GOP stonewalling of President Obama’s nominations to the lower courts and the executive branch. This move became know as the “nuclear option,” and Reid kept the higher standard in place for the Supreme Court. McConnell warned Reid that he would come to regret that decision sooner than he thinks.
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CN), who lied for years about serving in combat in Vietnam, claimed that Barrett’s confirmation would jeopardize the Affordable Care Act, a partisan talking point too many Democrats made during her confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Confirming Amy Coney Barrett—who actively opposes the ACA—would be devastating for millions of Americans,” Blumenthal tweeted. “Just ask my constituents who would face real harm in real ways if the Supreme Court guts the ACA.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if Democrats stopped thinking of judges as politicians who can do their dirty work for them when they can’t get something through the legislative process?
Barrett has not indicated one way or the other on how she would rule if given the opportunity to sit on the court if oral arguments are given over the future of the ACA in November. She has criticized the 2012 Supreme Court opinion that upheld the law by deeming the penalty attached to the individual mandate to be a tax, even though the Obama administration repeatedly said that it was not a tax.
Senator Mitt Romney ((barely) R-UT) said that he will vote to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the next justice on the US Supreme Court. This is good news, since he was the only Republican to vote to convict the innocent President Donald Trump during the impeachment hearings for something that Joe Biden actually did when he was vice president.
On Thursday, Romney said in a statement, “After meeting with Judge Barrett and carefully reviewing her record and her testimony, I intend to vote in favor of her confirmation to the Supreme Court.” He continued, “She is impressive, and her distinguished legal and academic credentials make it clear that she is exceptionally well qualified to serve as our next Supreme Court justice.”
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The part that most likely escapes the Utah senator is that this is considered news. Romney is so known for being a Trump hater that I honestly suspected he would join the Democrats by using their lame excuse that because they didn’t give a confirmation hearing to Merrick Garland they should do so for Amy Coney Barrett.
He added: “I am confident that she will faithfully apply the law and our Constitution, impartially and regardless of policy preferences.”
Senator Susan Collins ((barely) R-ME) still holds that she will not vote to confirm a nominee so close to the election, because she is in a fight for her seat after her Kavanaugh vote. I think it’s disgraceful when politicians put themselves before doing what’s right. Senator Lisa Murkowski ((barely) R-AK), has not revealed how she will vote. She’s done after this term of her career, so she doesn’t want to cause turmoil.
Barrett’s last day of questions by Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded Thursday, with the committee setting a vote on her nomination for October 22nd with the full Senate vote more-than-likely the following week. That’s if the Democrats don’t try to pull another stunt that resembles a petulant childish on the playground taking his ball and going home the way they did this week, with Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) crying about how Committee Chairman Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went ahead with the hearing without a full quorum. I for one am pleased that Graham didn’t fall for that stunt. The rules for quorum were created so that one party couldn’t sneak something in with the other party not knowing about it, but if the Democrats intentionally stayed away when they showed up every other day, and knew that the hearing was scheduled, then I call bullschtein, and Senator Graham was correct to continue.
Last month, Romney said that he will vote for a nominee based on the nominee’s qualifications, not how close the hearing is to the election.
“My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder,” Romney said in his September statement. “It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.” See that? Mitt Romney can figure things out without resorting to the Democrat’s viewpoint. Who knew?
The Utah senator continued, saying, “The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.”
Romney expanded on his logic in following up comments to the press:
“We may have a court that has a more conservative bent,” which is something different from what we’ve seen in recent decades, Romney said after his announcement. “But my liberal friends have over many decades gotten used to the idea of having a liberal court. And that’s not written in the stars.”
Wow, I have to commend the senator for that understanding.
He added: “It’s also appropriate for a nation that’s if you will center-right to have a court which reflects center-right points of view. Which again are not changing the law from what it states but instead following the law and following the Constitution.”
What Democrats have forgotten a long time ago is something that Judge Barrett this week reminded them, and that is that a justice’s job is not to rule in the way of his or her ideology, but to rule in the ideology of the Constitution and how the original meaning of each clause was written. The leftists on the court, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who Notorious ACB is going to replace once confirmed, rather than hold the law put up before them to the stands of the Constitution, tried to bend the Constitution to allow a bad law, favored by the Left, to stand. That won’t happen with a Justice Barrett, and it’s driving the Democrats crazy.