Schiff, Swalwell, Omar respond after Speaker McCarthy keeps them off committees: 'Political vengeance'

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  5 days ago  •  109 comments

By:   Lawrence Richard (Fox News)

Schiff, Swalwell, Omar respond after Speaker McCarthy keeps them off committees: 'Political vengeance'
Reps. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar have released a statement condemning House Speaker Kevin McCarthy for preventing them from serving on committees.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Reps. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Ilhan Omar, who were stripped of their committee assignments by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, have accused him of "political vengeance" in a statement Tuesday evening after he again blocked their appointments.

"It's disappointing but not surprising that Kevin McCarthy has capitulated to the right wing of his caucus, undermining the integrity of the Congress, and harming our national security in the process," said Schiff, D-Calif., Swalwell, D-Calif., and Omar, D-Minn., in a joint statement.

The statement is the latest exchange in an ongoing tiff between McCarthy, R-Calif., and the three Democrats after he removed them from choice committee assignments after Republicans took over the majority, and he was elected Speaker.

"He struck a corrupt bargain in his desperate, and nearly failed, attempt to win the Speakership, a bargain that required political vengeance against the three of us," the Democrats continued in the letter.

Immediately following his decision, Schiff, Swalwell and Omar asked McCarthy to reconsider.

But, he did not.

"Despite these efforts, McCarthy won't be successful. We will continue to speak out against extremism and doggedly defend our democracy," the Democratic trio said.

After the three Democrats were unsuccessful in convincing McCarthy to reinstate their committee positions, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the highest-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, vouched for them.

In a letter, Jeffries said the legislators were "eminently qualified" and had experience justifying a position overseeing the nation's intelligence community. Schiff and Swalwell previously served on the House Intelligence Committee while Omar served on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

That also failed to convince McCarthy, who said in an open letter that "national security" and "integrity" matter more than "partisan loyalty."

"I appreciate the loyalty you have to your Democrat colleagues, and I acknowledge your efforts to have two Members of Congress reinstated to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence," McCarthy wrote to Jeffries. "But I cannot put partisan loyalty ahead of national security, and I cannot simply recognize years of service as the sole criteria for membership to this essential committee. Integrity matters more."

The Republican added: "As such, in order to maintain a standard worthy of this committee's responsibilities, I am hereby rejecting the appointments of Representative Adam Schiff and Representative Eric Swalwell to serve on the intelligence committee."

McCarthy also said, "It is my assessment that the misuse of this panel during the 116th and 117th Congresses severely undermined its primary national security and oversight missions - ultimately leaving our nation less safe."

"Therefore, as we enter a new Congress, I am committed to returning the Intelligence Committee to one of genuine honesty and credibility that regains the trust of the American people," the California Republican said.

McCarthy alleges Swalwell's prior relationship with a suspected Chinese spy Christine Fang, Schiff's alleged propensity for lying to Americans and Omar's outspoken criticism of Israel would keep them off their respective committees.

Since becoming House Speaker, McCarthy has vowed to make the legislative process "more open and transparent." He has also created select committees tasked with investigating the COVID-19 pandemic government response and the weaponization of the federal government.

Republicans on the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic include Chairman Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, and Reps. Nicole Malliotakis of New York, Mariannette Miller Meeks of Iowa, Debbie Lesko of Arizona, Michael Cloud of Texas, John Joyce of Pennsylvania, Majories Taylor Greene of Georgia, Ronny Jackson of Texas and Rich McCormick of Georgia.

The GOP members of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government include Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio, and Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Chris Stewart of Utah, Elise Stephanik of New York, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Chip Roy of Texas, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, Greg Steube of Florida, Dan Bishop of North Carolina, Kat Cammack and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    5 days ago


To be filed under the standard that Pelosi created.


Therefore we won't have a man who slept with a spy or a liar/leaker or an anti-Semite on Committees.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 days ago

Sucks to be a Democrat right now and have to live under the rules they created in the House.

Swalwell can't even get a security clearance. How the hell can anyone serve on the House Intelligence Committee w/o one.

As for Schiff. McCarthy should offer to allow him back on the House Intelligence Committee if can produce the information he claimed he had that would get Trump indicted. That is right; just release the information he claims he as had on Trump working with the Russians.

As for Omar. If she converts to a practicing Orthodox Jew she should be allowed to serve on the Foreign Affairs committee. See how she likes it when those Muslim extremists/terrorists she defended so vehemently turn against her.

"Despite these efforts, McCarthy won't be successful. We will continue to speak out against extremism and doggedly defend our democracy," the Democratic trio said.

Does this mean all 3 are leaving the House and retiring from politics? That would be the best way for them to "speak out against extremism" and "defend our democracy".

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    5 days ago
"As for Omar. If she converts to a practicing Orthodox Jew she should be allowed to serve on the Foreign Affairs committee."

I thought I was going to end the day without one laugh out loud until I read that. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    5 days ago

Well done.

The Post of the day, thus far!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
1.1.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    5 days ago
Does this mean all 3 are leaving the House and retiring from politics?

If only that could be true. Through their words and actions, all 3 have proven that they are enemies of the USA's core values.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 days ago
slept with a spy

Wang Wang moved back to China in 2015 and married Buzz.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.2    5 days ago

At which point she learned how to speak properly.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2  Jeremy Retired in NC    5 days ago

Reps. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Ilhan Omar, who were stripped of their committee assignments by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, have accused him of "political vengeance"

So political vengeance is:

  1. Keeping somebody with no security clearance off the intelligence committee.  Not to mention sleeping with a foreign spy DURING his time on the intelligence committee
  2. Somebody who has lied multiple times during federal investigations off the intelligence committee
  3. Keeping an Anti-Semite off the Foreign relations committee.
Integrity matters

Nothing like hitting the election denier where it hurts.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3  Sean Treacy    5 days ago

this is the best I’ve ever seen McCarthy handle anything.   Of course, he had a lot of material to work with.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    5 days ago
this is the best I’ve ever seen McCarthy handle anything.   Of course, he had a lot of material to work with.

And the proverbial gun to his head!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    5 days ago

McCarthy has put a covid denier, Marjorie Taylor Greene, on a committee charged with investigating the governments handling of covid. 

Did McCarthy handle that well ? jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    5 days ago
a covid denier,

Do you really mean that?

Don't you mean she has questioned the efficiency of the vaccine?



 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    5 days ago
Previously best known for endorsing the QAnon conspiracy theory that Democrats belong to a satanic cult that eats children, indicating support for   Nancy Pelosi   to be executed , and   blaming   California wildfires on Jewish laser beams, Greene has of late devoted her time to spreading misinformation about the virus and making extremely historically inaccurate statements re the Holocaust. In May, she   claimed   that Pelosi’s decision to maintain the   mask mandate   on the House floor was “exactly the type of abuse” that Nazis inflicted on Jews, an analogy, she insisted, that “any rational Jewish person” would agree with. Later, she   likened   the White House’s campaign to encourage all Americans to get vaccinated against a highly contagious disease to “brownshirts,” i.e. the the paramilitary organization that helped Hitler rise to power. And, of course, she‘s been using her Twitter account to feed her followers lies about the virus, which has killed more than 609,000 people in the U.S. to date.

Per   The Washington Post :

This iframe is not allowed

Twitter temporarily suspended Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) for violating its COVID-19 misinformation policy after she falsely claimed the coronavirus was “not dangerous” for some people.… The account was put on “read-only” mode for 12 hours, which according to Twitter’s rules happens “if it seems like an otherwise healthy account is in the middle of an abusive episode.” The 12-hour suspension is the shortest of Twitter’s read-only penalties, which its website says can range from 12 hours to seven days, “depending on the nature of the violation.” Greene’s account had violated the misinformation policy multiple times, according to Twitter.

Greene tweeted Monday that the novel coronavirus was “not dangerous for non-obese people and those under 65.” More than 600,000 people in the United States have died of COVID-19. She also made claims about vaccine-related deaths and side effects, calling the coronavirus vaccines “controversial.”

In another tweet, Greene falsely claimed “defeating obesity” would protect people from COVID-19 complications and death. Twitter added a warning to both tweets, labeling them as “misleading.”

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    5 days ago

How many times did DR Fauci get covid?

Or Joe Biden?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    5 days ago
Twitter temporarily suspended Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) for violating its COVID-19 misinformation policy

The policy they had via Dr Fauci.

My x-wife now has covid. She had all the shots and all the follow up boosters. For 3 days now she has people driving her, over icy roads, to a hospital 16 miles away to be treated with Remdesivir.


I guess the vaccine wasn't that effective. Yet, we were told by Joe Biden:

"You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations," Biden  said  on July 21, 2021."




There is a lot to question!

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
3.2.5  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    5 days ago
after she falsely claimed the coronavirus was “not dangerous” for some people.

I love this part.  She was suspended for violating the misinformation policy when she clamed that covid was not dangerous for some people.  Damn,  how many people caught covid, how many people were hospitalized, how many people died and how many people took care of it themselves?  The science even showed that it was not very dangerous for the  young.  But hey, it went against the plans and schemes of the power elite so she must be shut down.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    5 days ago

By that standard, Biden is a Covid denier.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Masters Silent
3.2.7  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.4    4 days ago
My x-wife now has covid. She had all the shots and all the follow up boosters. For 3 days now she has people driving her, over icy roads, to a hospital 16 miles away to be treated with Remdesivir.

So...  At least you're acknowledging that covid is not "not dangerous".

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4  Ed-NavDoc    5 days ago

Not a one of those three can be trusted to tie their own shoes.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
5  Right Down the Center    5 days ago

It was naïve for Pelosi and the Dems to think the Republicans would not walk through the door that she opened.  If she was concerned about anything other than partisan politics she would have addressed these three herself.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Right Down the Center @5    5 days ago

Especially since Pelosi had so many radicals on committees.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    5 days ago
That also failed to convince McCarthy, who said in an open letter that "national security" and "integrity" matter more than "partisan loyalty."

What, in the whole wide world, does Kevin McCarthy know about "integrity" ? 

His remarks are theater of the absurd. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6    5 days ago

He knows enough to keep people who slept with spies off Intell committees and that anti-Semites don't belong anywhere near foreign relations.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    5 days ago

Vic, you want the worst person in history to be president of the United States again.  You are in a glass house. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.1.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    5 days ago

Please show proof that he is the worst person in history. And by proof I don't mean opinions

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    5 days ago

To the contrary, I want the worst president in history and all those he has served removed from office!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    5 days ago

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin just gave you two massive thumbs up!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.3    5 days ago

Bingo!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
6.1.6  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    5 days ago
you want the worst person in history to be president of the United States again.

Worse than Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Xi, Lenin, Stalin, Putin, Kim, et al? WOW!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.6    5 days ago

I was talking about American history. Sorry to have confused you. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
6.1.8  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.7    5 days ago

Sorry to disappoint you, but you didn't confuse me, John.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.8    5 days ago

Then why did you say something so foolish? 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.1.10  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.7    5 days ago
I was talking about American history. Sorry to have confused you
Please show proof that he is the worst person in American history. And by proof I don't mean opinions

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.10    5 days ago

Get lost. 

Show me that he's not.  And I mean proof, not opinions. 

Trump is the ONLY national elected leader who attempted to overthrow the US government from within. 

Thats 2 1/2 strikes against him right there. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.1.12  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.11    5 days ago

You made the claim.  Prove it

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.12    5 days ago

Fuck off. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.1.14  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.13    5 days ago

No thank you, but thanks for the offer.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.15  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.1.12    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
6.1.16  George  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.15    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
6.1.17  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.11    5 days ago
Trump is the ONLY national elected leader who attempted to overthrow the US government from within. 

Oh? Let's take a look at the Democrat leaders who tried to overthrow the US government by denying election results ...

By your use of the word "national", one understands that the person holds/held a federal elected position. (See synonyms for "national")

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
6.1.18  Right Down the Center  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.17    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
6.1.19  George  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.17    5 days ago

What government was trump trying to overthrow? He was President, he was President until Joe was sworn in in January, The certification did not make Biden President, that only happens after he is sworn in. They could have phoned the damn thing in.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1.17    5 days ago

What Democrat asked a state election official to "find" 11,000 votes?

What Democrat asked for fake electors?

What Democrat approved a plan for the vice president to just declare him to be the winner and disenfranchise tens of millions of voters? 

What Trump did is not remotely comparable to what any Democrat did. Thats why he belongs in prison. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.21  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.7    5 days ago

American History.

Why didn't you say so?

Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, HH Holmes, Ted Bundy, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Aaron Burr, Nadil Malik Hassan, Benedict Arnold, and I can add to list if you really want me to.

They are all giving you a big thumbs up!

US history is truly full of some really vile people that make Trump look like a choir boy. Mean tweets and all. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
6.1.22  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.20    5 days ago

Comment 6.1.20 is clearly another obsessive commentary about former POTUS Trump.

This seed's topic is ...

Schiff, Swalwell, Omar Respond After Speaker McCarthy Keeps Them Off Committees: 'Political Vengeance'

Do you have anything to say about the topic? IOW, these 3 Democrat representatives and their removal from House committees?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.3    4 days ago

The big fat pig #45 (worst 'president' in history) waddled out of the White House 14 days after his incited failed coup/insurrection on 1/20/21

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.9    4 days ago

All she has?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.1.25  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.11    4 days ago
"Trump is the ONLY national elected leader who attempted to overthrow the US government from within". 

Trump has once advocated throwing over the US government. Where do you come up with this shit?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.26  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.23    4 days ago

#46 is now the worst- keep up with current events.

As for the rest of your rant, prove it. Not even the overly partisan Jan 6th committee could tie him to it; though they jumped the shark and branched out to Trump contesting election results to try and do so.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.26    4 days ago

FUCK OFF

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.28  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.26    4 days ago
Not even the overly partisan Jan 6th committee could tie him to it

ridiculous ignorance. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.28    4 days ago

That's all some have John

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.25    4 days ago

From what happened on 1/6 at trumpturd's incitement/failed coup/insurrection

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.31  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.28    4 days ago

What part John?

The overly partisan Jan 6th committee? Please do tell us all of the representation the Republicans had. The two hand picked TDS puppets Pelosi put on it do not count. Both are no longer Republicans.

Or the part where they couldn't tie Trump to the Jan 6th riot; so leapt off the deep end and violated the purpose of the Jan 6th committee by investigating Trump's attempts to fight the election results?

Why did Pelosi ban the committee from questioning Schumer, Bowser, and herself when all three were in charge of security for DC?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.32  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.31    4 days ago

The evidence indicates Trumps guilt or innocence, not who was on the committee. 

Donald trump has NEVER said what he was doing during the three hours after he became aware of the riot and the video he made later in the day.  What is he afraid of?  Probably the sworn testimony from White House insiders who saw him sitting in the oval office dining room watching tv. 

We do know that Trump tweeted that the rioters should "remember this day forever"

Why didnt Trump try and stop the insurrection? That is an easy one. He wanted it to succeed. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.32    4 days ago

gee the committee didn't ask Trump?

seems they could have issued a subpoena!

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
6.1.34  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.33    4 days ago

Careful,  the Jan 6th Committee did issue a subpoena to Trump for both documents and testimony.  Trump took them to court and IIRC the court case was never settled but dragged on until the Committee just ran out of time and dropped it.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.35  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.32    4 days ago
The evidence indicates Trumps guilt or innocence, not who was on the committee. 

Common John, what cherry picked evidence did the committee provide? You do know in a court of law Trump will be able to defend himself; and all of the evidence that the committee overlooked because it didn't fit their narrow TDS driven narrative (and actually refutes it) will be used.

Donald trump has NEVER said what he was doing during the three hours after he became aware of the riot and the video he made later in the day.  What is he afraid of?  Probably the sworn testimony from White House insiders who saw him sitting in the oval office dining room watching tv. 

Again, Trump is not in charge of DC security. Pelosi, Schumer, and Bowser were. It is far more important what those three were doing weeks and days before Jan 6th; and for the three hours afterwards. We all know Pelosi was threatening physical harm to an acting US President because of her daughter's film crew- which happened to be conveniently there.

Read what Sund said about his repeated requests for National Guard aid?

Former chief Steven Sund --   who   resigned his post   last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down   --   made the assertions in an interview with   The Washington Post   published Sunday.

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

Sund told the   Post   that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

Like Sund, Irving and Stenger have also since resigned their posts.

Sund says he requested assistance six times ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol. Each of those requests was denied or delayed, he says.

Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser also wanted a light police presence at the Capitol. She reportedly wanted to avoid a similar scenario as last summer, when federal forces responded to demonstrators opposed to police abuses who assembled near the White House.

During Wednesday's violence, Bowser   requested , and received, a limited force of 340 from the D.C. National Guard. Those troops were unarmed and their job was to help with traffic flow — not law enforcement, which was meant to be handled by D.C. police.

When the mob reached the Capitol complex at about 12:40 p.m. ET on Wednesday, it took about 15 minutes for the west side perimeter of the building to be breached, he says. The Capitol Police contingent, which numbered around 1,400 that day, was quickly overrun by the estimated 8,000 rioters.

"If we would have had the National Guard we could have held them at bay longer, until more officers from our partner agencies could arrive," he says.

Sund says during a conference call with several law enforcement officials at about 2:26 p.m., he asked the Pentagon to provide backup.

Senior Army official Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt, director of the Army Staff, said on the call he couldn't recommend that Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy authorize deployment, Sund and others on the call told the   Post . Piatt reportedly said, "I don't like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background," the   Post   reported.

It would be more than three hours before any National Guard troops arrived, well after the damage at the Capitol had been done.

In the interview, Sund also issued a warning to federal officials, saying "if they don't get their act together with physical security, it's going to happen again."

We do know that Trump tweeted that the rioters should "remember this day forever"

Pelosi, Schumer, and Bowser should have resigned as well.

We do know that Trump tweeted that the rioters should "remember this day forever"

Cherry picking away? Trump also said at the end of his speech.

He said: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

“You have to go home now. We have to have peace,” Trump said in a one-minute video from outside the White House posted to his Twitter account .

Unlike other Republicans, Trump did not denounce the rioters. Instead he said, “We love you. You’re very special.”

“I know how you feel, but go home and go home in peace,” the outgoing president said.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.36  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.35    4 days ago
and all of the evidence that the committee overlooked

Please tell us about this "evidence".

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
6.1.37  dennis smith  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.25    3 days ago

But, but, but Trump or schoolyard obscenities are used by some when they are unable to provide proof of their prior comments.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.38  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.36    3 days ago

Hard to tell evidence that has been hidden and denied release isn't it?

Sorry, I am not on Trump's legal team. I cannot demand access to it in the event of a charge. 

Why did the Democrats rush to put the records into the archives so they could be blocked up to 30 years?

In the days before its work officially came to a close, the Jan. 6 committee released thousands of pages of witness interviews and evidence. But a portion of the House rules package proposed by Republicans singles out the panel’s work, seeking to block the records from being managed by the National Archives.

The GOP rules package would require the Archives to turn over any of the committee’s work to the House Administration Committee by Jan. 17, sidestepping a requirement that would prohibit their release for at least 30 years.

It is unusual for House rules to address one committee — a sign Republicans may wish to do more to rebut the work of the Jan. 6 panel after the GOP released its own report on security failures at the Capitol the day of the riot.

“The official Congressional Records do not belong to you or any member, but to the American people, and they are owed all of the information you gathered — not merely the information that comports with your political agenda,” he wrote in a letter to Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the Jan. 6 panel.

Existing House rules already name the House Administration Committee as the custodian of records, but preventing their handling by the Archives also dodges rules that allow for withholding documents for up to 50 years if they deal with a sensitive investigation. That portion of the GOP rules proposal was first reported by the Los Angeles Times .

The Jan. 6 committee has pledged to make public the bulk of its work from its 18-month long investigation into the riot, but Thompson told reporters that some records would be withheld based on arrangements with those who requested their identity remain protected.

Other information set to be transferred to the Archives includes video of the taped depositions, much of which was not released publicly during the panel’s hearings, as well as thousands of text messages from various figures obtained by subpoena.

The issue was highlighted in a letter from Thompson to Richard Sauber, a White House lawyer hired as the point man for dealing with GOP investigations.

“As of next week when the Committee dissolves, the Committee will no longer exercise control over this material, and thus cannot ensure enforcement of the commitment to maintain the confidentiality of the identity of the witnesses,” Thompson wrote.

Seems someone has something to hide and is trying to use the archives to achieve it.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.39  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.26    3 days ago

100% on the money!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.40  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.35    2 days ago

Some people habitually confuse allegations with evidence.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.41  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.11    yesterday

Ever heard of Aaron Burr?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6    5 days ago
does Kevin McCarthy know about "integrity" ?

Lets see:

  1. Keeping somebody with no security clearance off the intelligence committee.  Not to mention sleeping with a foreign spy DURING his time on the intelligence committee
  2. Somebody who has lied multiple times during federal investigations off the intelligence committee
  3. Keeping an Anti-Semite off the Foreign Relations committee.

Pelosi had no problem putting these 3 in positions they shouldn't have been.  

But don't let fact slow you down, go right ahead and keep making your pathetic excuses.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2    5 days ago
Axios said that Swalwell immediately cut ties with Fang when he learned about her connections to China in 2015 and that he had not been accused of wrongdoing. .

Nine or ten years ago Swalwell had a "relationship" with a woman who , later, turned out to be connected to the Chinese government. When he learned who she was he cut off ties with her. 

He did nothing wrong, except in the minds of RWNJ. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.1    5 days ago

So another half assed response I see.

When he learned who she was he cut off ties with her.

So "he cut ties" with her and we are just supposed to the liberal thing and give the penguin salute and accept that at face value?  No full investigation, no repercussions. 

I guess being in bed with China (in this case literally) fits right in with the hypocrisy of the left.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2.2    5 days ago

Prove that Swalwell kept a relationship with her after he learned who she was or shut the fuck up. 

Prove. Not your endless nonsense. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.3    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.2.4    5 days ago

I guess you have no proof that Swalwell kept contact with her after he found out who she was. No surprise. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6.2.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.5    5 days ago
I guess you have no proof that Swalwell

You're right.  I don't have proof he ended contact with her.  Now care to address the rest of my comment instead of just 1 sentence?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.2.7  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.5    5 days ago

Yes or no John.

Could Swalwell get security clearance in the private sector from the federal government? Hell no!

Then why should he be allowed to sit on the House Intelligence Committee.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.2.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.7    4 days ago

Those three sitting on the House Intelligence Committee definitely give new meaning to the word oxymoron!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.2.9  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.3    3 days ago

We don't have to prove anything.

The fact he had a relationship with a Chinese spy; and allowed her into his staff; is enough to disqualify him from ever holding receiving clearance to look at classified information.

Pelosi changed the rules in the House. She removed Republicans from their committee assignments. Democrats can't live under their own damn rules. 

Democrats are just fortunate that McCarthy doesn't designate Democrats to committee assignments. By Pelosi's rules he can.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6    4 days ago

The honorable Kevin McCarthy

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @6.3    4 days ago

Better than dishonorable Nanny Peolsi.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7  Sean Treacy    5 days ago

When you consider the actual power they wielded, Adam schiff is one of the worst congressmen we’ve had in decades.   He’s completely partisan with zero  integrity.   

simply keeping him away from sensitive material is a huge win for this country. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    5 days ago

Pelosi liked him because he impeached some judges. I'd like to take another look at those cases

 
 
 
Snuffy
PhD Guide
7.2  Snuffy  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    4 days ago

For a person who chaired the Intelligence committee,  I see he's now put out a video about his losing his committee seat and how bad it was,  and he put it out on TicTok.  Sure hope he used his personal phone for that and not a government provided one...

And I also see that he's just announced that he's going to run for Feinstein's Senate seat, maybe he figures he's done all the damage he can do in the House and wants to move to the Senate.  I guess let's see if Feinstein decides to hang it up or if she wants to run again.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
8  Nerm_L    5 days ago

We're supposed to feel sympathy for Schiff, Swalwell, and Omar?  They may be correct about political vengeance.  But political vengeance, by itself, seems like a valid reason to remove them from these committees.  That has been the standard Democrats' put in place over the last seven years.

Democrats have so many rat holes in their caucus that they'll be able to pound sand till eternity.  This isn't partisan politics, it's Pelosi politics.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9  Tacos!    5 days ago
Reps. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Ilhan Omar, who were stripped of their committee assignments by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, have accused him of "political vengeance"

Yes. And?

Of course it’s political vengeance. It’s well deserved political vengeance. I don’t approve of this kind of thing, but Democrats absolutely brought this on themselves 100%. 

First of all, Schiff and Swalwell specifically, spent years going on TV and lying about evidence they had against Trump. Not to defend Trump, but these guys were full of shit. They had no such evidence. They abused their position.

Secondly, Pelosi - when she was Speaker - used her power to keep certain Republican House members off certain committees or bar them from all committees entirely. Rather than allow diverse voices to argue their perspectives in committee, they were preemptively silenced.

And so now, Republicans are doing the same thing back to the Democrats? Sorry, but I don’t feel bad for you.

We’ve already gone down this road in the Senate with judicial appointments. Democrats went out of their way to block such appointments - starting with Bork, but particularly in the Bush Jr. administration. Then they screamed “Bloody Murder!” when the Republicans did it back to them.

These politicians created these childish situations and they have the power to change it. I’m not holding my breath, though.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
9.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tacos! @9    5 days ago
These politicians created these childish situations and they have the power to change it. I’m not holding my breath, though.

I don't have all the particulars but I understand Cruz filed a resolution to term limit Congress.  That would be a good start.  It will be interesting to see who stands in the way of this change.

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @9    5 days ago
Secondly, Pelosi - when she was Speaker - used her power to keep certain Republican House members off certain committees or bar them from all committees entirely. Rather than allow diverse voices to argue their perspectives in committee, they were preemptively silenced.

Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar both spoke at a white supremacist conference AFTER they were elected to Congress. It is an absolute disgrace to this country that they are even in Congress let alone sitting on important committees. 

The Republicans wanted to put Jim Jordan and a guy named Jim Banks onto the Jan 6th committee. Both of them would have turned it into a circus. They have done so on other committees.  The Jan 6th committee PROVED that Trump was responsible for not only the Jan 6th riot, but also that he tried to steal the election. If Jordan and Banks had been on that committee the circus would have kept that truth from being reached.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
9.2.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2    5 days ago

That does not make the statement about Pelosi any less true.  It is only a sad attempt to rationalize why it is OK when your side does it but not when the other side does it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @9.2.1    5 days ago

You have no case. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9.2.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.2    5 days ago

Neither do you.

Pelosi made the rules; and now Democrats have to live with them.

Get used to it.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
9.2.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.2    5 days ago

Your words are my case.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @9.2.3    5 days ago

Ahhh, who cares if some liberals got their feelings hurt because they didn't get on a committee or something?

Get over it already!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
9.2.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.2    5 days ago

And 9.2 is "truth"?  The Democrats set up what you are throwing a fit about.  

You have given absolutely ZERO justification for Schiff, Swalwell or Omar being placed in the committees they were removed from.  The ONLY thing you've done is try to deflect to others and unfounded accusations.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.2    4 days ago

FnR0WHiWQAAsMhC?format=jpg&name=small


 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2    4 days ago
Both of them would have turned it into a circus. They have done so on other committees.

People of both parties turn committees into circuses on a regular basis, but they still get assignments. If someone says something absurd in committee, there are other committee members, plus the chair, who can respond. Preemptively prohibiting elected representatives from speaking goes against our fundamental notions of free speech, democracy, and debate.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.2    4 days ago

He never does.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9.2.10  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2    3 days ago
The Republicans wanted to put Jim Jordan and a guy named Jim Banks onto the Jan 6th committee. Both of them would have turned it into a circus.

I am sorry; but the Jan 6th committee wasn't a circus? 

Oh I get it; it was a circus that TDS driven mighty mental midgets enjoyed; so that makes it a good circus.

As for truth being reached. The only truth that was reached is that the Jan 6th committee was a partisan POS that wasted tax payer money.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.3  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @9    4 days ago

Oh yes, of course, it's always the fault of the Democrats.  Your beloved gqp are faultless, as always.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9.3.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @9.3    4 days ago

Are you claiming Pelosi didn't change the House rules and remove some Republicans from their committee assignments? 

Are you claiming that Pelosi refused to seat two Republicans on the Jan 6th committee?

Or just butt hurt that Democrats have to live by their own rules now?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
9.3.2  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @9.3.1    4 days ago
Are you claiming Pelosi didn't change the House rules and remove some Republicans from their committee assignments?  Are you claiming that Pelosi refused to seat two Republicans on the Jan 6th committee?

Depending on the committee the Speaker has the right to refuse to seat certain members.  The first time she did it improperly because in those two instances it should have been put to a House vote and she did not.

When she refused to seat Jordan and someone else she was within her rights, McCarthy could have had 5 or 7  Republicans on the Jan 6th committee if he wasn't just interested in optics.

Or just butt hurt that Democrats have to live by their own rules now?

Perhaps you missed the part where each new Speaker gets to make the rules and the House votes on it?  We are now subject to Mr McCarthy's rules not the Democrats.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
9.3.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @9.3    4 days ago
it's always the fault of the Democrats.

Not always, just mostly

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
9.3.4  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @9.3    4 days ago
Your beloved gqp

My beloved . . . ?? jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9.3.5  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @9.3.2    3 days ago
Perhaps you missed the part where each new Speaker gets to make the rules and the House votes on it?  We are now subject to Mr McCarthy's rules not the Democrats.

McCarthy merely extended Pelosi's rules. 

If Democrats can't live by the rules they imposed on Republicans and conservatives they can fuck off.

When she refused to seat Jordan and someone else she was within her rights, McCarthy could have had 5 or 7  Republicans on the Jan 6th committee if he wasn't just interested in optics.

You left out the part where Pelosi seated two faux Republicans on the Jan 6th committee. Are Speakers allowed to do that? I am really hoping that McCarthy returns the favor.

But thank you for trying to defend Pelosi and the Democrats. Your leftist debit card has been paid in full.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
9.3.6  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @9.3.5    3 days ago
McCarthy merely extended Pelosi's rules. 

It must be nice lining in a bubble shut off from reality.

Welcome to 2 years of nothing getting accomplished.

Under the new rules (McCarthy's) they have returned to Boehner's rules allowing Amendments on every Bill and floor time to appeal to other House Members.

The first MTG Bill had 139 Amendments.  100 plus ranting Congressmen given their two minutes then the Bill when finally voted on lost by 418 votes.  Total waste of time and resources.

You left out the part where Pelosi seated two faux Republicans on the Jan 6th committee. Are Speakers allowed to do that? 

Pelosi invited them and approved them yes. McCarthy could have had 5 more but played petty politics and took none instead because his feeling were hurt.  Only partisan hacks would not realize the suicide mission these two patriots embraced. Even Republicans approved Cheney & Kinzingers participation while condemning McCarthy's behavior. Republican voters split over RNC censure of Cheney and Kinzinger: poll | The Hill

I am really hoping that McCarthy returns the favor.

Because you are just as petty as McCarthy? Politics used to mean compromise; McCarthy chose not to. I well remember the days we mocked the Russians and cChinese for not allowing dissension and free speech, marching lock step like Hitler's minions.

But thank you for trying to defend Pelosi and the Democrats.

You are welcome

Your leftist debit card has been paid in full.

Thanks for continuing your typical petty behavior.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9.3.7  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @9.3.6    2 days ago
It must be nice lining in a bubble shut off from reality.

Welcome to 2 years of nothing getting accomplished.

Under the new rules (McCarthy's) they have returned to Boehner's rules allowing Amendments on every Bill and floor time to appeal to other House Members.

The first MTG Bill had 139 Amendments.  100 plus ranting Congressmen given their two minutes then the Bill when finally voted on lost by 418 votes.  Total waste of time and resources.

In other who gives a fuck news. Sorry Republicans actually have differing opinions; unlike the check the box Democrats and leftists who Kowtowed to whatever Pelosi and Schumer wanted. They were elected to stop Democrat bullshit spending; the Democrat attempted takeover on elections, and stop the Democrats from fucking the  economy up even worse.

Two years of not allowing Democrats to accomplish their asinine goals. Mission accomplished.

Pelosi invited them and approved them yes. McCarthy could have had 5 more but played petty politics and took none instead because his feeling were hurt.  Only partisan hacks would not realize the suicide mission these two patriots embraced. Even Republicans approved Cheney & Kinzingers participation while condemning McCarthy's behavior. Republican voters split over RNC censure of Cheney and Kinzinger: poll | The Hill

Take your poll and cram it. Literally if you like. You think 34% strongly opposing is more than the 40% that agreed with it? 

The survey , conducted by Politico and Morning Consult, found that 40 percent of Republicans strongly or somewhat support the RNC’s censure of Cheney and Kinzinger for their participation in the House select committee’s investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, while 34 percent of GOP respondents said they strongly or somewhat oppose the censure. Twenty-seven percent of Republicans polled said they did not know or had no opinion.

Take the 27% that didn't know or didn't have an opinion; and that is 2/3rds that don't give a shit they are gone. Don't cry tears for either of the them Kinzinger is already a paid shill for CNN. Cheney is lining herself up for a spot on the Lincoln Project. She can join other ex Republican POS that campaign for Democrats. The Republican/Conservative world won't miss either of them.

Because you are just as petty as McCarthy? Politics used to mean compromise; McCarthy chose not to. I well remember the days we mocked the Russians and cChinese for not allowing dissension and free speech, marching lock step like Hitler's minions.

No, because unlike you I can see Democrats for the POS that they really are. Starting with the queen bitch Pelosi. Compromise; after the last 7 years you have got to be fucking kidding. Pelosi didn't compromise on shit.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
9.3.8  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @9.3.7    2 days ago

Among other things,

you seem to think 7 years is important to someone other than yourself.

It isn't and I really don't need to hear your explanation.

The country is fine in this honorable experiment of governance.

I have surrvived decades of supposed incompetence by both parties.

Time is life.

Life is the gift of time.

Stop wasting it with anger.

Now, you can have the last word.

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
9.3.9  dennis smith  replied to  Tessylo @9.3    yesterday

You are absolutely correct.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
10  magicschoolbusdropout    5 days ago

Reps. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Ilhan Omar, who were stripped of their committee assignments by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, have accused him of "political vengeance" in a statement Tuesday evening after he again blocked their appointments.

You Reap what you Sewed even before January 20, 2017 !

"I have the Proof" ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Sounds like a "Warped" "I Have a Dream" Theme.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
10.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @10    4 days ago

Big difference is that MLK was much more credible than Schiff.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
10.1.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1    3 days ago
Big difference is that MLK was much more credible than Schiff.

Schifty and Credible can't be used in the same sentence with a straight face.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
10.2  Jasper2529  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @10    4 days ago
"I have the Proof"

Is that Schiff's claims of irrefutable proof AND proof that's hiding in plain sight that he never shared with Congress, media, or the general public? jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
10.2.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Jasper2529 @10.2    3 days ago
Is that Schiff's claims of irrefutable proof AND proof that's hiding in plain sight that he never shared with Congress, media, or the general public?

Yes !

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
11  George    4 days ago

Shithead Schiff wants Feinsteins seat? the sad thing is Californians are stupid enough to do this.  

 
 

Who is online

JohnRussell
Tessylo
Veronica
Vic Eldred
afrayedknot
Ed-NavDoc
Hallux
Snuffy
Greg Jones
evilgenius


Kavika
Ronin2
JBB


34 visitors