Jan. 6 panel votes for contempt charges against Mark Meadows
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection voted Monday to recommend contempt charges against former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows as lawmakers demand his testimony about then-President Donald Trump's actions before and during the attack.
"Whatever legacy he thought he left in the House, this is his legacy now," committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said of Meadows — a former Republican congressman from North Carolina — in his opening remarks. "His former colleagues singling him out for criminal prosecution because he wouldn't answer questions about what he knows about a brutal attack on our democracy. That's his legacy."
The committee voted 9-0 to move forward with criminal charges against Meadows, who declined to appear for a deposition last week. Lawmakers had planned to ask about Trump's efforts to overturn the election in the weeks before the insurrection, including Meadows' outreach to states and his communications with members of Congress.
Trump's former top White House aide "is uniquely situated to provide key information, having straddled an official role in the White House and unofficial role related to Mr. Trump's reelection campaign," the panel said in a 51-page report released Sunday evening.
The report detailed the questions lawmakers have about the thousands of emails and texts Meadows had provided to the committee before he ended his cooperation — including 6,600 pages of records taken from personal email accounts and about 2,000 text messages.
The panel has not released all the documents, but the report says they include exchanges about Meadows efforts' to help Trump overturn his defeat in the presidential election, communications with members of Congress and organizers of a rally held the morning of the insurrection and frantic messages among aides and others as the violent attack unfolded that day.
Rep. Liz Cheney, the committee's vice chair, detailed on Monday a series of text messages Meadows received on Jan. 6 from a slew of people, including Fox News anchors and Donald Trump Jr. In the texts, allies and those in Trump's inner circle attempted to reach Trump through his chief of staff, imploring him to take action against the violence that was taking place outside and inside the Capitol.
Story continues
"He's got to condemn this ... Asap," Trump Jr. wrote. "The Capitol Police tweet is not enough."
Meadows responded, saying, "I'm pushing it hard. I agree."
"Hey Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home ... this is hurting all of us ... he is destroying his legacy," Fox News host Laura Ingraham texted Meadows.
"Please get him on tv. Destroying everything you have accomplished," Brian Kilmeade wrote.
As part of its list of questions for Meadows, the panel says it wants to know more about whether Trump was engaged in discussions regarding the response of the National Guard, which was delayed for hours as the violence escalated and the rioters beat police guarding the Capitol building.
The documents provided by Meadows include an email he sent to an unidentified person saying that the Guard would be present to "protect pro Trump people," the panel said, and that more would be available on standby. The committee did not release any additional details about the email.
The contempt vote is coming after more than two months of negotiations with Meadows and his lawyer and as the panel has also struggled to obtain information from some of Trump's other top aides, such as his longtime ally Steve Bannon. The House voted to recommend charges against Bannon in October, and the Justice Department indicted him on two counts of contempt last month.
The panel is aiming to develop the most comprehensive record yet of the attack, in which hundreds of Trump's supporters forced their way past law enforcement officers, broke into the Capitol and interrupted the certification of Biden's victory. Meadows' testimony could be key, as he was Trump's top aide at the time and was with him in the White House as the rioters breached the Capitol building.
In a Monday letter to Thompson, Meadows' attorney George Terwilliger said the contempt vote would be "unjust" because Meadows was one of Trump's top aides and all presidents should be afforded executive privilege to shield their private conversations. Meadows himself sued the panel, asking a court to invalidate two subpoenas that he says are "overly broad and unduly burdensome."
Terwilliger noted that the contempt statute has been used infrequently over time and argued that a contempt referral of a senior presidential aide "would do great damage to the institution of the Presidency."
In a transcript of the deposition that Meadows skipped, released as part of Sunday's report, an unnamed member of the panel's investigative staff detailed several of the questions he would have been asked had he shown up.
Many of the questions center on Trump's efforts to overturn the election in the weeks before the insurrection, including Meadows' outreach to states and his communications with members of Congress.
Committee staff said they would have interviewed Meadows about emails "to leadership at the Department of Justice on December 29th and 30th, 2020, and January 1st, 2021, encouraging investigations of suspected voter fraud," even though election officials and courts across the country had rejected those claims.
The panel said Meadows also provided text messages sent to and from members of Congress "before, during, and after the attack on the United States Capitol." One exchange with a lawmaker concerned efforts to contact legislators in states, too, about the election because Trump "wants to chat with them."
In a text exchange with an unidentified senator, the committee said, Meadows said Trump believed Vice President Mike Pence had power to reject electors in his role presiding over the Jan. 6 certification. Pence did not have that power under the law, as the vice president's function is largely ceremonial.
A Nov. 6, 2020, text exchange between Meadows and an unidentified member of Congress, the committee said, was about appointing alternate electors in certain states, a plan the member said would be "highly controversial." The committee said that Meadows replied, "I love it.'"
In other texts, sent the day of the attack, Meadows' former colleagues encouraged him to urge Trump to discourage the violence, the committee said. Similarly, in an exchange with an organizer of the rally that morning — a gathering in which Trump told his supporters to "fight like hell" — the organizer told Meadows that they "desperately" needed direction from him because things "have gotten crazy."
The panel's expected vote to recommend charges of contempt of Congress would send the referral to the full House, which could vote as soon as this week to send it to the Justice Department. The department would then decide whether to prosecute.
Thompson and the committee's Republican vice chairwoman, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, said last week that Meadows' lawsuit "won't succeed at slowing down the Select Committee's investigation or stopping us from getting the information we're seeking."
The panel has already interviewed almost 300 witnesses, and lawmakers say they plan a series of hearings early next year to make many of their findings public.
___
Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
33 visitors
Here is just the beginning of Rep. Cheney's opening statement wherein she read some of the texts from Fox personalities to Mark Meadows during the coup attempt:
User Clip: Liz Cheney | C-SPAN.org
I doubt that many of the RW members here have seen the video since Fox isn't playing it. So maybe they'll be interested in what the rest of the country already knows.
that would be a first...
Fox can't play it. It would be too embarrassing and humiliating
They're generally too busy telling the rest of the country that it doesn't know what it knows, and only they know what the rest of the country knows.
I want to see some action behind his words. He's a political operative, isn't he?
He was a founder of The Lincoln Project ("an American political action committee (PAC) formed in late 2019 by former and incumbent Republicans" .
The Lincoln Project produced some of the best anti-Trump ads during the 2020campaign.
Yeah, I know, talk is [cheap,deleted]
It's interesting that Executive Privilege doesn't affect his book. I'm surprised that Trump isn't bitching about Meadows revealing classified information in the book. Of course Trump doesn't read....
Which is why the shithead put out a picture book of his 'presidency'.
LOL
I understand that books of this sort, written by former government officials, had to be "vetted" for national security purposes.
Vetted by the current administration, not a previous one.
Terwilliger is concerned about "great damage to the office of the Presidency".
The irony is palpable.
From what we have learned so far, including information released today, there appears to have been significant criminal misconduct at the highest levels of the government. Trump and his co-conspirators and accomplices need to be held accountable.
Well if the lawsuit Terwilliger filed against Pelosi and the members of the committee is an example of his legal prowess, any statement by him should be ignored.
I have yet to read a filing from any of these Trumpist lawyers that makes a cogent legal argument. At this point Judges should hit a button that plays:
So the National Guard was called out only to protect pro-trmp people? I'm pretty sure that all members of the NG take an oath to protect all Americans regardless of political views
Exactly, and yes, they do. Something something lawful orders?
Those Flynn Boys are bad people, clearly.
I vaguely remember something like that back in 1987
Oh my, sounds like fake news. /s
Those text messages were beyond damning. Holy shit. Then tack on the email from Meadows asking the National Guard to protect trump supporters?
Naw, that doesn't seem planned at all..
/s
We now have the 'Memo' from Acting SECDEF Miller that hamstringed the DCNG. It reads in part:
So they sent the DCNG out with NO defensive weapons or protection of any kind.
Conversely, this is how the DCNG was equipped during the June 2 demonstrations:
Note that ALL of them are a least wearing helmets and vests. Also note that the ones on the top step are fully armed.
He's now claiming that the texts were "selectively leaked" and "weaponized". Of course, all he needs to do to straighten it all out is to testify.
Of course, attack the manner in which they were released, ignore the actual content. Right out of the conservative playbook.
The conservatives are not going to have much to say about all this.
I dunno... fake news, witch hunt, or nothing to see here would be my guesses...
Here is what the NT White-wingers are doing:
Story continues
"He's got to condemn this ... Asap," Trump Jr. wrote. "The Capitol Police tweet is not enough."
Meadows responded, saying, "I'm pushing it hard. I agree."
"Hey Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home ... this is hurting all of us ... he is destroying his legacy," Fox News host Laura Ingraham texted Meadows.
"Please get him on tv. Destroying everything you have accomplished," Brian Kilmeade wrote.
There is a method to the madness of publishing these e-mails. They are going to try and portray Trump supporters as what the left is - nihilists and rioters.
Here is the question of the day: Kinzinger and Cheney are free to support Trump-haters/Pelosi's efforts to keep the democrats in power next year by participating in the sham commission. But why is it that they're allowed to remain in the GOP conference when their sole obsession is to harm GOP voters/causes?
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene: "I rise in opposition to this resolution to hold Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress because it's being held by nothing but a kangaroo court.
Good to know you hold that wackadoo in high esteem...
Large Marge doesn't even know the meaning of a kangaroo court. She should just sit down and color
The predictable/usual projection, deflection, and denial.
What else can they do, when they can't simply deny it?
Tell a bunch of lies. They learned from the best!
Putin?
Trump
[deleted]
Because they're not trying to harm GOP voters/causes, they just recognize that while many deluded dipshits see Trump as the new GOP. True rational conservative Republicans remember when it was the "Grand Old Party", the new version under Trump is just the "Gross Old Pussy-grabber". These two seem to be the last Republicans that have spines and are able to stand up for America against vile deplorable insurrectionists instead of trying to downplay the attack on the Capital and suck up to the piece of shit populist wannabe dictator who inspired his violent sycophants to attempt to overturn a free and fair election so he could remain in power.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is contemptible. Fuck her.
No thanks, not my type, but you go right ahead if that is what floats your boat.
The dozen or so people that still care about this will be very happy. The rest of the country has moved on trying to figure how they were going to pay for gas, groceries and Christmas presents for their kids.
I suppose if you don't care about corruption at the highest levels of government then go back to balancing your check book
Or maybe me and millions more likely were just overdosed by the four years of daily "bombshells" and can see this for what it is......trying to make political points for the 2022 midterms.
or as Dev nailed it in comment 7.1:
I am not talking about Republicans I am talking about the vast majority of Americans......you know the people that are not glued to MSNBC or CNN.
Has LBJ risen from the grave? Is cyber-Nixon off on a secret island somewhere plotting a return? Is the ghost of Andrew Johnson possessing Joe Biden?
Don't pretend you care about corruption if you're just now noticing it.
I was born in 1962. You do the math
If you're old enough to remember LBJ and/or Nixon, you're old enough to know that Trump is a rank amateur when it comes to corruption. Asshole can't keep his mouth shut long enough.
The vast majority of America is quite content to walk away from that orange pile of dogshit and move forward. Yet we are saddled with a small group of liberals who cannot seem to let go of their emotional attachment. It's as though they have no idea what to do with themselves if they stop hating Trump, so they hang on for fear their lives will become meaningless without him.
I was not even 2 years old when LBJ took office. Six when Nixon took office. So I was about 11 when he resigned. I know who they are but I didn't understand what Watergate was. And as far as LBJ, I barely remember him
People that care about the attempted overthrow of our government? Aren't you concerned?
Our democracy was never in any real danger. A couple hundred idiots being stupid doesn't overthrow the government.
With the assistance of POTUS and VPOTUS, it almost did. Not only that, you are just starting to see all the plotting to ignore the election and keep Trump in the Whitehouse.
What, exactly, did Mike Pence do on January 6th to overthrow our government?
No, it never was even close to actually overthrowing the government. Even of they completely took over the building for a few hours they were not going to actually take control of the country. It seem I have more faith in the country and democracy than many others here.
No. It didn't.
None of which ever had any chance of succeeding, despite the wild-eyed hysteria from both sets of political extremists.
He openly supported the "Big Lie". The fact that he didn't reject the counts goes to his favor, but his support of the lie goes against it. And the FACT that Trump, and Trump allies, urged him to ignore protocol speaks to the far reaching attempts to overthrow a legally elected government.
1 part of the plan failed, and you are correct that the mob would not have effected the outcome.
However, ask yourself what would have happened if Pence had relented and not accepted the states' electoral counts?
:Legally you are correct. However if it had gone according to plan, and Trump refused to acknowledge the loss, Congress refused to acknowledge the loss, and in the end Trump refused to leave the Whitehouse. Then where would we be?
Since we are talking possibilities, as opposed to what actually happened, what the hell did you expect? It was a failed coup, we can only talk what they tried, and not what they succeeded at.
Some keep pushing that 'couple hundred idiots' nonsense but it was 'thousands of idiots' of which over 700 'idiots' have been arrested.
But it was just a couple hundred tourists. They don't understand the fuss being made of your plain old tourist.
And if fantasies were facts, you might have a leg to stand on.
The same Congress that impeached him a week later? Really?
No shit LOL
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
Congress did not impeach him. Where did you read that?
The House impeached him, then the Senate voted not to hold him accountable after refusing to look at any of the evidence.
So to play your words games, the Congress did not impeach him. Only half of it did.
Erm.....
So he was...in fact...impeached. He was actually the first president in US history to be impeached twice.
Yes, the Senate failed to convict him. But a majority of Senators voted for conviction.
So returning to your original hypothetical situation, there was zero chance a Congress where the majority of both houses voted to remove him from office was ever going to "refuse to acknowledge the loss".
Surely the Impossible Girl recognizes the impossible.
According to liberals your aunt only needs to feel like your uncle. She doesn't need balls at all
Yes lets.
The House does the impeachment. The House is part of Congress but not is NOT Congress by itself. One of the House's jobs is the impeachment part, this is not the Senates job however.
While not exact, this basically goes as:
The House determines guilt, and the Senate determines punishment.
The Senate cannot impeach a President on its own, and the Senate cannot apply a punishment unless the House has impeached POTUS.
The House and the Senate each have their own, separate, proceedings during an impeachment process.
So no, "Congress" did not impeach POTUS, that is the House's job, and a job only done by the House. This is why, although Trump was NOT removed from office by the Senate, he is still twice impeached.
No, just talking about your twisted interpretation.
We would be exactly where we are now.
You could be right, but we'll never know for sure. There seems to be an awful lot of republican politicians supporting the big lie.
Jesus, I'm giving 3rd grade political science lectures to someone who doesn't really care what the truth is if it doesn't support what he wants it to.
Congress consists of the House and the Senate, not 1 or the other. So to say that Congress impeached Trump would be saying that BOTH the House and the Senate impeached him. This is WRONG. They both have parts in the impeachment process, but each part of that process is separate.
The House determines whether or not POTUS is impeached. The House does not determine the punishment phase of the process.
The Senate deals with the punishment phase, and whether POTUS is removed from office. The Senate does not determine if POTUS is impeached or not.
This is why that even though the House did impeach Trump, and Senate refused any punishment for that impeachment, Trump is STILL impeached. But being impeached is determined only by they House, not Congress since being "impeached by Congress" would mean he was also impeached by the Senate, which the Senate has no ability to do.
Trump was impeached by the House and no other part of Congress determined that.
Trump was NOT removed from office by the Senate and no other part of Congress determined that.
Claiming that CONGRESS (both House and Senate) impeached Trump is either ignorance, fallacious, an outright lie, or trolling.
Not exactly.
Article I, Section 2 of the Consitution:
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.
The Senate cannot impeach, so if the House impeaches a president, then by extension "congress" has impeached him.
This does not mean he's guilty. By definition, "impeachment" is merely the act of leveling formal charges against a government official.
The Senate then decides whether or not to convict that official of those charges. (Article I, Section 3)
I think that's what Ozz is saying.
The House gives the indictment the Senate is the trial
I hope that's what she means. But the terminology is specific, and I hate to see her be willing to die on a hill she can't actually defend.
I'm pretty sure Ozz is a dude. I could be wrong
Based on the name and avatar, I'm assuming she's named after Clara Oswald, a popular character from the Dr Who series, played by Jenna Coleman.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Ozz.
You just repeated exactly what I have been trying to explain.
I was dumbing it down as best as I could for the specific audience I was addressing. You were much more precise than I was.
I have talked about my wife several times. But nowadays that still leaves a half dozen or so choices still....
Good detective work, although I preferred the Ponds myself and Donna was the best. I seriously never connected the 2, Osgood and Ozzwald.
Actually pure coincidence. Many many years ago on an old time online video game, I was assign the random name of Ozzwald for my character. It kind of stuck.
It's called "English", you should try it sometimes. The trick to the game is that you must use words that are pre-defined and they must be used in a manner that reflects that definition.
But good luck! I hope you enjoy the game.
Yes, the horror of communicating with universally agreed upon standards!
This constant whining about 'word games' in a forum where words are the tools used to communicate is juvenile.
'Congress' is a bicameral body consisting to the House and the Senate. There can be NO cognet argument that we should interpret the term 'Congress' in any other way.
Thanks, but actually probably not so much. I may or may not have seen a few episodes, so it wasn't like I had to look something up.
Sarah Jane Smith for me.
OK...maybe more than "a few" episodes......
Exactly. I know a lot of women with wives.
Sarah Jane was the best of the OG, but too many were just there as dressing and provided no real reason to be there other someone for him to talk to. Modern day companions had lives of their own, and in Donna's case a tragic ending.
There might be a few more of us than 'a dozen or so'. As long as there is even an inkling of a chance that Trump might get away with the atrocities he has committed before, during and after his brief stay in the White House, we'll be here. In fact, we'll be everywhere.
OK maybe a few hundred, or 100% of the people that watch MSNBC and CNN combined.
Hang in there, maybe you can impeach him again.
Excellent.
We're counting on you to maintain an ever vigilant and watchful eye while the rest of us get on with our lives.
I think there are far more than a "dozen or so" who care about our constitution and the 250+ years of peaceful transitions of power, other than that time when white conservative Southern Christian extremists decided to revolt against our nation and started a war so that they could continue owning other humans as cattle.
It's comedy watching him spin. Blame anyone or anything other than the party he owes loyalty to. Party over country for some.
Political parties ideological positions change all the time, there was once the Democratic-Republican party. Sometimes they're liberal/progressive, other times they're religious conservatives. What doesn't often change are peoples ideological positions, those who are religious conservatives tend to stay religious conservatives and those folk find the political party that best fits their ideological positions.
The descriptive that matters most when mentioning those confederates who attacked America and started the civil war over slavery was that they were white conservative Southern Protestant Christians, and most of their descendants even today are still white conservative Southern Christians. Those confederates weren't liberal progressives, they weren't trying to change the status quo to make a more perfect union as our founders intended, they wanted to conserve slavery, they wanted to conserve white Christian rule over the South and anywhere they spread. They justified their racism and hate with scripture. The KKK were white conservative Christians more than anything else and were deeply rooted in local Protestant communities. They sought to maintain white supremacy and opposed Catholics and Jews, while also stressing their opposition to the alleged political power of the pope and the Catholic Church. Their ideology and religious affiliation is far more telling as to who they were than any political party name, especially one that has been used by dozens of different political parties.
So while the truth is that they called themselves Democrats, the WHOLE truth is they were and always have been white conservative Protestant Christians which is where they get their beliefs and ideology which haven't changed much in the last two hundred years and is still shared by many modern day white conservative Protestant Christians. Anyone with more than half a brain can see the similarities and connection and aren't fooled by the weak dumb shit semantics played by those desperate to hide their affiliation and shared conservative beliefs.
You are correct, they don't, because they are not modern Democrats who are liberal/progressives. Right wing white conservative Protestant Christians hate liberals and progressives and the modern Democratic party because that political party no longer embraces their ideology or prejudices like the white conservative Protestant Christian Democrats of half a century ago did. Now they have only one political party to find shelter among which shares their ideology and prejudices, the right wing white conservative Protestant Republicans which hates liberals and progressives as much as their white Southern conservative Protestant Democrats used to. The right wing conservative Republican tent now provides shelter for many like minded folk, from Nazi's to the KKK.
The truth is you booted all the conservatives out of your party back in '68, when your party took 12 steps to the left and decided to become a European style liberal party and abandoned the "Big Tent" concept... Today to be a democrat you have to "prove" your liberal bona-fides...
So you accept and admit the fact that when the KKK was most active lynching and burning crosses and churches, they were democrats...
Correct?
The truth is white conservative Southern Christian Democrats were already on their way out after the 1964 civil rights act and 1965 voting rights act were passed by a majority of Democrats in the house and Senate and a Democrat President signed them into law. That's when Republicans realized there was an opportunity to build their own majority in the South by attracting those angered disaffected Democrats.
" From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act . The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats." - Republican strategist Kevin Phillips in 1970 interview with NY Times
That's what they called themselves at the time, but few kept that party affiliation after the Democratic party pragmatically decided to be on the right side of history by embracing diversity, integration and equality. Did the Democratic party do it intentionally to attract black voters? Yes, yes they did, just like Republicans chose to pursue those "negrophobe whites" in the South who were angered by their former parties choice to chase black votes by supporting civil rights. But regardless of what political party those racist white Southern conservative Christians of 60 years ago were registered, its clear to anyone with more than half a brain to see which party those white Southern conservative Christians of today prefer. They didn't all move away or die off, millions of those of voting age when the civil rights act was passed are still alive and still living in the South passing on their brand of conservative Christian ideology to their descendants who continue to embrace the same things their parents and peers did such as the confederate flag, confederate monuments, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia and misogyny which is why they so readily embraced the "deplorable" label.
I was one of those democrats that left and I marched with Dr King, many anti-war protests and the women's lib movement... And if what you say is accurate you consider me a deplorable bigot...
Well not all of us left because you wanted us to... a great many of us left cause you all were shifting the party to a much harder brand of liberalism more akin to the European style than the libertarian style that attracted me...
The Christian democrats stayed away from the republicans for well over a decade while the libertarians like me joined them... The Republicans were shifting left as well... It wasn't until RR invited the Christian democrats into his big tent they joined about 12 years after they were booted... By that time the KKK had no political clout left with anyone... They were just looking for a platform and bounced around republican democrat didn't matter they were in the shitbin of history at that point...
I left the republican party when Newt and his CHRISTIAN MINIONS came to power, way too radical for me... Newt who was the political spokesman for the christian right, had to wait for Reagan to be out of office to climb the ladder... Reagan hated him...
Newt and his "people" essentially took over the party, got real chummy with Slick Willy, (forget the dog an pony show for public consumption)
Newt really screwed the party over... But I wasn't there to have any part of it...
Yes I'm a proud deplorable, and from the levels of your vilification of us it is clear you really don't understand the history and are making it up to suit your narrative....
You call us deplorable cause your crybaby leader at the time did thinking it would help her win when in reality, she sealed her fate....
What your doing, with this campaign of yours is going to seal Uncle Joe's fate and probably the party along with it...
But then I haven't been a democrat for 55 years what do I know?
Only if you self diagnose as a xenophobe, homophobe, Islamophobe or misogynist.
I never said that the only reason many Southern Democrats changed parties was over the civil rights act. I'm sure there were a few who had other reasons.
True, the Southern strategy employed by Republicans did not magically work over night, it took several decades for the shift to be completed.
Well they've made it clear which tent they take cover in now.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'" - Barry Goldwater
The term "deplorable" was narrowly defined by Hillary, as she said "They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic." So if you self diagnose as one or more of those traits, then the label fits.
I know history very well and don't need to make any of it up to suit a narrative. If you've understood how Hillary defined a "deplorable" and you embrace that label then that's on you, not her.
Not sure if presenting historical facts is much of a "campaign", but I rather doubt Biden will run again in 2024 no matter what I do. There is an ideological war that has been being waged for centuries in America, between staunch conservatism and liberal progressives. The default position has always been conservatism that is constantly fighting to conserve the status quo of the time. The fought to conserve slavery, fought to conserve bans on women voting and blacks voting, fought to conserve segregation and Jim Crow laws, fought to conserve bans on interracial marriage and gay marriage and continue to fight to conserve what they see as their "white conservative Christian society". They always eventually lose as rational Americans continue to push forward towards a more perfect union as our founders intended.
Conservative: adjective - averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
Liberal: adjective - willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
Of course there is going to be conflict between those two ideologies. And the fact is conservatives of 60 years ago would likely find conservatives of today far too liberal for their taste because as America moves forward it's also generally moving left because as has been said many times before, "reality has a well-known liberal bias".
The typical libertarian - I got mine, fuck you.
You can talk to them till you're blue in the face but they will continue with that tired old trope and baldly lie about Democrats and slavery. They know the actual truth but it interferes with their false narrative
[deleted]
No, it's not a lie, but it's also extremely intentionally misleading considering the fact that the Southern Democratic party back then was ideologically white conservative Protestant Christians who used the bible to justify their racism and slavery.
Trying to make a connection between that staunchly religious conservative party and modern day Democrats who are left leaning liberal progressives who support civil rights, have the most diverse legislature, support equal pay for women and support gay marriage and gay and transgender rights is pure insanity and no one with more than half a brain will believe that the two have anything in common other than the word "Democratic".
Well, reality in America has always been a struggle between the conservative status quo and liberal progressives trying to push us forward towards a more perfect union, and though it often takes a long time. Liberals almost always eventually win out and show that supporting liberal progressive ideals like civil rights, voting rights for women and black Americans, overturning Jim Crow laws and bans on interracial marriage, all things which we now take for granted because progressives have moved us forward towards that more perfect union over the objections of teeth gnashing conservatives.
No need for any lying, the proof is in the pudding.
Michael Dukakis was the Grand Wizard of the KKK?
Bless you, DP.
The Democratic candidate for president in 1988 was Michael Dukakis.
Dukakis was never in the KKK.
The KKK officially endorsed Trump.
Slow on the research side of things I see.
Now do actual objective research. Pay attention to who ALL the candidates were.
That's total bullshit. David Duke tried to run as a Democrat but the Democratic party wouldn't support him so in March of 1988 he switched to the American Populist Party. His best performance when trying for the Democratic nomination was 3.74% popular vote in the Louisiana primary. No doubt those folk who voted for him in the South are now staunch conservative Republicans as is David Duke now.
The Democratic candidate for President that actually won the nomination from the party was Michael Dukakis.
But your slimy attempt to twist the truth to fit your lame narrative is noted.
Who actually got the nomination? And what's your source? You're always claiming things but never backing them up
That is such a weasel move
In December 1988, he became a Republican and claimed to have become a born-again Christian , while nominally renouncing antisemitism and racism .
The fact is she didn't just call all Trump supporters deplorable. She narrowly defined who they were and said about half of Trump supporters fit that description, and she wasn't wrong. She said those in the 'basket of deplorables' were those who were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic".
Did it hurt her campaign? Apparently it did because there's nothing right wing conservatives hate more than having their faults exposed. You'd think that the religious right would have a bigger problem with a candidate that was on tape saying:
"I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture." I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything." - former Republican President and champion of the religious right Donald J Trump
Now that's beyond sexist and thus clearly within the definition of deplorable, so it's no wonder those who share Trumps sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic beliefs would also consider themselves "deplorables".
I did not say you lied. In fact I said "it's not a lie, but it's also extremely intentionally misleading" which it was.
It's like just saying "Christians rape kids". While that's not a lie, there are Christians who have raped kids, but it's also extremely misleading considering Christians don't rape kids at any higher rates than other groups.
Your clear intent is to just smear modern liberal progressive Democrats that look nothing like and share none of the racist conservative Christian ideology with the racist history of white Southern conservative Christians who supported slavery and were largely responsible for Jim Crow laws. And like I said, no one with more than half a brain is buying your kind of twisted irrational nonsense. But I suppose your real target aren't those with more than half a brain but those poorly educated conservatives who are desperate for any deflection and defense of their white conservative Christian ideology that does actually resemble the racist white conservative Christian ideology of those former Southern Democrats from 60 years ago.
Hillary was off by half.
No running necessary, your twisted out of context claims are so full of holes they could be used as a pasta colander.
I find it rather amusing that you continue to stick to the semantics of the shared word "Democrat" but are incapable of actually tying any ideological similarity between the two distinctly different parties. It's like watching a none too bright child trying to push a square peg through a round hole over and over and over again. "Why won't this fit?!? Square pegs and round pegs are both 'pegs' so they should fit in the peg hole!".
Stop telling people what to do. You aren't the boss of anyone here
You can beat that same tired, old gong over and over and over, but that still doesn't make it music.
If I were referring to the nomination, I would have said nomination. I said CANDIDATE. Try to keep up.
So that's how you're going to backtrack. Who's whispering in your ear?
She actually got 3 million more votes than trmp. She only lost the electoral vote
You said "the Democrats [sic] candidate", not "a Democratic candidate" or "one of the Democrat's candidates", so you were WRONG. Just admit it. Doubling down on your mistake is very Trump-like.
I know that but your comment suggests that she wasn't as popular as trmp. The votes say different.
So did trump..
This is why I will never argue with you. LOL!
hehehe what did you just do?
Yep, pretty bad.
good fucking grief
haha
She still got more popular votes than trmp. You can't deny that
[Deleted]
She still lost the election according to the ruled in place. You can't deny that.
That is true, though the push back on the comment is in the context as Kathleen said "Wow... everyone thought she must have been worse!" which simply doesn't track with reality. Millions more Americans voted for her over Trump so she was more popular than Trump, our elections simply aren't decided by who is most popular. So her comment would be more correct if she'd said "Wow... a minority of Americans thought she must have been worse!" which kind of deflates her entire premise of Hillary being less popular even with Trump's deplorable pussy grabbing comments.
But it was more than enough who thought she is worse than Trump.
Well there is this from TIME magazine
"Donald Trump Leads Hillary Clinton on Trustworthiness: Poll | Time"
Yep, she lost to a game show host and he lost to Bernie Lomax. Both of them should be proud.
It really is sad when conservatives deflect and dismiss the disgusting vile behavior of their candidate simply to play the "Well who is more trustworthy" contest because they know they can't win on the question about "Who is most vile".
We got off on this tangent when comparing Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment to Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" comment.
But the real debate started with a conservative claiming only a "dozen people" still care about the attack on the capital and Trumps slimy staff who are refusing to cooperate with the investigation. If this were a Democrat President staff doing the same every right wing conservative here would be screaming "What do they have to hide? Their refusal to cooperate is a sign of their guilt!" and you all know it.
Instead ever right wing conservative is attempting to deflect and distract from the dirty violent underbelly of right wing conservatism that was exposed on January 6th and their dear Leaders complicity and intentional incitement of that violence.
What was also touched on is what kind of ideology do those right wing conservative insurrectionists follow? Is it the liberal progressive ideology of diversity and equality and moving this nation forward towards a more perfect union? Or is it the white Southern conservative Christian ideology of fighting to maintain some white conservative Christian control status quo where discrimination against the lgtbq community and minorities and systemic racial injustice is protected and defended, where the voting rights act is dismantled by conservative justices the same way white Southern conservative Christians have done throughout our history regardless of what party affiliation they used at the time.
White Southern conservative Protestant Christian Republicans today seem desperate to obfuscate the fact that they share a very similar ideology as white Southern conservative Protestant Christian Democrats of 60 years ago which is why their go to deflection is to play semantics with the name "Democrat" instead of comparing the shared ideology. But those who attacked the capital on January 6th clearly shared that conservative ideology, waving confederate flags through the halls of congress, defending confederate monuments in Charlottesville and elsewhere, marching side by side with Nazi's and KKK members carrying tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us!", opposing lgtbq rights, opposing lgtbq marriage, opposing equal pay for women, falsely claiming there is no systemic racism in America so that they can simply ignore the blatant racial inequality found in just about every aspect of American society all while claiming their religious freedoms are under attack. Those are the shared values between the white Southern conservative Christian Republicans and white Southern conservative Christian Democrats of 60 years ago which look nothing like the liberal, progressive, diverse modern Democratic party of today that support lgtbq rights, fought for gay marriage, fought for equal pay for women and continue to fight for racial equality and racial equity for minority Americans from housing, jobs, education to easy access to the voting booth so every eligible American can be heard, not just the white conservative Christians that consistently attempt to drown out the voices of minorities.
Your definitions gell completely with the European liberal movement...
This isn't Europe.... and that is where you are going to fail...
She can and will.
I know but I was told to give it up. Not worth continuing to comment to. I don't want any more tickets
Soo... exactly like angry leftists, then.
Which makes rampaging liberal intolerance all the more awkward for them. I'm sure that will somehow eventually be followed by the ultimate rationalization...."we're intolerant of intolerance"...which is hilarious on many levels.
There's nothing to backtrack. [Deleted]
Yes. I said CANDIDATE. Not a damn thing about who they nominated. Try reading my comment again. If you need, get a dictionary out and look up the words you don't understand.
So based on your deleted post, WE shouldn't forget that David Duke endorsed Trump...
Yes YOU said 'the Democrats candidate'.
That's SINGULAR Jeremy.
Then YOU said 'Pay attention to who ALL the candidates were.'
Your comments are contradictory, and I don't need a fucking dictionary to understand that.
As stated elsewhere, you and your semantics and strict definition word games to argue just to argue
Duh. He was only talking about one.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I for one don't give a damn how vile he was. He got things done and done right. We now have a puss administration bowing to China and Russia and fucking up a withdrawal of troops over seas and now wants to spend the shit out of all of us without waking the hell up and listening to the CBO and others about his Build Back Broke fiasco. Did I like that he shit all over himself with some of his behavior? Hell no but I don't like some of the shit my current boss does either but he gets things done and does one hell of a good job at it.
The 'semantics' are not MINE Jim, they are universal and documented in the very dictionary that Jeremy insists be used to interpret and understand his comments.
Here's how that dictionary defines semantics:
Essential Meaning of semantics
'Strict definition' Jim?
Is it your posit that it would be better if we communicate with 'alternative' definitions that are made up as we go along?
That sounds like anarchy Jim...
Then Jeremy insisted that we research who ALL of the candidates were, didn't he Jim? That's called a contradiction. Look it up.
Well gee 1st, since that was your one and only comment in this whole fucking seed, it sure looks like YOU are the one that can't 'discuss the topics'.
Tell you what, start at my first comment in this seed, which BTFW is comment #1.1, from 3 DAYS ago and discuss away. I'll wait.
He didn't get anything done except what benefitted him and the already most wealthy of his benefactors
Where did Dulay, whom you are responding to, state that?
[Further meta will result in points toward suspension]
Someone needs to ask Santa for cheese this XMas. The dog ate the piece that fell off of the cracker.
And you STILL have no clue what I'm referring to. Instead of asking for clarification you and a few others are tripping all over yourselves to prove me wrong and the reality is, you STILL have no idea what I'm talking about. NONE of you ask me for clarification. Not a single one of you.
We know who you're talking about...David Duke. He was one of several candidates that vied for the Democratic nomination in 1988. Well...he tried.
David Puke should take a long walk on a short pier.
Took you long enough to figure it out. See, google IS your friend.
Actually, it was Dismayed Patriot who said it was David Duke. Way up there
I'm sure you saw it
When the fuck did it become OUR duty to eke out meaning from your comments Jeremy?
If you really have something cogent to add, instead of whining about not being asked to clarify yourself, you COULD have just SPIT IT OUT.
I for one am not waiting on pins and needles for you to share your view of enlightenment.
Please don't hold your breath for that to happen G.
But, but, it was so clandestine and profound that we couldn't possibly have garnered the deeper meaning of his comment until now. /s
Except of course we all did DAYS ago...
LOL!
I really hate when people treat me like I'm stupid
I mean...he could have just come right and say that it was David Duke he was talking about.
None of us needed clarification, your lame attempt to try and pin David Duke on Democrats failed the moment it was typed. What's truly hilarious is that while Duke tried and failed to run as a Democrat he ended up getting plenty of support from Republicans. In the same year you mentioned, 1988, he switched parties to Republican and successfully ran for a Louisiana House Seat where he served as a Republican House member till 1992.
Running as a Republican for a US Senate seat in Louisiana he got 43.5% but lost. He then ran as a Republican for Governor of Louisiana where he got 32% after claiming he was the spokesman for the "white majority" and, according to The New York Times, "equated the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany with affirmative action programs in the United States".
He then ran for President again in 1992 as a Republican.
He then ran for US Senate again as a Republican and polled among Republicans at 11.5%.
Then in 1999 after Republican Bob Livingston suddenly retired Duke sought the seat as a Republican and received 19% of the vote.
Duke then briefly left the Republican party in late 1999 and joined the "Reform Party" but immediately left the third party after the election to become a Republican again.
So I can only assume by your original comment and your seeming desire for others to "do actual objective research" you were wanting to expose how the Republican party welcomed the former Grand Wizard in the Ku Klux Klan and elected him to government office and still enjoys his continued support to this day.
But that wouldn't have let him conflate Democrats with the KKK.
If we all held our breaths waiting for that, we would look like big smurfs.
You should try reading my comment again. If you need, and apparently you do, take some lessons in remedial English. Maybe that will aid your reading comprehension.
yeah, good luck with that ...
I could have never predicted that silence would ensue. /s
SO I guess these texts put paid to the notion the riot was preplanned by Trump.
Whoops.
Tomorrow should be full of 'look over there' squirrel seeds on NT and a bashathon of derangement memes by woeful cartoonists, and sigh, I'm out of Scotch-like substances.
LOCK HIM UP!
The Democrats battle cry since before Trump took office. There is no law, no moral, and no Congressional rule or decorum they aren't willing to break to do so.
Flynn isn't a democrat.
Who brought Flynn into this?
Complete and utter disconnect.
This Just In:
Following a report this morning in The Federalist, the January 6 Committee has now admitted that Rep. Adam Schiff displayed a doctored text message between Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows during his presentation on Tuesday:
As The Federalist reported on Wednesday morning, on Jan. 5, 2021, Jordan forwarded to Meadows a three-paragraph legal summary from attorney Joseph Schmitz, summarizing a four-page legal memorandum Schmitz had written regarding congressional certification of the 2020 presidential electoral vote count.
In a statement provided to The Federalist via email, a Democrat spokesman for the Jan. 6 committee confessed that the committee doctored the text message.
“The Select Committee on Monday created and provided Representative Schiff a graphic to use during the business meeting quoting from a text message from ‘a lawmaker’ to Mr. Meadows,” the spokesman wrote. “The graphic read, ‘On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.’”
“In the graphic, the period at the end of that sentence was added inadvertently,” the spokesman admitted. “The Select Committee is responsible for and regrets the error.”
The Jan. 6 committee spokesman did not explain how one could “inadvertently” cut a sentence in half and eliminate the final two paragraphs of a detailed legal summary, nor did he explain why Schiff attributed the content of the text to Jordan, “a lawmaker,” rather than to Schmitz, the attorney who wrote it.
Oh, the horror.
They forged evidence during the Trump impeachment, lied about an officer being killed and now their Jessie Smollett, as Sean Davis said, fabricated a screenshot that didn’t exist, deleted half a sentence, added punctuation where there was none, deleted two paragraphs, and had no clue it wasn’t even written by Jordan.
How they ever have the gall to complain about Trump is beyond me.
Wow Sean, who are this 'they' that you insist on conflating with Jessie Smollett?
Seriously, adult...
[deleted]
It's just name dropping, typical con playbook...try to create linkage between whoever their masters have told them is a bad person.
I not only comprehended the content of your comment, I also comprehended the context Sean.
[removed]
I not only comprehended the content of your comment, I also comprehended the context Sean.
Oh so you were just trolling. Admitting it is the first step.
No but since your STILL failed to answer my question, you are.
It is the same "they" that Trump used to claim but could not give one name.
Seeing that your reply was to yourself, you should be able to taunt yourself without a ticket.
I know many people (including me) that have nothing but contempt for that kangaroo court. There isn't enough time for them to get us all.
"Us all"?
Were you a part of the Jan 6 madness?
No. I just have nothing but contempt for that kangaroo court and I am sure their are many more just like me. That is just like I said. Get it now?
Some of you need to learn the definition of "kangaroo court"
I am not pointing a finger at arkpdx, but I am betting that at least one member here was or has family and friends who were with their full encouragement.
I know what a kangaroo court is and that committee not only fits it exceeds the criteria.
Meadows is trying to exert executive privilege which he does not have along with Trump, Rudy, Bannon, and all of the rest of the seditious traitors. Maybe an extended stay in prison (Rikers not Club Fed) and a few Bubba date nights might change his tune.