The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: eric swalwell
McCarthy Defames Swalwell, But Won't Answer Questions About Santos (VIDEO)

McCarthy Defames Swalwell, But Won't Answer Questions About Santos (VIDEO)

On Sunday's edition of Face the Nation, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) repeatedly deflected questions about assigning members of his Republican conference to congressional committees that spew conspiracy theories and are plagued by scandals.

"These are members who just got elected by their constituents, and we put them into committees, and I'm proud to do it," McCarthy said.

CBS moderator Margaret Brennan asked McCarthy why Congresspersons like Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and George Santos of New York are being placed on powerful panels.

"Let me ask you about some specifics, then. Marjorie Taylor Greene, you put her on a new subcommittee to investigate the origins of COVID. She compared mask requirements to the type of abuse Jews were subjected to during the Holocaust. She called for [Dr. Anthony] Fauci to be arrested and imprisoned, and she's spread conspiracy theories. How is anyone supposed to take that work seriously and find that work credible?" Brennan wondered.

McCarthy offered no substantive response.

"Very well. You look at all of it, so you have all the questions out there. I think what the American public..." he began until Brennan cut him off.

"You think these are legitimate questions?" she exclaimed.

"I think what the American public wants to see is an open dialogue in the process," McCarthy replied. "This is a select committee where people can have all the questions they want, and you'll see the outcome, you know?"

Brennan was unsatisfied with that response.

"But doesn't it further wear down credibility when you put someone who's under state, local, federal, and international investigation as a representative of your party?

"Are you talking about [Rep. Eric] Swalwell [D-CA]?" McCarthy joked.

"I'm talking about George Santos, Representative from New York," Brennan continued.

"Well, we should have that discussion. So let's have that discussion. You want to bring up Santos and let's talk about the institution itself, because I agree wholeheartedly that Congress is broken. And I think you're I think your listeners or viewers should understand what proxy voting was because it never took place in Congress before," McCarthy stated.

"But I'm asking you about George Santos, because you could put it to a vote," Brennan reminded McCarthy.

"I know you asked me a question. Let me ask you – you asked me a question. I'd appreciate it if you let me answer," McCarthy said. "So let's go through this, because it's not one simple answer. Congress is broken based upon what has transpired in the last Congress. The American public wasn't able to come in to see us. People voted by proxy, meaning you didn't have to show up for work. Bills didn't have to go through committee. So what I'm trying to do is open the People's House back for the people, so their voice is there, so people are held accountable. So now, as I just had in the last week, for the first time in seven years, every member got to vote."

Brennan noted that "if you got a third of your caucus to vote to oust him, you could do so. You don't think you could get your Republicans to do that?"

McCarthy pressed forward.

"I wasn't finished answering the question," he asserted. "So if every single new person brought into Congress was elected by their constituents, what their constituents have done has lend their voice to the American public. So those members can all serve on committee. Now, what I'm trying to do is change some of these committees as well. Like the Intel committee is different than any other committee..."

Brennan again checked him.

"You're just not going to answer the question I asked," she said.

McCarthy's tone turned defensive.

"Well, no, you don't get to question whether I answer it. You asked the question I'm trying to get," he snipped.

"I don't think you said the name George Santos, like, once. I asked you a few times," Brennan chuckled, pointing out that McCarthy was "talking about proxy voting and other things."

McCarthy still refused to address Brennan's initial queries.

"No, but no, you started the question with Congress was broken and I agreed with you. But I was answering the question of how Congress is broken and how we're changing it. So if I can finish the question that you asked me, how Congress is broken, I equated every single member. They just got elected by their constituents. They have a right to serve," he declared. "So that means that Santos can serve on a committee the same way Swalwell – who had a relationship with a Chinese spy – but they will not serve on Intel."

When the interview ended due to time, social media users were exasperated with McCarthy's performance.

Mr Poosh: "Literally every response he has is whataboutism."

RKB: "Does anyone seriously believe this person should be speaker?"

Diane L-S: "Brennan allowed SPINO McCarthy to patronize her with his arrogance. Shut that crap down and demand he actually answer the question asked and not disrespect her in his answering. Inform him if he’s going to refuse to answer questions, BS deflect or dis her, the interview is over."

Brooks Hart: "He talks about the constituents who voted for Santos having the right to have their elected official seated on committees. But Santos decieved those voters. He ran on lies."

Jay Arnold: "McCarthy being speaker is a proxy for Congress being broken."

Watch below or at this link.


Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Judge Mehta Handed Trump A Major Defeat On January 6 Lawsuits

Judge Mehta Handed Trump A Major Defeat On January 6 Lawsuits

Former "defeated" President Trump's bigly bad week concluded with US District Judge Amit Mehta flatly rejecting his motion to dismiss three cases regarding his conduct on January 6, 2021, thus allowing the major suits to proceed. And assuming the ruling holds amid a Supreme Court stuffed with Trump goons, it's almost inevitable that Mr. Fifth Amendment will be forced to go under oath during discovery.

The three cases consist of Swalwell v. Trump, in which Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell sued Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Don Jr. and GOP Rep. Mo Brooks; Thompson v. Trump, in which 11 Democratic representatives sued the former president, his lawyer, and both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers; and Blassingame v. Trump, in which two Capitol Police officers are looking to hold Trump accountable for their injuries on January 6. Most important, all the plaintiffs sued under the premise that Trump and the other defendants conspired to violate the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, a Reconstruction Era statute that makes it illegal to impede a government official carrying out his or her official duty. Moreover, impeding the transfer of power to Joe Biden.

Trump has vigorously (and poorly) argued that he was simply exercising his First Amendment right in summoning the mob to DC, in which he instigated their violent reaction with election lie after lie. In order to chip away at this defense, the plaintiffs have alleged trump engaged in illegal incitement. In other words, his speech was “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and that it was “likely to incite or produce such action," which is known as the Brandenberg standard.

According to Judge Mehta, the plaintiffs appear to have satisfied that need.

"The prospect of violence had become so likely that a former aide to the President predicted in a widely publicized statement that “there will be violence on January 6th because the President himself encourages it.” Thus, when the President stepped to the podium on January 6th, it is reasonable to infer that he would have known that some in the audience were prepared for violence," wrote Mehta.

"Yet, the President delivered a speech he understood would only aggravate an already volatile situation. For 75 uninterrupted minutes, he told rally-goers that the election was “rigged” and “stolen,” at one point asserting that “Third World Countries” had more honest elections. He identified who the culprits were of the election fraud: “radical Left Democrats” and “weak” Republicans. They were the ones who had stolen their election victory, he told them. He directed them not to “concede,” and urged them to show “strength” and be “strong.” They would not be able to “take back [their] country with weakness.” He told them that the rules did not apply: “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules.” And they would have an “illegitimate President” if the Vice President did not act, and “we can’t let that happen.” These words stoked an already inflamed crowd, which had heard for months that the election was stolen and that “weak politicians” had failed to help the President."

With the legal ramifications and ruling that Trump and his spawn must respond to questions about the Trump Organization, the possibility of Trump being tried for stealing classified documents, and now a DC judge's ruling rejecting Trump's desire to dismiss lawsuits pertaining to the violent DC insurrection, the walls appear to be closing in on the twice-impeached, one term, con man.

Michael Hayne is a comedian, writer, voice artist, podcaster, and impressionist. Follow his work on Facebook and TikTok

Swalwell Reveals Recording Of Tucker Carlson Fan Threatening His Family

Swalwell Reveals Recording Of Tucker Carlson Fan Threatening His Family

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) recently shed light on the damaging effects of Fox News host Tucker Carlson's rhetoric. The Democratic lawmaker took to Twitter with an audio clip of a Trump supporter attacking him for his remarks praising the U.S. Capitol Police officer who killed Capitol rioter Ashli Babbitt.

Read NowShow less
Mo Brooks

Mo Brooks Files Comically Irrelevant Response To Jan. 6 Lawsuit

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) is being sued by Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA) for his role in allegedly inciting the January 6 insurrection. Brooks infamously evaded being served by going to great lengths, resulting in forcing the process server to hand the papers to his wife at their home.

Brooks on January 6 spoke at Trump's MAGA rally and told the estimated 12,000 attendees, "Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass." But Brooks was also the first member of Congress to announce he would vote to overturn the election. And in December Politico reported Brooks was "spearheading the long-shot push to overturn the election results in Congress," and noted he had organized a "trio of White House meetings, which lasted over three hours and included roughly a dozen lawmakers."

The Alabama Republican Congressman tried to get the Dept. of Justice to defend him, claiming his inciting thousands of loyal Trump cultists was a part of his job as a federal government employee. The DOJ disagreed and refused.

So now he is in court.

Brooks, who is an attorney, is reportedly representing himself.

Here's what he told the judge on Wednesday in his defense, asking to be dismissed from the lawsuit, per Reuters' legal affairs reporter Jan Wolfe.

"Brooks is 67 years old."

"Brooks has never smoked tobacco. Brooks does not consume alcohol. Brooks has never experimented with or taken illegal drugs."

"Brooks has never been arrested or convicted of any felonies or misdemeanors."

"Brooks has never had a DUI, a reckless driving ticket, or even a speeding ticket."

"Brooks has never had a motor vehicle wreck in which anyone claimed Brooks was at fault."

"Brooks has been married 45 years. Brooks has always been faithful to his wife. Together they have raised four children, all of whom are married, none of whom have been divorced, all of whom are law-abiding, none of whom have been arrested for anything, all of whom have college degrees and jobs," it says.

He concludes with one curious claim: "Brooks has a perfect ethics record…despite Democrats…having harassed Brooks with at least 38 ethics complaints."