THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 23, 2021 AT 6:32 PM
Paul Plante says:
In his political essay “A Countryman II” on November 22, 1787, Roger Sherman (April 19, 1721 – July 23, 1793), an early American statesman and lawyer, as well as a Founding Father of the United States who was the only person to have signed all four great state papers of the United States: the Continental Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, openly made mock of Cato, who in his own political essay “Cato V” on November 22, 1787, stated thusly:
It is a very important objection to this government, that the representation consists of so few; too few to resist the influence of corruption, and the temptation to treachery, against which all governments ought to take precautions.
end quotes
In his reply, Roger Sherman first of all is forced to have to admit to the obvious, to wit:
On examining the new proposed constitution, there can not be a question, but that there is authority enough lodged in the proposed federal Congress, if abused, to do the greatest injury.
end quotes
And that is exactly what we are witnessing today in our REPUBLIC, which it is no more, with this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT which has as its purpose to be the slimiest political smear job in this nation’s sorry political history excoriating Republicans as insurrectionists and terrorists right up to the morning of election day 2022 as we clearly see from an article in The Guardian entitled “Capitol attack committee chair vows to investigate Trump: ‘Nothing is off limits’” by Hugo Lowell in Washington on 21 July 2021, as follows:
“Notwithstanding elections next year, we will not stop until our investigation is complete,” Thompson said.
end quotes
In that same article, we are further informed as follows:
“The issues of January 6 are one of the most salient challenges we have as a nation, to make sure that this democracy does not fall prey to people who don’t really identify with democracy,” Thompson said.
end quotes
Democracy is becoming a state religion in this country.
Getting back to Roger Sherman, he got around his telling us that there can not be a question, but that there is authority enough lodged in the proposed federal Congress, if abused, to do the greatest injury, by employing sophistry (the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving), as follows:
If the members of Congress can take no improper step which will not affect them as much as it does us, we need not apprehend that they will usurp authorities not given them to injure that society of which they are a part.
end quotes
Which raises the serious question of is Nancy Pelosi really a part of the same society that we common folks in America are a part of?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-388352
THE JANUARY 6th SELECT COMMITTEE
Re: THE JANUARY 6th SELECT COMMITTEE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 24, 2021 AT 5:19 PM
Paul Plante says:
Think about this, people!
And think seriously, because this is hardly a frivolous question: since they have existed as a political party or faction in American politics, have the Democrats ever told us, we, the real American people who are not Democrat KOOL-AID drinkers, the ones who DEMOCRAT Bennie Thompson, the head of the Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT, wants to make sure democracy does not fall prey to, as people who don’t really identify with the democracy of the Democrats, as if the democracy of the Democrats were now our state religion, the truth about anything?
Did they tell us the truth about Korea?
How about Viet Nam?
And how about lying about an insurrection at the Capitol on 6 January 2021, when there is no credible evidence that an insurrection ever occurred, and credible evidence of an insurrection would only come out after the Department of Justice convened a federal grand jury, and based on evidence presented to it, the grand jury returned an indictment, which to date has not happened.
So back to the question of whether a Democrat would ever tell the truth about anything, with their long and well-known history of deceit, dishonesty and outright political violence as a political party, does anyone who is not a KOOL-AID drinking Democrat seriously believe that the Democrats are even capable of telling the truth, about anything, including the time of day and whether the sun is shining, or not?
Consider a recent Politico article entitled “Pelosi mulls adding more anti-Trump Republicans to Jan. 6 investigation” by Heather Caygle, Olivia Beavers and Nicholas Wu on 22 July 2021, where we had as follows:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is considering adding another anti-Trump House Republican to the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, with Rep. Adam Kinzinger as a leading contender.
end quotes
What Nancy is doing of course, is known in the gutter politics hack politicians like Nancy Pelosi practice as “stacking the deck,” which is “to arrange a situation unfairly against someone, or in your own favour,” as in “The Speaker of the House of Representatives is doing everything in her power to stack the deck in her favour and guarantee her regime’s lock on power," which takes us back to the article, as follows:
“We’ll see,” Pelosi told reporters when asked if she’d appoint more Republicans to serve alongside Cheney.
“It’s not even bipartisan; it’s nonpartisan.”
“It’s about seeking the truth and that’s what we owe the American people.”
end quotes
Seeking the truth?
Nancy Pelosi?
Seriously, people, is there anyone out there who actually believes that BULL****?
Going back to that article, we have this in response to my question above, to wit:
Rep. Jaime Herrera Butler (R-Wash.), who joined Cheney and Kinzinger in voting to impeach Trump in February told reporters that she would not participate.
“Unless this is made up of people who are not members of Congress, the American people cannot trust the results,” she said.
end quotes
And how very true that statement is, given the long history of the Democrats lying to us and feeding us copious amounts of BULL****, because they have nothing else to offer, which takes us to a Yahoo News story entitled “Exclusive: Jan. 6 select committee will include former CIA inspector general found to have retaliated against whistleblower” by Jenna McLaughlin · National Security and Investigations Reporter, on July 23, 2021, where we learned as follows about this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT that is rapidly taking on the characteristics of a STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDING, to wit.
WASHINGTON — As the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot prepares to get underway next week, it will include former CIA Inspector General David Buckley in the role of staff director.
The selection of Buckley to serve in that capacity, however, could come back to haunt the Democrats on the committee who selected him.
Yahoo News has obtained a previously unpublished 2019 report compiled by the Department of Homeland Security’s watchdog office showing that investigators urged the CIA to take action against Buckley for his alleged retaliation against a whistleblower, a conclusion that would likely be troubling to potential witnesses who might testify in the Jan. 6 inquiry.
end quotes
Now, keep in mind that the head of the KANGAROO COURT is Bennie Thompson, who also happens to be the head of the House Homeland Security Committee, so it is hardly credible that Bennie Thompson would be ignorant of this history, which takes us back to that story, as follows:
The authors of the report recommended that “at minimum” the CIA determine “whether [their] findings affect the security clearances” of Buckley and several fellow senior officials — a serious rebuke that would have affected his future government contract work as well as his tenure with the highly sensitive Capitol riot investigation.
The future of Buckley’s security clearance remains uncertain, and it is unclear whether the CIA heeded the report’s recommendations or took any action against him or his former colleagues.
The CIA declined to comment.
Buckley did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The target of Buckley’s retaliation, former CIA IG official Andrew Bakaj, has yet to receive any remedy for a series of adverse actions that affected his career, including being put on administrative leave and having his security clearance suspended after cooperating with an external investigation into potential evidence manipulation at the CIA inspector general’s office.
While intelligence community whistleblowers do not always have substantial protections for disclosing evidence of government fraud, waste, abuse or wrongdoing, several developments including a policy directive issued by President Barack Obama in 2012, referred to as PPD19, were designed to fix that gap.
Bakaj was, in fact, in charge of implementing Obama’s directive at the CIA, making him extremely familiar with the protections afforded under the law.
Bakaj’s superiors became frustrated, however, when he did not inform them he had responded to requests for information from the intelligence community inspector general, who was tasked with independent reviews affecting agencies within the intelligence community.
Bakaj ultimately chose to retire rather than continue to suffer professional consequences, later becoming the lead counsel for the still anonymous whistleblower who raised concerns about then-President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
He waited over five years for the Department of Homeland Security inspector general to conclude an impartial review of his retaliation complaints, which vindicated him, as Yahoo News reported in September 2019.
According to a spokesperson for the Jan. 6 select committee, the subject of the investigation into Buckley’s actions as CIA watchdog did surface during his interviews for the position.
During that questioning, Buckley denied he had retaliated against Bakaj for his “claimed whistleblowing,” despite the fact that an independent government agency substantiated those allegations.
end quotes
Isn’t this simply incredible, people – the dude appears to have been lying through his teeth to the committee that hired him, a totally transparent lie, and still they hired him on, which takes us back to that story, as follows:
But in their report, DHS investigators concluded that Buckley’s decision to launch an investigation into Bakaj’s record in the first place, regardless of what it found, was “tainted” and motivated by retaliation.
The Report of Investigation viewed by Yahoo News was sent to Christine Ruppert, then the acting CIA inspector general, on June 10, 2019.
While a previously published executive summary revealed that CIA IG leadership opened a “retaliatory investigation” into an employee whistleblower, the newly obtained, 36-page report goes into further detail about the conclusions of the investigation and the specific people involved.
The report names Bakaj as the whistleblower who raised the complaints, as well as Buckley as one of the perpetrators.
According to the report’s timeline, Bakaj met with intelligence community inspector general deputy counsel Paul Wogaman in April 2014 to help with an inquiry into the CIA IG’s office.
When his superiors learned of the disclosure they became angry, telling Bakaj that he should have “confirmed that the request was authorized” before speaking to Wogaman, though Bakaj had no responsibility to do so.
In response, the CIA launched a review of his computer searches and other professional activity.
The investigation into Bakaj turned up one instance in which he accessed and copied a sensitive CIA file on his computer.
However, the CIA couldn’t find any evidence that Bakaj had done anything with the files, and he told interviewers the search was benign.
During the investigation, Buckley placed Bakaj on administrative leave.
Ultimately, the CIA concluded the files were not leaked, and the FBI declined to investigate Bakaj’s computer searches.
By then, however, he had retired from the agency.
In 2015, after Bakaj had retired, he filed a complaint of retaliation against the CIA.
The DHS inspector general got involved after determining that the CIA had failed to properly review it.
“Upon reviewing the case file, the DHS-OIG determined that the CIA-OIG did not complete a full local agency review under PPD19,” the investigators wrote.
DHS investigators determined that the evidence revealed in Bakaj’s complaint was protected under the law.
Additionally, the investigators concluded that the CIA OIG’s investigation into his record “was a pretext for gathering evidence to use to retaliate against” him.
In addition, Bakaj’s disclosures were a “contributing factor” that led to his administrative leave and clearance suspension, the investigators continued.
There is “significant evidence” that the CIA OIG “had a motive to retaliate” against Bakaj, wrote the investigators.
Despite the fact that Buckley retired in 2015 to work at the U.S. audit, tax and advisory firm KPMG, the DHS-OIG forwarded the report to the CIA “to determine appropriate corrective action.”
While it’s unclear whether the CIA responded to those recommendations, Christopher Sharpley, Buckley’s former deputy who served as the acting CIA IG in 2018, withdrew his nomination for the full-time IG job after his involvement in retaliating against Bakaj and others was covered by the media.
The Democratic leadership’s decision to hire Buckley despite the DHS’s conclusions has enraged former CIA IG officials familiar with Buckley’s tenure as well as experts on whistleblower protections who, as a result, are casting doubt on the legitimacy of the select committee’s investigation.
Dan Meyer, who previously led the whistleblowing and source protection program at the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General, told Yahoo News he was unable to comment on the specific case, due to a nondisclosure agreement.
However, Meyer, currently a managing partner at the law firm Tully Rinckey, wrote in an email that “reprising [creates] a corrupting management culture,” a pattern of behavior that “will give congressional sources pause.”
“The IC whistleblowing program, from 2013 to 2018, received a number of allegations, some substantiated, that inspectors general themselves were engaging in retaliation against their own intelligence officers charged by President Obama and Director [James] Clapper with, ironically, protecting whistleblowers,” Meyer, speaking in his personal capacity, continued.
“It was an unanticipated challenge, and one that ultimately ended the program.”
“No whistleblower is likely to trust someone with a record of opening a retaliatory investigation,” wrote Jason Foster, the former chief investigative counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The chaos and partisanship infecting the process undermines the committee’s credibility, which has developed into a full-blown dumpster fire at this point.”
One former CIA IG employee told Yahoo News that he “came out of his seat” when he heard Buckley had been selected for the Jan. 6 select committee.
“There’s an objective, impartial government agency that substantiated the allegations against him … and now he’s going to be the chief of staff to a high-visibility committee [that is] going to have whistleblowers providing testimony before the committee,” he said.
“This makes absolutely no sense.”
“It taints the entire process.”
Irvin McCullough, deputy director of legislation at the whistleblower protection nonprofit the Government Accountability Project, agreed.
“The free flow of information through whistleblower testimony is the lifeblood of any congressional investigation,” McCullough wrote in an email to Yahoo News.
“How can whistleblowers safely step forward to the Select Committee when a federal watchdog found its staff director reprised against a whistleblower?”
end quotes
So, people, ask yourselves this question: WHAT POLITICAL PURPOSE OF NANCY PELOSI’S IS THIS KANGAROO COURT OF HERS INTENDED TO SERVE?
And who will it benefit?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-388978
Paul Plante says:
Think about this, people!
And think seriously, because this is hardly a frivolous question: since they have existed as a political party or faction in American politics, have the Democrats ever told us, we, the real American people who are not Democrat KOOL-AID drinkers, the ones who DEMOCRAT Bennie Thompson, the head of the Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT, wants to make sure democracy does not fall prey to, as people who don’t really identify with the democracy of the Democrats, as if the democracy of the Democrats were now our state religion, the truth about anything?
Did they tell us the truth about Korea?
How about Viet Nam?
And how about lying about an insurrection at the Capitol on 6 January 2021, when there is no credible evidence that an insurrection ever occurred, and credible evidence of an insurrection would only come out after the Department of Justice convened a federal grand jury, and based on evidence presented to it, the grand jury returned an indictment, which to date has not happened.
So back to the question of whether a Democrat would ever tell the truth about anything, with their long and well-known history of deceit, dishonesty and outright political violence as a political party, does anyone who is not a KOOL-AID drinking Democrat seriously believe that the Democrats are even capable of telling the truth, about anything, including the time of day and whether the sun is shining, or not?
Consider a recent Politico article entitled “Pelosi mulls adding more anti-Trump Republicans to Jan. 6 investigation” by Heather Caygle, Olivia Beavers and Nicholas Wu on 22 July 2021, where we had as follows:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is considering adding another anti-Trump House Republican to the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, with Rep. Adam Kinzinger as a leading contender.
end quotes
What Nancy is doing of course, is known in the gutter politics hack politicians like Nancy Pelosi practice as “stacking the deck,” which is “to arrange a situation unfairly against someone, or in your own favour,” as in “The Speaker of the House of Representatives is doing everything in her power to stack the deck in her favour and guarantee her regime’s lock on power," which takes us back to the article, as follows:
“We’ll see,” Pelosi told reporters when asked if she’d appoint more Republicans to serve alongside Cheney.
“It’s not even bipartisan; it’s nonpartisan.”
“It’s about seeking the truth and that’s what we owe the American people.”
end quotes
Seeking the truth?
Nancy Pelosi?
Seriously, people, is there anyone out there who actually believes that BULL****?
Going back to that article, we have this in response to my question above, to wit:
Rep. Jaime Herrera Butler (R-Wash.), who joined Cheney and Kinzinger in voting to impeach Trump in February told reporters that she would not participate.
“Unless this is made up of people who are not members of Congress, the American people cannot trust the results,” she said.
end quotes
And how very true that statement is, given the long history of the Democrats lying to us and feeding us copious amounts of BULL****, because they have nothing else to offer, which takes us to a Yahoo News story entitled “Exclusive: Jan. 6 select committee will include former CIA inspector general found to have retaliated against whistleblower” by Jenna McLaughlin · National Security and Investigations Reporter, on July 23, 2021, where we learned as follows about this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT that is rapidly taking on the characteristics of a STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDING, to wit.
WASHINGTON — As the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot prepares to get underway next week, it will include former CIA Inspector General David Buckley in the role of staff director.
The selection of Buckley to serve in that capacity, however, could come back to haunt the Democrats on the committee who selected him.
Yahoo News has obtained a previously unpublished 2019 report compiled by the Department of Homeland Security’s watchdog office showing that investigators urged the CIA to take action against Buckley for his alleged retaliation against a whistleblower, a conclusion that would likely be troubling to potential witnesses who might testify in the Jan. 6 inquiry.
end quotes
Now, keep in mind that the head of the KANGAROO COURT is Bennie Thompson, who also happens to be the head of the House Homeland Security Committee, so it is hardly credible that Bennie Thompson would be ignorant of this history, which takes us back to that story, as follows:
The authors of the report recommended that “at minimum” the CIA determine “whether [their] findings affect the security clearances” of Buckley and several fellow senior officials — a serious rebuke that would have affected his future government contract work as well as his tenure with the highly sensitive Capitol riot investigation.
The future of Buckley’s security clearance remains uncertain, and it is unclear whether the CIA heeded the report’s recommendations or took any action against him or his former colleagues.
The CIA declined to comment.
Buckley did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The target of Buckley’s retaliation, former CIA IG official Andrew Bakaj, has yet to receive any remedy for a series of adverse actions that affected his career, including being put on administrative leave and having his security clearance suspended after cooperating with an external investigation into potential evidence manipulation at the CIA inspector general’s office.
While intelligence community whistleblowers do not always have substantial protections for disclosing evidence of government fraud, waste, abuse or wrongdoing, several developments including a policy directive issued by President Barack Obama in 2012, referred to as PPD19, were designed to fix that gap.
Bakaj was, in fact, in charge of implementing Obama’s directive at the CIA, making him extremely familiar with the protections afforded under the law.
Bakaj’s superiors became frustrated, however, when he did not inform them he had responded to requests for information from the intelligence community inspector general, who was tasked with independent reviews affecting agencies within the intelligence community.
Bakaj ultimately chose to retire rather than continue to suffer professional consequences, later becoming the lead counsel for the still anonymous whistleblower who raised concerns about then-President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.
He waited over five years for the Department of Homeland Security inspector general to conclude an impartial review of his retaliation complaints, which vindicated him, as Yahoo News reported in September 2019.
According to a spokesperson for the Jan. 6 select committee, the subject of the investigation into Buckley’s actions as CIA watchdog did surface during his interviews for the position.
During that questioning, Buckley denied he had retaliated against Bakaj for his “claimed whistleblowing,” despite the fact that an independent government agency substantiated those allegations.
end quotes
Isn’t this simply incredible, people – the dude appears to have been lying through his teeth to the committee that hired him, a totally transparent lie, and still they hired him on, which takes us back to that story, as follows:
But in their report, DHS investigators concluded that Buckley’s decision to launch an investigation into Bakaj’s record in the first place, regardless of what it found, was “tainted” and motivated by retaliation.
The Report of Investigation viewed by Yahoo News was sent to Christine Ruppert, then the acting CIA inspector general, on June 10, 2019.
While a previously published executive summary revealed that CIA IG leadership opened a “retaliatory investigation” into an employee whistleblower, the newly obtained, 36-page report goes into further detail about the conclusions of the investigation and the specific people involved.
The report names Bakaj as the whistleblower who raised the complaints, as well as Buckley as one of the perpetrators.
According to the report’s timeline, Bakaj met with intelligence community inspector general deputy counsel Paul Wogaman in April 2014 to help with an inquiry into the CIA IG’s office.
When his superiors learned of the disclosure they became angry, telling Bakaj that he should have “confirmed that the request was authorized” before speaking to Wogaman, though Bakaj had no responsibility to do so.
In response, the CIA launched a review of his computer searches and other professional activity.
The investigation into Bakaj turned up one instance in which he accessed and copied a sensitive CIA file on his computer.
However, the CIA couldn’t find any evidence that Bakaj had done anything with the files, and he told interviewers the search was benign.
During the investigation, Buckley placed Bakaj on administrative leave.
Ultimately, the CIA concluded the files were not leaked, and the FBI declined to investigate Bakaj’s computer searches.
By then, however, he had retired from the agency.
In 2015, after Bakaj had retired, he filed a complaint of retaliation against the CIA.
The DHS inspector general got involved after determining that the CIA had failed to properly review it.
“Upon reviewing the case file, the DHS-OIG determined that the CIA-OIG did not complete a full local agency review under PPD19,” the investigators wrote.
DHS investigators determined that the evidence revealed in Bakaj’s complaint was protected under the law.
Additionally, the investigators concluded that the CIA OIG’s investigation into his record “was a pretext for gathering evidence to use to retaliate against” him.
In addition, Bakaj’s disclosures were a “contributing factor” that led to his administrative leave and clearance suspension, the investigators continued.
There is “significant evidence” that the CIA OIG “had a motive to retaliate” against Bakaj, wrote the investigators.
Despite the fact that Buckley retired in 2015 to work at the U.S. audit, tax and advisory firm KPMG, the DHS-OIG forwarded the report to the CIA “to determine appropriate corrective action.”
While it’s unclear whether the CIA responded to those recommendations, Christopher Sharpley, Buckley’s former deputy who served as the acting CIA IG in 2018, withdrew his nomination for the full-time IG job after his involvement in retaliating against Bakaj and others was covered by the media.
The Democratic leadership’s decision to hire Buckley despite the DHS’s conclusions has enraged former CIA IG officials familiar with Buckley’s tenure as well as experts on whistleblower protections who, as a result, are casting doubt on the legitimacy of the select committee’s investigation.
Dan Meyer, who previously led the whistleblowing and source protection program at the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General, told Yahoo News he was unable to comment on the specific case, due to a nondisclosure agreement.
However, Meyer, currently a managing partner at the law firm Tully Rinckey, wrote in an email that “reprising [creates] a corrupting management culture,” a pattern of behavior that “will give congressional sources pause.”
“The IC whistleblowing program, from 2013 to 2018, received a number of allegations, some substantiated, that inspectors general themselves were engaging in retaliation against their own intelligence officers charged by President Obama and Director [James] Clapper with, ironically, protecting whistleblowers,” Meyer, speaking in his personal capacity, continued.
“It was an unanticipated challenge, and one that ultimately ended the program.”
“No whistleblower is likely to trust someone with a record of opening a retaliatory investigation,” wrote Jason Foster, the former chief investigative counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The chaos and partisanship infecting the process undermines the committee’s credibility, which has developed into a full-blown dumpster fire at this point.”
One former CIA IG employee told Yahoo News that he “came out of his seat” when he heard Buckley had been selected for the Jan. 6 select committee.
“There’s an objective, impartial government agency that substantiated the allegations against him … and now he’s going to be the chief of staff to a high-visibility committee [that is] going to have whistleblowers providing testimony before the committee,” he said.
“This makes absolutely no sense.”
“It taints the entire process.”
Irvin McCullough, deputy director of legislation at the whistleblower protection nonprofit the Government Accountability Project, agreed.
“The free flow of information through whistleblower testimony is the lifeblood of any congressional investigation,” McCullough wrote in an email to Yahoo News.
“How can whistleblowers safely step forward to the Select Committee when a federal watchdog found its staff director reprised against a whistleblower?”
end quotes
So, people, ask yourselves this question: WHAT POLITICAL PURPOSE OF NANCY PELOSI’S IS THIS KANGAROO COURT OF HERS INTENDED TO SERVE?
And who will it benefit?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-388978
Re: THE JANUARY 6th SELECT COMMITTEE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 26, 2021 AT 6:28 PM
Paul Plante says:
As the longtime chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Thompson is accustomed to dealing with grave matters of national security.
But his stewardship of the Jan. 6 panel will be a test unlike any other, as he tries to untangle the events of a violent insurrection that many House Republicans increasingly play down and deny.
“We have to get it right,” Thompson said.
If the committee can find ways to prevent anything like it from happening again, “then I would have made what I think is the most valuable contribution to this great democracy.”
end quotes
That, people, is the latest news to come out in an Associated Press story entitled “‘We have to get it right,’ Dem vows as Jan. 6 probe begins” by Mary Clare Jalonick on 26 July 2021 concerning this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT headed up by Homeland Security Committee Head Honcho and Big Dog Democrat Bennie Thompson, who has already picked his conclusion, that despite no evidence to support the premise, there was a “violent insurrection” on 6 January 2021 that was incited by Trump which is an absurd assertion since if Trump actually did incite a real insurrection, which this was not, he would have been attempting to overthrow his own administration, given that an “insurrection” is defined as “a violent uprising against an authority or government,” and then Bennie, using the art of casuistry (the use of clever but unsound reasoning) is going to link the alleged “insurrection” to domestic extremism and its links to white supremacy, which are familiar subjects for Thompson not only from his time on the Homeland Security Committee but also from his early involvement in the civil rights movement in Mississippi, as we see by returning to that AP article, to wit:
A frequent critic of Trump, Thompson joined other Democrats in filing a lawsuit against the former president after the insurrection, charging that he incited the attack and conspired to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s victory.
Last week, Thompson withdrew his participation in that lawsuit, which he joined soon after the Senate acquitted Trump, at his second impeachment trial, of inciting the insurrection.
Thompson’s withdrawal petition said he “wishes to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest between his role on the Select Committee and his role as a Plaintiff in this litigation.”
The lawsuit, which is still active, names as defendants Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, and the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.
The Justice Department has filed charges against members of those groups in connection to the attack, and the panel is expected to investigate them as part of its probe.
end quotes
And that’s how you do it, people, if you are a DEMOCRAT seeking to influence and undermine the 2022 congressional elections and tilt them in your favor – pick your conclusion, and then keep hammering home the conclusion while carefully arranging the “evidence” to support the conclusion, no matter how unsound the conclusion really is, because people, it is not about truth, it is not about facts – it is about PROPAGANDA, and good propaganda is based on an appeal to the emotions, not the rational mind.
And talk about HYPOCRISY, people, returning to the AP article, we have this:
Still, Thompson has taken sharply partisan stances.
He joined with about 30 Democrats in a 2005 vote to invalidate President George W. Bush’s victory — not unlike the dozens of Republicans who voted to invalidate Biden’s in January.
In that challenge, the dissenting Democrats claimed irregularities if not fraud in Ohio’s vote.
end quotes
Sauce for the goose versus sauce for the gander?
Looks like it to me, anyway.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-390136
Paul Plante says:
As the longtime chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Thompson is accustomed to dealing with grave matters of national security.
But his stewardship of the Jan. 6 panel will be a test unlike any other, as he tries to untangle the events of a violent insurrection that many House Republicans increasingly play down and deny.
“We have to get it right,” Thompson said.
If the committee can find ways to prevent anything like it from happening again, “then I would have made what I think is the most valuable contribution to this great democracy.”
end quotes
That, people, is the latest news to come out in an Associated Press story entitled “‘We have to get it right,’ Dem vows as Jan. 6 probe begins” by Mary Clare Jalonick on 26 July 2021 concerning this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT headed up by Homeland Security Committee Head Honcho and Big Dog Democrat Bennie Thompson, who has already picked his conclusion, that despite no evidence to support the premise, there was a “violent insurrection” on 6 January 2021 that was incited by Trump which is an absurd assertion since if Trump actually did incite a real insurrection, which this was not, he would have been attempting to overthrow his own administration, given that an “insurrection” is defined as “a violent uprising against an authority or government,” and then Bennie, using the art of casuistry (the use of clever but unsound reasoning) is going to link the alleged “insurrection” to domestic extremism and its links to white supremacy, which are familiar subjects for Thompson not only from his time on the Homeland Security Committee but also from his early involvement in the civil rights movement in Mississippi, as we see by returning to that AP article, to wit:
A frequent critic of Trump, Thompson joined other Democrats in filing a lawsuit against the former president after the insurrection, charging that he incited the attack and conspired to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s victory.
Last week, Thompson withdrew his participation in that lawsuit, which he joined soon after the Senate acquitted Trump, at his second impeachment trial, of inciting the insurrection.
Thompson’s withdrawal petition said he “wishes to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest between his role on the Select Committee and his role as a Plaintiff in this litigation.”
The lawsuit, which is still active, names as defendants Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, and the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.
The Justice Department has filed charges against members of those groups in connection to the attack, and the panel is expected to investigate them as part of its probe.
end quotes
And that’s how you do it, people, if you are a DEMOCRAT seeking to influence and undermine the 2022 congressional elections and tilt them in your favor – pick your conclusion, and then keep hammering home the conclusion while carefully arranging the “evidence” to support the conclusion, no matter how unsound the conclusion really is, because people, it is not about truth, it is not about facts – it is about PROPAGANDA, and good propaganda is based on an appeal to the emotions, not the rational mind.
And talk about HYPOCRISY, people, returning to the AP article, we have this:
Still, Thompson has taken sharply partisan stances.
He joined with about 30 Democrats in a 2005 vote to invalidate President George W. Bush’s victory — not unlike the dozens of Republicans who voted to invalidate Biden’s in January.
In that challenge, the dissenting Democrats claimed irregularities if not fraud in Ohio’s vote.
end quotes
Sauce for the goose versus sauce for the gander?
Looks like it to me, anyway.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-390136
Re: THE JANUARY 6th SELECT COMMITTEE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 27, 2021 AT 6:58 PM
Paul Plante says:
Today, people, is the day that RULE OF LAW in the United States of America goes the rest of the way out the window and into the trashbin of history to be replaced by RULE OF NANCY AND BENNIE as this highly partisan Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT/STRUGGLE SESSION (a form of public humiliation and torture used by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at various times in the Mao era, particularly during the years immediately before and after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and during the Cultural Revolution, the aim of which was to shape public opinion, as well as to humiliate, persecute, or execute political rivals and those deemed class enemies) headed up by the highly biased and prejudiced Democrat Bennie Thompson who is out for some revenge here, payback time for those he deems to be “white supremacists,” a broad brush label he can apply to literally anyone in America he takes a disliking to, and so has already formed his conclusions and now is going to use these carefully scripted and orchestrated “hearings” such as the one this morning where Bennie and Nancy had well-coached witness Capitol Police officer Aquilino Gonell come in and give some real tearjerker testimony to the effect that he and fellow officers were beaten repeatedly and that he thought he would die, which is a very necessary element to this drama, and a real good one to start off with, the goal here being to use the compliant media to the fullest to build disgust, hatred and revulsion (a sense of loathing) for Trump and the Republicans in order to influence the 2022 congressional elections in the favor of the Democrats, with officer Gonell, who I heard being interviewed this morning on NPR about his then-upcoming testimony, adding more drama and a Vietnam-wartime feel to it with him being faced by a literal human wave assault like the Viet Cong favored, telling the world which sits on the edge of its seat in suspense, “We fought hand to hand, inch by inch,” and then, the cover-up by the Republicans, with Mr. Gonell telling us and the candid world this morning before Bennie Thompson, who had him there as a witness for that very purpose, that he is troubled by any effort to play down the severity of the attack, saying “(T)here is a continuous and shocking attempt to ignore or try to destroy the truth of what truly happened that day, and to whitewash the facts,” which is total bull****, because it was on TV, and now it is all over YouTube, which makes it pretty hard to ignore, and a contrived statement as well, a “lawyer” statement calling for officer Gonell to state an opinion he cannot support with facts, because officer Gonell himself has not a clue as to what what truly happened that day, experiencing as does anyone in combat, and yes, I have been there, only the small scene that was happening around him, and since he was fighting hand to hand for his very life, that was all he observed that day, along with being beaten, and so he cannot say the truth is being destroyed, BECAUSE TRUTH, BEING TRUTH, CANNOT BE DESTROYED, to assemble the narrative that will support Bennie’s pre-arranged conclusion as he kicks off his initial hearing with a bunch of emotionally-tinged and laden testimony from Capitol police officers, and as this toxic torrent of DEMOCRAT HORSE**** continues unabated here, people, as the DEMOCRATS begin their efforts to influence the 2022 congressional elections in their favor with this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT/STRUGGLE SESSION, by way of essential background, let us go back to an article in The Guardian entitled “Capitol attack committee chair vows to investigate Trump: ‘Nothing is off limits’” by Hugo Lowell in Washington on 21 July 2021, where we have the following background, to wit:
In an interview with the Guardian, Thompson said that he is also prepared to depose members of Congress and senior Trump administration officials who might have participated in the insurrection that left five dead and nearly 140 injured.
“Absolutely,” Thompson said of his intent to pursue a wide-ranging inquiry against the former president and some of his most prominent allies on Capitol Hill.
“Nothing is off limits.”
Thompson indicated that Trump and the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, are among the top witnesses for his investigation, in large part because McCarthy was on the phone with the former president as the riot unfolded.
But Thompson went further, and said that he expects anyone – whether a sitting member of Congress or former White House official – who may have spoken to Trump on 6 January to become the subject of the select committee’s investigation.
He also warned Republicans against attempting to stymie the committee’s investigation, saying that it had no deadline to furnish a report and as a result, would be immune to delay tactics previously deployed during the first Trump impeachment inquiry.
“Notwithstanding elections next year, we will not stop until our investigation is complete,” Thompson said.
“If the respect for the rule of law is not adhered to, that’s even more reason for this select committee to exist.”
end quotes
Nothing is off-limits?
If the respect for the rule of law is not adhered to, that’s even more reason for this select committee to exist?
HUH?
That’s horse****, because it is the select committee itself that is throwing “RULE OF LAW” right out the window, as previously stated.
For example, the Speech or Debate Clause (Clause) of the U.S. Constitution which clearly states that “[F]or any Speech or Debate in either House,” Members of Congress (Members) “shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
According to a legal analysis of the clause done for the House of Representatives by the Congressional Research Service in a publication titled “Understanding the Speech or Debate Clause” by Todd Garvey, Legislative Attorney on December 1, 2017, a time when Bennie Thompson was a member of congress, and so, would not be entitled to the flimsy excuse of ignorance of our fundamental law, we have as follows:
The Clause serves various purposes: principally to protect the independence and integrity of the legislative branch by protecting against executive or judicial intrusions into the protected legislative sphere, but also to bar judicial or executive processes that may constitute a “distraction” or “disruption” to a Member’s representative or legislative role.
This immunity principle protects Members from “intimidation by the executive” or a “hostile judiciary” by prohibiting both the executive and judicial powers from being used to improperly influence or harass legislators.
end quotes
But what about when it is partisan rogues like Bennie Thompson who are using powers granted to themselves by themselves to do the harassing, which this is very clearly a case, and to improperly influence other members of the house?
And what about protecting the independence and integrity of the legislative branch?
How does hauling Republican members of congress before Bennie Thompson’s COMMITTEE OF INQUISITION serve to protect the independence and integrity of the legislative branch given that in the same Guardian article, we have from Bennie, as follows:
Thompson indicated that Trump and the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, are among the top witnesses for his investigation, in large part because McCarthy was on the phone with the former president as the riot unfolded.
McCarthy called Trump in a panic as rioters breached the Capitol and begged him to call off his supporters, only for Trump to chastise the top Republican in the House for not doing more to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
“There will not be a reluctance on the part of the committee to pursue it,” Thompson said of McCarthy’s call.
“The committee will want to know if there is a record of what was said.”
end quotes
And WHOA, put on the brakes there, people!
How does anyone including Bennie Thompson know what was said between House minority leader Kevin McCarthy and Trump on January 6, 2021 if they don’t have a record confirming they even had a conversation?
And where does Bennie Thompson get the authority to treat House minority leader Kevin McCarthy as if he were a potential criminal without affording him due process in the house itself to face Bennie’s charges, given that the House of Representatives is expressly authorized within the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 5, clause 2) to discipline or “punish” its own Members for “disorderly Behaviour” in addition to any criminal or civil liability that a Member of the House may incur for particular misconduct, which is used not merely to punish an individual Member, but to protect the institutional integrity of the House of Representatives, its proceedings, and its reputation?
How does dragging House minority leader Kevin McCarthy through the mud and slime of these politically charged and biased “hearings” do anything for the reputation of the House of Representatives other than to make them look as what they are, vindictive small people who are fools!
As to discipline of a member of congress, it is not meted out by Bennie Thompson.
To the contrary, sanctions are imposed by the full House of Representatives, while the standing committee in the House which deals with ethics and official conduct matters, the House Committee on Ethics — formerly called the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct — is authorized by House Rules to issue a formal “Letter of Reproval” for misconduct which does not rise to the level of consideration or sanction by the entire House of Representatives.
So why isn’t the Constitution being scrupulously followed here?
Oh, right, that would not serve Nancy Pelosi’s purpose!
But continue to stay tuned, for the action is about to get fast and furious here as the Bennie Train leaves the station under a full head of steam down a steep incline with no brakes!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-390866
Paul Plante says:
Today, people, is the day that RULE OF LAW in the United States of America goes the rest of the way out the window and into the trashbin of history to be replaced by RULE OF NANCY AND BENNIE as this highly partisan Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT/STRUGGLE SESSION (a form of public humiliation and torture used by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at various times in the Mao era, particularly during the years immediately before and after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and during the Cultural Revolution, the aim of which was to shape public opinion, as well as to humiliate, persecute, or execute political rivals and those deemed class enemies) headed up by the highly biased and prejudiced Democrat Bennie Thompson who is out for some revenge here, payback time for those he deems to be “white supremacists,” a broad brush label he can apply to literally anyone in America he takes a disliking to, and so has already formed his conclusions and now is going to use these carefully scripted and orchestrated “hearings” such as the one this morning where Bennie and Nancy had well-coached witness Capitol Police officer Aquilino Gonell come in and give some real tearjerker testimony to the effect that he and fellow officers were beaten repeatedly and that he thought he would die, which is a very necessary element to this drama, and a real good one to start off with, the goal here being to use the compliant media to the fullest to build disgust, hatred and revulsion (a sense of loathing) for Trump and the Republicans in order to influence the 2022 congressional elections in the favor of the Democrats, with officer Gonell, who I heard being interviewed this morning on NPR about his then-upcoming testimony, adding more drama and a Vietnam-wartime feel to it with him being faced by a literal human wave assault like the Viet Cong favored, telling the world which sits on the edge of its seat in suspense, “We fought hand to hand, inch by inch,” and then, the cover-up by the Republicans, with Mr. Gonell telling us and the candid world this morning before Bennie Thompson, who had him there as a witness for that very purpose, that he is troubled by any effort to play down the severity of the attack, saying “(T)here is a continuous and shocking attempt to ignore or try to destroy the truth of what truly happened that day, and to whitewash the facts,” which is total bull****, because it was on TV, and now it is all over YouTube, which makes it pretty hard to ignore, and a contrived statement as well, a “lawyer” statement calling for officer Gonell to state an opinion he cannot support with facts, because officer Gonell himself has not a clue as to what what truly happened that day, experiencing as does anyone in combat, and yes, I have been there, only the small scene that was happening around him, and since he was fighting hand to hand for his very life, that was all he observed that day, along with being beaten, and so he cannot say the truth is being destroyed, BECAUSE TRUTH, BEING TRUTH, CANNOT BE DESTROYED, to assemble the narrative that will support Bennie’s pre-arranged conclusion as he kicks off his initial hearing with a bunch of emotionally-tinged and laden testimony from Capitol police officers, and as this toxic torrent of DEMOCRAT HORSE**** continues unabated here, people, as the DEMOCRATS begin their efforts to influence the 2022 congressional elections in their favor with this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT/STRUGGLE SESSION, by way of essential background, let us go back to an article in The Guardian entitled “Capitol attack committee chair vows to investigate Trump: ‘Nothing is off limits’” by Hugo Lowell in Washington on 21 July 2021, where we have the following background, to wit:
In an interview with the Guardian, Thompson said that he is also prepared to depose members of Congress and senior Trump administration officials who might have participated in the insurrection that left five dead and nearly 140 injured.
“Absolutely,” Thompson said of his intent to pursue a wide-ranging inquiry against the former president and some of his most prominent allies on Capitol Hill.
“Nothing is off limits.”
Thompson indicated that Trump and the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, are among the top witnesses for his investigation, in large part because McCarthy was on the phone with the former president as the riot unfolded.
But Thompson went further, and said that he expects anyone – whether a sitting member of Congress or former White House official – who may have spoken to Trump on 6 January to become the subject of the select committee’s investigation.
He also warned Republicans against attempting to stymie the committee’s investigation, saying that it had no deadline to furnish a report and as a result, would be immune to delay tactics previously deployed during the first Trump impeachment inquiry.
“Notwithstanding elections next year, we will not stop until our investigation is complete,” Thompson said.
“If the respect for the rule of law is not adhered to, that’s even more reason for this select committee to exist.”
end quotes
Nothing is off-limits?
If the respect for the rule of law is not adhered to, that’s even more reason for this select committee to exist?
HUH?
That’s horse****, because it is the select committee itself that is throwing “RULE OF LAW” right out the window, as previously stated.
For example, the Speech or Debate Clause (Clause) of the U.S. Constitution which clearly states that “[F]or any Speech or Debate in either House,” Members of Congress (Members) “shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
According to a legal analysis of the clause done for the House of Representatives by the Congressional Research Service in a publication titled “Understanding the Speech or Debate Clause” by Todd Garvey, Legislative Attorney on December 1, 2017, a time when Bennie Thompson was a member of congress, and so, would not be entitled to the flimsy excuse of ignorance of our fundamental law, we have as follows:
The Clause serves various purposes: principally to protect the independence and integrity of the legislative branch by protecting against executive or judicial intrusions into the protected legislative sphere, but also to bar judicial or executive processes that may constitute a “distraction” or “disruption” to a Member’s representative or legislative role.
This immunity principle protects Members from “intimidation by the executive” or a “hostile judiciary” by prohibiting both the executive and judicial powers from being used to improperly influence or harass legislators.
end quotes
But what about when it is partisan rogues like Bennie Thompson who are using powers granted to themselves by themselves to do the harassing, which this is very clearly a case, and to improperly influence other members of the house?
And what about protecting the independence and integrity of the legislative branch?
How does hauling Republican members of congress before Bennie Thompson’s COMMITTEE OF INQUISITION serve to protect the independence and integrity of the legislative branch given that in the same Guardian article, we have from Bennie, as follows:
Thompson indicated that Trump and the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, are among the top witnesses for his investigation, in large part because McCarthy was on the phone with the former president as the riot unfolded.
McCarthy called Trump in a panic as rioters breached the Capitol and begged him to call off his supporters, only for Trump to chastise the top Republican in the House for not doing more to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
“There will not be a reluctance on the part of the committee to pursue it,” Thompson said of McCarthy’s call.
“The committee will want to know if there is a record of what was said.”
end quotes
And WHOA, put on the brakes there, people!
How does anyone including Bennie Thompson know what was said between House minority leader Kevin McCarthy and Trump on January 6, 2021 if they don’t have a record confirming they even had a conversation?
And where does Bennie Thompson get the authority to treat House minority leader Kevin McCarthy as if he were a potential criminal without affording him due process in the house itself to face Bennie’s charges, given that the House of Representatives is expressly authorized within the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 5, clause 2) to discipline or “punish” its own Members for “disorderly Behaviour” in addition to any criminal or civil liability that a Member of the House may incur for particular misconduct, which is used not merely to punish an individual Member, but to protect the institutional integrity of the House of Representatives, its proceedings, and its reputation?
How does dragging House minority leader Kevin McCarthy through the mud and slime of these politically charged and biased “hearings” do anything for the reputation of the House of Representatives other than to make them look as what they are, vindictive small people who are fools!
As to discipline of a member of congress, it is not meted out by Bennie Thompson.
To the contrary, sanctions are imposed by the full House of Representatives, while the standing committee in the House which deals with ethics and official conduct matters, the House Committee on Ethics — formerly called the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct — is authorized by House Rules to issue a formal “Letter of Reproval” for misconduct which does not rise to the level of consideration or sanction by the entire House of Representatives.
So why isn’t the Constitution being scrupulously followed here?
Oh, right, that would not serve Nancy Pelosi’s purpose!
But continue to stay tuned, for the action is about to get fast and furious here as the Bennie Train leaves the station under a full head of steam down a steep incline with no brakes!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-390866
Re: THE JANUARY 6th SELECT COMMITTEE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 28, 2021 AT 5:52 PM
Paul Plante says:
And before we go further, to more than amply demonstrate the total bull**** nature of this hand-picked Pelosi-ite COMMITTEE OF INQUISTION, all we need do is go back to the article in The Guardian entitled “Capitol attack committee chair vows to investigate Trump: ‘Nothing is off limits’” by Hugo Lowell in Washington on 21 July 2021, where we have this following bit of absurdity from Democrat Bennie Thompson, the GRAND INQUISITOR, as follows:
Thompson indicated that Trump and the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, are among the top witnesses for his investigation, in large part because McCarthy was on the phone with the former president as the riot unfolded.
McCarthy called Trump in a panic as rioters breached the Capitol and begged him to call off his supporters, only for Trump to chastise the top Republican in the House for not doing more to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
“There will not be a reluctance on the part of the committee to pursue it,” Thompson said of McCarthy’s call.
“The committee will want to know if there is a record of what was said.”
end quotes
So, people, is everyone following this logic we are being given to follow by Democrat Bennie Thompson?
According to Bennie’s theory of reality that we are all supposed to blindly buy into, as if everyone in this nation was a moronic idiot, just because those who follow Bennie Thompson are, on 6 January 2021, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy is alleged by Bennie to have called Trump in a panic as rioters breached the Capitol, begging him to call off his supporters, only for Trump to chastise the top Republican in the House for not doing more to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
But seriously, people, what kind of a mindless moron does one have to be to think or believe that somehow, Trump, from wherever he was hiding, was able to do a thing about ANYBODY on the Capitol grounds on 6 January, especially after the Capitol was breached.
Look at the videos of the actual assault on the Capitol on 6 January 2021, and ask yourself how Trump could have done anything to stop what you are seeing in the videos, which raises the question of why on earth would House minority leader Kevin McCarthy call Trump after the Capitol was breached to call off the mob who breached it?
And when you watch the videos, ask yourself why it is that Democrat Bennie Thompson wants YOU to believe Trump was controlling the actions of what you see in the videos:
Feds Release More Capitol Riot Video Of Attack On Police Jun 19, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo3kKywkZjw
Capitol riot video appears to show attack on slain officer Mar 25, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK2FVIubRlA
See stunning video of rioters inside Capitol Jan 6, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9WPuA6EUaw
US Capitol Attack: Pro-Trump Mob Storms US Capitol, Clashes With Police Jan 6, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEGCFhkP3KQ
And then we have my all-time favorite right here:
Climbing Wall FAIL at DC Protests Footage: Trump supporter falls scaling Capitol Building Jan 8, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_uKKY-_VpY
So, people, given that this is just a smattering of all the videos out there of actual footage from 6 January 2021, how can we possibly believe the Wall Street Journal article entitled “Capitol Police Officer Describes Fighting ‘Hand to Hand, Inch by Inch’ in Jan. 6 Testimony” by Alexa Corse on 28 July 2021, where we were fed the following, to wit:
Capitol Police officer Aquilino Gonell said that he and fellow officers were beaten repeatedly and that he thought he would die.
“We fought hand to hand, inch by inch,” he testified.
Mr. Gonell said that he is troubled by any effort to play down the severity of the attack.
“There is a continuous and shocking attempt to ignore or try to destroy the truth of what truly happened that day, and to whitewash the facts,” he said.
end quotes
“Whitewash” the facts, people?
Where “whitewash” in the political sense means “deliberately attempt to conceal unpleasant or incriminating facts about someone or something,” with all those videos out there, what exactly is it that is being “whitewashed?”
And how?
How do you “whitewash” something that was on TV and now is all over the internet in countless videos?
So why are we being fed that “whitewash” horse**** by Bennie Thompson and the Wall Street Journal?
Because it suits their purposes?
And what am I thinking, of course it does, but stay tuned, for more of this made-for-TV drama is yet to come.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-391588
Paul Plante says:
And before we go further, to more than amply demonstrate the total bull**** nature of this hand-picked Pelosi-ite COMMITTEE OF INQUISTION, all we need do is go back to the article in The Guardian entitled “Capitol attack committee chair vows to investigate Trump: ‘Nothing is off limits’” by Hugo Lowell in Washington on 21 July 2021, where we have this following bit of absurdity from Democrat Bennie Thompson, the GRAND INQUISITOR, as follows:
Thompson indicated that Trump and the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, are among the top witnesses for his investigation, in large part because McCarthy was on the phone with the former president as the riot unfolded.
McCarthy called Trump in a panic as rioters breached the Capitol and begged him to call off his supporters, only for Trump to chastise the top Republican in the House for not doing more to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
“There will not be a reluctance on the part of the committee to pursue it,” Thompson said of McCarthy’s call.
“The committee will want to know if there is a record of what was said.”
end quotes
So, people, is everyone following this logic we are being given to follow by Democrat Bennie Thompson?
According to Bennie’s theory of reality that we are all supposed to blindly buy into, as if everyone in this nation was a moronic idiot, just because those who follow Bennie Thompson are, on 6 January 2021, House minority leader Kevin McCarthy is alleged by Bennie to have called Trump in a panic as rioters breached the Capitol, begging him to call off his supporters, only for Trump to chastise the top Republican in the House for not doing more to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
But seriously, people, what kind of a mindless moron does one have to be to think or believe that somehow, Trump, from wherever he was hiding, was able to do a thing about ANYBODY on the Capitol grounds on 6 January, especially after the Capitol was breached.
Look at the videos of the actual assault on the Capitol on 6 January 2021, and ask yourself how Trump could have done anything to stop what you are seeing in the videos, which raises the question of why on earth would House minority leader Kevin McCarthy call Trump after the Capitol was breached to call off the mob who breached it?
And when you watch the videos, ask yourself why it is that Democrat Bennie Thompson wants YOU to believe Trump was controlling the actions of what you see in the videos:
Feds Release More Capitol Riot Video Of Attack On Police Jun 19, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo3kKywkZjw
Capitol riot video appears to show attack on slain officer Mar 25, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK2FVIubRlA
See stunning video of rioters inside Capitol Jan 6, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9WPuA6EUaw
US Capitol Attack: Pro-Trump Mob Storms US Capitol, Clashes With Police Jan 6, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEGCFhkP3KQ
And then we have my all-time favorite right here:
Climbing Wall FAIL at DC Protests Footage: Trump supporter falls scaling Capitol Building Jan 8, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_uKKY-_VpY
So, people, given that this is just a smattering of all the videos out there of actual footage from 6 January 2021, how can we possibly believe the Wall Street Journal article entitled “Capitol Police Officer Describes Fighting ‘Hand to Hand, Inch by Inch’ in Jan. 6 Testimony” by Alexa Corse on 28 July 2021, where we were fed the following, to wit:
Capitol Police officer Aquilino Gonell said that he and fellow officers were beaten repeatedly and that he thought he would die.
“We fought hand to hand, inch by inch,” he testified.
Mr. Gonell said that he is troubled by any effort to play down the severity of the attack.
“There is a continuous and shocking attempt to ignore or try to destroy the truth of what truly happened that day, and to whitewash the facts,” he said.
end quotes
“Whitewash” the facts, people?
Where “whitewash” in the political sense means “deliberately attempt to conceal unpleasant or incriminating facts about someone or something,” with all those videos out there, what exactly is it that is being “whitewashed?”
And how?
How do you “whitewash” something that was on TV and now is all over the internet in countless videos?
So why are we being fed that “whitewash” horse**** by Bennie Thompson and the Wall Street Journal?
Because it suits their purposes?
And what am I thinking, of course it does, but stay tuned, for more of this made-for-TV drama is yet to come.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-391588
Re: THE JANUARY 6th SELECT COMMITTEE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 29, 2021 AT 9:57 AM
Paul Plante says:
And while we have a break in the action here, and while we are on the subject of conflicts of interest being a pre-requisite for someone to be considered for Nancy Pelosi’s KANGAROO COURT, let us go back to the CNBC article entitled “Pelosi names 8 members of Jan. 6 committee, including Republican Liz Cheney, to probe pro-Trump riot” by Jacob Pramuk on 1 July 2021, where we had on the ROSTER of the Nancy Pelosi’s A-TEAM, the team of politically-reliable sluggers and power hitters that can finally get it done for Nancy this time after numerous spectacular failures in the past, the A-TEAM that Nancy Pelosi has put on the field here, so to speak, for THE BIG GAME, team member Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.
And where have we heard that name before, people?
How about Zoe Lofgren being the Chairperson of the Committee on House Administration?
And what does that have to do with her having a serious conflict of interest that borders on a COVER-UP or WHITEWASH, because according to the Capitol Police website https://www.uscp.gov/the-department/oversight the United States Capitol Police (USCP) is overseen by the Capitol Police Board and has Congressional oversight by appropriations and authorizing committees from the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, which oversight affords the Department the support and opportunity to continually ensure that the USCP meets the safety and security needs of the Congress, the staff, and the many visitors who come to the United States Capitol each day.
And as we all clearly know, and as was reinforced in an extensive and well-researched 95-page report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration entitled “EXAMINING THE U.S. CAPITOL ATTACK: A REVIEW OF THE SECURITY, PLANNING, AND RESPONSE FAILURES ON JANUARY 6,” on January 6, 2021, the USCP failed to meet the safety and security needs of the Congress, the staff, and the many visitors who come to the United States Capitol each day, to wit:
IX. CONCLUSION
January 6, 2021 marked not only an attack on the Capitol Building—it marked an attack on democracy.
The entities responsible for securing and protecting the Capitol Complex and
everyone onsite that day were not prepared for a large-scale attack, despite being aware of the potential for violence targeting the Capitol.
The Committees’ investigation to-date makes clear that reforms to USCP and the Capitol Police Board are necessary to ensure events like January 6 are never repeated.
The failures leading up to and on January 6 were not limited to legislative branch entities.
As has been made clear in the Committees’ two public hearings on the subject, failures extended to a number of executive branch agencies.
A key contributing factor to the tragic events of January 6 was the failure of the Intelligence Community to properly analyze, assess, and disseminate information to law enforcement regarding the potential for violence and the known threats to the Capitol and the Members present that day.
Further scrutiny of these failures and the preparations and response of federal agencies will continue.
end quotes
As to a WHITEWASH (deliberately attempt to conceal unpleasant or incriminating facts about someone or something) involving Zoe, the Chair of the Committee on House Administration, we have this from her committee’s website, to wit:
Capitol Security
The security of the Capitol Complex has become an even higher priority since the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001.
The House Administration Committee, which oversees security on the House side of the Capitol Complex, works closely with the Capitol Police to ensure that every effort is made to keep the Capitol Complex extremely secure while maintaining accessibility for the millions of constituents who visit every year.
end quotes
Except they quite obviously did not!
So why?
What role did Zoe have to play in those failures?
And why is she getting to “investigate” something she quite likely had a role in causing to happen?
She should be called as a witness and grilled about those failures, not be given a chance by Nancy Pelosi to cover over her role in causing those failures, which brings us to the question of with that 95-page report in the record, why exactly do we need this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT?
What exactly is its true purpose, given these words from the Executive Summary:
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report addresses the security, planning, and response failures of the entities directly responsible for Capitol security—USCP and the Capitol Police Board, which is comprised of the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol as voting members, and the USCP Chief as a non-voting member—along with critical breakdowns involving several federal agencies, particularly the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and Department of Defense (“DOD”).
The Committees also made a series of recommendations for the Capitol Police Board, USCP, federal intelligence agencies, DOD, and other Capital region law enforcement agencies to address the intelligence and security failures.
The Committees’ investigation uncovered a number of intelligence and security failures leading up to and on January 6 that allowed for the breach of the Capitol.
These breakdowns ranged from federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence to a lack of planning and preparation by USCP and law enforcement leadership.
end quotes
And there we see another conflict of interest involving Bennie Thompson himself, as Chair of the Homeland Security Committee for Nancy Pelosi, as the Senate Report makes it incandescently clear that the agency he has oversight of was responsible for “critical breakdowns” in the security, planning, and response failures of the entities directly responsible for Capitol security, to wit:
The federal Intelligence Community—led by FBI and DHS—did not issue a threat assessment warning of potential violence targeting the Capitol on January 6.
Law enforcement entities, including USCP, largely rely on FBI and DHS to assess and communicate homeland security threats.
Throughout 2020, the FBI and DHS disseminated written documents detailing the potential for increased violent extremist activity at lawful protests and targeting of law enforcement and government facilities and personnel.
Despite online calls for violence at the Capitol, neither the FBI nor DHS issued a threat assessment or intelligence bulletin warning law enforcement entities in the National Capital Region of the potential for violence.
FBI and DHS officials stressed the difficulty in discerning constitutionally protected free speech versus actionable, credible threats of violence.
In testimony before the Committees, officials from both FBI and DHS acknowledged that the Intelligence Community needs to improve its handling and dissemination of threat information from social media and online message boards.
end quotes
So, people, what role did Bennie Thompson play with regard to those failures?
And the answer is we will likely never know, because this hand-picked “committee” of Democrat Nancy Pelosi’s is poised to shove all of those unanswered questions under the rug.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-392033
Paul Plante says:
And while we have a break in the action here, and while we are on the subject of conflicts of interest being a pre-requisite for someone to be considered for Nancy Pelosi’s KANGAROO COURT, let us go back to the CNBC article entitled “Pelosi names 8 members of Jan. 6 committee, including Republican Liz Cheney, to probe pro-Trump riot” by Jacob Pramuk on 1 July 2021, where we had on the ROSTER of the Nancy Pelosi’s A-TEAM, the team of politically-reliable sluggers and power hitters that can finally get it done for Nancy this time after numerous spectacular failures in the past, the A-TEAM that Nancy Pelosi has put on the field here, so to speak, for THE BIG GAME, team member Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.
And where have we heard that name before, people?
How about Zoe Lofgren being the Chairperson of the Committee on House Administration?
And what does that have to do with her having a serious conflict of interest that borders on a COVER-UP or WHITEWASH, because according to the Capitol Police website https://www.uscp.gov/the-department/oversight the United States Capitol Police (USCP) is overseen by the Capitol Police Board and has Congressional oversight by appropriations and authorizing committees from the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, which oversight affords the Department the support and opportunity to continually ensure that the USCP meets the safety and security needs of the Congress, the staff, and the many visitors who come to the United States Capitol each day.
And as we all clearly know, and as was reinforced in an extensive and well-researched 95-page report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration entitled “EXAMINING THE U.S. CAPITOL ATTACK: A REVIEW OF THE SECURITY, PLANNING, AND RESPONSE FAILURES ON JANUARY 6,” on January 6, 2021, the USCP failed to meet the safety and security needs of the Congress, the staff, and the many visitors who come to the United States Capitol each day, to wit:
IX. CONCLUSION
January 6, 2021 marked not only an attack on the Capitol Building—it marked an attack on democracy.
The entities responsible for securing and protecting the Capitol Complex and
everyone onsite that day were not prepared for a large-scale attack, despite being aware of the potential for violence targeting the Capitol.
The Committees’ investigation to-date makes clear that reforms to USCP and the Capitol Police Board are necessary to ensure events like January 6 are never repeated.
The failures leading up to and on January 6 were not limited to legislative branch entities.
As has been made clear in the Committees’ two public hearings on the subject, failures extended to a number of executive branch agencies.
A key contributing factor to the tragic events of January 6 was the failure of the Intelligence Community to properly analyze, assess, and disseminate information to law enforcement regarding the potential for violence and the known threats to the Capitol and the Members present that day.
Further scrutiny of these failures and the preparations and response of federal agencies will continue.
end quotes
As to a WHITEWASH (deliberately attempt to conceal unpleasant or incriminating facts about someone or something) involving Zoe, the Chair of the Committee on House Administration, we have this from her committee’s website, to wit:
Capitol Security
The security of the Capitol Complex has become an even higher priority since the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001.
The House Administration Committee, which oversees security on the House side of the Capitol Complex, works closely with the Capitol Police to ensure that every effort is made to keep the Capitol Complex extremely secure while maintaining accessibility for the millions of constituents who visit every year.
end quotes
Except they quite obviously did not!
So why?
What role did Zoe have to play in those failures?
And why is she getting to “investigate” something she quite likely had a role in causing to happen?
She should be called as a witness and grilled about those failures, not be given a chance by Nancy Pelosi to cover over her role in causing those failures, which brings us to the question of with that 95-page report in the record, why exactly do we need this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT?
What exactly is its true purpose, given these words from the Executive Summary:
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report addresses the security, planning, and response failures of the entities directly responsible for Capitol security—USCP and the Capitol Police Board, which is comprised of the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol as voting members, and the USCP Chief as a non-voting member—along with critical breakdowns involving several federal agencies, particularly the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and Department of Defense (“DOD”).
The Committees also made a series of recommendations for the Capitol Police Board, USCP, federal intelligence agencies, DOD, and other Capital region law enforcement agencies to address the intelligence and security failures.
The Committees’ investigation uncovered a number of intelligence and security failures leading up to and on January 6 that allowed for the breach of the Capitol.
These breakdowns ranged from federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence to a lack of planning and preparation by USCP and law enforcement leadership.
end quotes
And there we see another conflict of interest involving Bennie Thompson himself, as Chair of the Homeland Security Committee for Nancy Pelosi, as the Senate Report makes it incandescently clear that the agency he has oversight of was responsible for “critical breakdowns” in the security, planning, and response failures of the entities directly responsible for Capitol security, to wit:
The federal Intelligence Community—led by FBI and DHS—did not issue a threat assessment warning of potential violence targeting the Capitol on January 6.
Law enforcement entities, including USCP, largely rely on FBI and DHS to assess and communicate homeland security threats.
Throughout 2020, the FBI and DHS disseminated written documents detailing the potential for increased violent extremist activity at lawful protests and targeting of law enforcement and government facilities and personnel.
Despite online calls for violence at the Capitol, neither the FBI nor DHS issued a threat assessment or intelligence bulletin warning law enforcement entities in the National Capital Region of the potential for violence.
FBI and DHS officials stressed the difficulty in discerning constitutionally protected free speech versus actionable, credible threats of violence.
In testimony before the Committees, officials from both FBI and DHS acknowledged that the Intelligence Community needs to improve its handling and dissemination of threat information from social media and online message boards.
end quotes
So, people, what role did Bennie Thompson play with regard to those failures?
And the answer is we will likely never know, because this hand-picked “committee” of Democrat Nancy Pelosi’s is poised to shove all of those unanswered questions under the rug.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-392033
Re: THE JANUARY 6th SELECT COMMITTEE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 29, 2021 AT 9:01 PM
Paul Plante says:
And let me come back here and reiterate that when I talk about “RULE OF LAW,” what I am referring to is the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by people like Nancy Pelosi, and Bennie Thompson by subordinating whatever “power” they may have to well-defined and established laws so that the rule of law is a durable system of laws, institutions, norms, and community commitment that delivers accountability, and the law is clear, publicized, and stable and is applied evenly.
And there, I am referring in part to 115th Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 115–177, CONSTITUTION, JEFFERSON’S MANUAL AND RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS, THOMAS J. WICKHAM, PARLIAMENTARIAN, 2019, wherein is stated as follows:
HOUSE RESOLUTION 1164 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 30, 2018.
Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress be printed as a House document, and that three thousand additional copies shall be printed and bound for the use of the House of Representatives, of which nine hundred eighty copies shall be bound in leather with thumb index and delivered as may be directed by the Parliamentarian of the House.
Attest:
KAREN L. HAAS, Clerk
end quotes
Which raises the question of whether or not Bennie Thompson is familiar with these rules, because he does not appear to bother to abide by them, which thought takes us to JEFFERSON’S MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE, SEC. I—IMPORTANCE OF ADHERING TO RULES, where we have as follows concerning that subject of which Nancy Pelosi and Bennie Thompson seem to be quite ignorant, for following the rules means nothing to either of them, to wit:
Mr. Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of Commons, used to say, ‘‘It was a maxim he had often heard when he was a young man, from old and experienced Members, that nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of administration, and those who acted with the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules of proceeding; that these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the actions of the majority, and that they were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority, against the attempts of power.’’
So far the maxim is certainly true, and is founded in good sense, that as it is always in the power of the majority, by their numbers, to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents, the only weapons by which the minority can defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power are the forms and rules of proceeding which have been adopted as they were found necessary, from time to time, and are become the law of the House, by a strict adherence to which the weaker party can only be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.
And whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great importance.
It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of the members.
It is very material that order, decency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body.
end quotes
And there is exactly where I am coming from, people, as a loyal American citizen who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, nor a Trump supporter, either – it is very material indeed that order, decency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body, and that is exactly what we do not have in connection with this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT headed up by Bennie Thompson, which takes us back to the Guardian article entitled “Capitol attack committee chair vows to investigate Trump: ‘Nothing is off limits’” by Hugo Lowell in Washington on 21 July 2021, where we have, to wit:
The exchange between McCarthy and Trump is of singular importance, since it provides a rare window into what Trump, sequestered in the West Wing, was privately thinking and saying as the Capitol was invaded.
end quotes
To which all I can say is HUH?
We are to believe that Bennie Thompson now has a way to find out what Trump was privately thinking on 6 January 2021?
That’s absurd and bizarre, because in a court of law, nobody can give testimony as to what another person is or was thinking at any given time, and what’s more, Bennie Thompson cannot compel another member of congress to appear before his committee to testify about anything, given that the Supreme Court has determined that the Speech or Debate Clause is an absolute bar to interference by the Courts and in Brewster, 408 U.S. at 509, the Court has gone so far as to say that legislative acts may not even be the subject of “inquiry” by either the executive or judicial branches: “The privilege protects Members from inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for actual performance of legislative acts.”
Which takes us back to The Guardian, a British publication which is why they know nothing about our form of government or our laws, or even our way of life, where we have the following:
But Thompson went further, and said that he expects anyone – whether a sitting member of Congress or former White House official – who may have spoken to Trump on 6 January to become the subject of the select committee’s investigation.
end quotes
A WITCH HUNT, anyone?
And again, how is Bennie Thompson going to compel any of those persons to come before his committee, which takes us back to the WITCH HUNT nature of this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT, as follows:
“If somebody spoke to the president on January 6, I think it would be important for our committee to know what was said.”
“I can’t imagine you talk about anything else to the president on January 6,” Thompson said.
end quotes
And there we have it, people – it is about what Bennie Thompson thinks, no matter how wild or bizarre or absurd!
Bennie thinks that there is a GRAND CONSPIRACY to overthrow our precious “democracy,” and because he is fixated on that thought, unable to see any other possibilities, he is convinced that anybody and everybody who talked to Trump on 6 January 2021 was talking about Trump’s “insurrection,” and he isn’t going to let loose of that, period, which again takes us back to the story, as follows:
Against that backdrop, Thompson said he expects to demand testimony from senior Trump administration officials who were in the Oval Office as the riot unfolded, from the then White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to Trump’s daughter Ivanka.
If Trump administration officials refuse to appear before the committee, citing executive privilege, Thompson said he would issue subpoenas and launch lawsuits to enforce his congressional oversight authority.
“We will pursue it in court,” he said.
end quotes
And this is where this becomes not only bizarre, but scary, as well, with Bennie trying to substitute his committee for a citizen grand jury, to wit:
Thompson added that he expects the select committee and senior House investigators to meet with the attorney general, Merrick Garland, and expressed optimism for conducting his investigation in close coordination with the justice department.
end quotes
For the record, the Justice Department is a part of the executive branch of our national government, not the legislative branch, and this looks like Hell, the Democrats in Congress who twice failed to convict Trump by impeachment now colluding with the Democrat-controlled Justice Department under Trump’s Democrat successor Joe Biden who has previously and publicly condemned Trump’s supporters as “DREGS OF SOCIETY!”
Getting back to the story:
He was adamant that his investigation would not overlap with existing criminal probes opened by the justice department and the US attorney for the District of Columbia.
Still, he said he hoped the DoJ would cooperate with his inquiry.
“We don’t want to get in the way of indictments,” Thompson said.
“But I think there could be some sharing of information that could be germane to our investigation, just like other committees have negotiated in the past.”
Thompson said that although no date has been set for a meeting with the attorney general, it will involve the 6 January select committee’s members and senior staff.
To emphasize his seriousness, Thompson said the select committee would draw on legal counsel and investigative staff from existing House panels as well as the US intelligence community – including the NSA, CIA and FBI.
end quotes
So, all in all, people, this promises to be quite a show the Democrats and the compliant media are going to put on for us here, so as always, stay tuned, and we’ll be right back with more of this made-for-TV soapbox drama starring Bennie Thompson as the avenging Democrat angel who is finally going to be the one after Adam Schiff, failed, and Jamie Raskins failed, to take Trump down for the count!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-392325
Paul Plante says:
And let me come back here and reiterate that when I talk about “RULE OF LAW,” what I am referring to is the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by people like Nancy Pelosi, and Bennie Thompson by subordinating whatever “power” they may have to well-defined and established laws so that the rule of law is a durable system of laws, institutions, norms, and community commitment that delivers accountability, and the law is clear, publicized, and stable and is applied evenly.
And there, I am referring in part to 115th Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 115–177, CONSTITUTION, JEFFERSON’S MANUAL AND RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS, THOMAS J. WICKHAM, PARLIAMENTARIAN, 2019, wherein is stated as follows:
HOUSE RESOLUTION 1164 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
November 30, 2018.
Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress be printed as a House document, and that three thousand additional copies shall be printed and bound for the use of the House of Representatives, of which nine hundred eighty copies shall be bound in leather with thumb index and delivered as may be directed by the Parliamentarian of the House.
Attest:
KAREN L. HAAS, Clerk
end quotes
Which raises the question of whether or not Bennie Thompson is familiar with these rules, because he does not appear to bother to abide by them, which thought takes us to JEFFERSON’S MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE, SEC. I—IMPORTANCE OF ADHERING TO RULES, where we have as follows concerning that subject of which Nancy Pelosi and Bennie Thompson seem to be quite ignorant, for following the rules means nothing to either of them, to wit:
Mr. Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of Commons, used to say, ‘‘It was a maxim he had often heard when he was a young man, from old and experienced Members, that nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of administration, and those who acted with the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules of proceeding; that these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the actions of the majority, and that they were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority, against the attempts of power.’’
So far the maxim is certainly true, and is founded in good sense, that as it is always in the power of the majority, by their numbers, to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents, the only weapons by which the minority can defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power are the forms and rules of proceeding which have been adopted as they were found necessary, from time to time, and are become the law of the House, by a strict adherence to which the weaker party can only be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.
And whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great importance.
It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of the members.
It is very material that order, decency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body.
end quotes
And there is exactly where I am coming from, people, as a loyal American citizen who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, nor a Trump supporter, either – it is very material indeed that order, decency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body, and that is exactly what we do not have in connection with this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT headed up by Bennie Thompson, which takes us back to the Guardian article entitled “Capitol attack committee chair vows to investigate Trump: ‘Nothing is off limits’” by Hugo Lowell in Washington on 21 July 2021, where we have, to wit:
The exchange between McCarthy and Trump is of singular importance, since it provides a rare window into what Trump, sequestered in the West Wing, was privately thinking and saying as the Capitol was invaded.
end quotes
To which all I can say is HUH?
We are to believe that Bennie Thompson now has a way to find out what Trump was privately thinking on 6 January 2021?
That’s absurd and bizarre, because in a court of law, nobody can give testimony as to what another person is or was thinking at any given time, and what’s more, Bennie Thompson cannot compel another member of congress to appear before his committee to testify about anything, given that the Supreme Court has determined that the Speech or Debate Clause is an absolute bar to interference by the Courts and in Brewster, 408 U.S. at 509, the Court has gone so far as to say that legislative acts may not even be the subject of “inquiry” by either the executive or judicial branches: “The privilege protects Members from inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for actual performance of legislative acts.”
Which takes us back to The Guardian, a British publication which is why they know nothing about our form of government or our laws, or even our way of life, where we have the following:
But Thompson went further, and said that he expects anyone – whether a sitting member of Congress or former White House official – who may have spoken to Trump on 6 January to become the subject of the select committee’s investigation.
end quotes
A WITCH HUNT, anyone?
And again, how is Bennie Thompson going to compel any of those persons to come before his committee, which takes us back to the WITCH HUNT nature of this Pelosi-ite KANGAROO COURT, as follows:
“If somebody spoke to the president on January 6, I think it would be important for our committee to know what was said.”
“I can’t imagine you talk about anything else to the president on January 6,” Thompson said.
end quotes
And there we have it, people – it is about what Bennie Thompson thinks, no matter how wild or bizarre or absurd!
Bennie thinks that there is a GRAND CONSPIRACY to overthrow our precious “democracy,” and because he is fixated on that thought, unable to see any other possibilities, he is convinced that anybody and everybody who talked to Trump on 6 January 2021 was talking about Trump’s “insurrection,” and he isn’t going to let loose of that, period, which again takes us back to the story, as follows:
Against that backdrop, Thompson said he expects to demand testimony from senior Trump administration officials who were in the Oval Office as the riot unfolded, from the then White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to Trump’s daughter Ivanka.
If Trump administration officials refuse to appear before the committee, citing executive privilege, Thompson said he would issue subpoenas and launch lawsuits to enforce his congressional oversight authority.
“We will pursue it in court,” he said.
end quotes
And this is where this becomes not only bizarre, but scary, as well, with Bennie trying to substitute his committee for a citizen grand jury, to wit:
Thompson added that he expects the select committee and senior House investigators to meet with the attorney general, Merrick Garland, and expressed optimism for conducting his investigation in close coordination with the justice department.
end quotes
For the record, the Justice Department is a part of the executive branch of our national government, not the legislative branch, and this looks like Hell, the Democrats in Congress who twice failed to convict Trump by impeachment now colluding with the Democrat-controlled Justice Department under Trump’s Democrat successor Joe Biden who has previously and publicly condemned Trump’s supporters as “DREGS OF SOCIETY!”
Getting back to the story:
He was adamant that his investigation would not overlap with existing criminal probes opened by the justice department and the US attorney for the District of Columbia.
Still, he said he hoped the DoJ would cooperate with his inquiry.
“We don’t want to get in the way of indictments,” Thompson said.
“But I think there could be some sharing of information that could be germane to our investigation, just like other committees have negotiated in the past.”
Thompson said that although no date has been set for a meeting with the attorney general, it will involve the 6 January select committee’s members and senior staff.
To emphasize his seriousness, Thompson said the select committee would draw on legal counsel and investigative staff from existing House panels as well as the US intelligence community – including the NSA, CIA and FBI.
end quotes
So, all in all, people, this promises to be quite a show the Democrats and the compliant media are going to put on for us here, so as always, stay tuned, and we’ll be right back with more of this made-for-TV soapbox drama starring Bennie Thompson as the avenging Democrat angel who is finally going to be the one after Adam Schiff, failed, and Jamie Raskins failed, to take Trump down for the count!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-392325
Re: THE JANUARY 6th SELECT COMMITTEE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 30, 2021 AT 9:06 PM
Paul Plante says:
And let me say here that when I use the term “witch-hunt,” I use it in its political context as a term that refers to a process whereby the authorities of a country, in this case, Nancy Pelosi and Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney, try to find out and punish people within the country who they believe are a threat to the well-being of the country, with the key phrase being, “THEY BELIEVE.”
That’s it!
It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with written laws or rules!
It is simply about their feelings!
What they feel the law should be is what their law is, not what is written on a piece of paper called a law book that we, the people rely on, and that brings us back to a POLITICO article entitled “Pelosi mulls adding more anti-Trump Republicans to Jan. 6 investigation” by Heather Caygle, Olivia Beavers and Nicholas Wu on 22 July 2021, where we had this drivel from Nancy Pelosi, to wit:
The effort to potentially beef up Republican representation on the select panel comes after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy pulled all five of his choices on Wednesday following Pelosi’s veto of the two most controversial names on his list, Reps. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday that it’s possible Jordan and other House Republicans who communicated with McCarthy could be asked to testify before the select panel.
But Pelosi dismissed McCarthy’s protests on Thursday, saying she made the right decision by blocking Banks and Jordan because of their “antics” in the months following the deadly insurrection.
Pelosi said her decision to block those two, while allowing McCarthy’s three other selections, to serve on the panel, had nothing to do with their votes to challenge certification of Trump’s loss on Jan. 6.
“The other two made statements and took actions that just would have been ridiculous to put them on a committee seeking the truth,” Pelosi told reporters.
end quotes
A committee seeking the truth?
And how about an Associated Press story entitled “Pelosi says ‘deadly serious’ Jan. 6 probe to go without GOP” by Mary Clare Jalonick on 23 July 2021, to wit:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Unfazed by Republican threats of a boycott, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Thursday that a congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection will take on its “deadly serious” work whether Republicans participate or not.
Pelosi made clear on Thursday that she won’t relent, and Democrats mulled filling the empty seats themselves.
“It is my responsibility as the speaker of the House to make sure we get to the truth of this, and we will not let their antics stand in the way of that,” Pelosi said of the Republicans.
end quotes
And is it really her responsibility as speaker of the house to get to the truth?
And in a nation of rule of law, where does Nancy get that responsibility from?
Wouldn’t it have to be from a book of rules?
How about the government publication titled “House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, Chapter 34. Office of the Speaker, From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://www.gpo.gov, where we have as follows, to wit:
Sec. 1 . Role of Speaker
The Speaker is the presiding officer of the House and is charged with numerous duties and responsibilities by law and by the House rules.
end quotes
Focus on those words, “charged with numerous duties and responsibilities by law and by the House rules,” which means Nancy doesn’t get to make it up as she goes as she is doing here with this horse**** about her “responsibility as the speaker of the House to make sure we get to the truth of this,” for the law of our land does not give her that responsibility, which takes us back to the rules as written, even if Nancy Pelosi disregards them in her arrogance at her own perfection, to wit:
As the presiding officer of the House, the Speaker maintains order, manages its proceedings, and governs the administration of its business. Manual Sec. 622; Deschler Ch 6 Sec. Sec. 2-8.
The major functions of the Speaker with respect to the consideration of measures on the floor include recognizing Members who seek to address the House (Manual Sec. 949), construing and applying the House rules (Manual Sec. 627), and putting the question on matters arising on the floor to a vote (Manual Sec. 630).
The Speaker’s role as presiding officer is an impartial one, and his rulings serve to protect the rights of the minority. 88-1, June 4, 1963, pp 10151-65.
In seeking to protect the interests of the minority, he has even asked unanimous consent that an order of the House be vacated where the circumstances so required. 89-1, May 18, 1965, p 10871.
end quotes
And once again, people, focus on these words: “The Speaker’s role as presiding officer is an impartial one, and his rulings serve to protect the rights of the minority.”
That, people, is the truth, because it comes from OUR book of rules, not the flawed version that Nancy Pelosi uses that turns lies into her version of the truth, which is a warped and twisted version.
Nancy Pelosi is hardly impartial, for one, despite the rules, and she is not interested in the rights of the minority, let alone protecting them.
To the contrary, her interest is in crushing the minority and with these hearings of hers, this WITCH HUNT, that is her goal!
As to more of the truth that we will never get from Nancy Pelosi, going back to the government publication titled “House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, Chapter 34. Office of the Speaker, we have this to consider, to wit:
Many matters have been held to be beyond the scope of the Speaker’s responsibility under the rules.
The Speaker does not:
Determine whether a Member should be censured or whether an office he holds is incompatible with his membership, these being matters for the House to decide. 2 Hinds Sec. 1275; 6 Cannon Sec. 253.
end quotes
Nonetheless, disregarding rule of law, which I doubt she has ever followed, Nancy is indeed censuring house members who are Republicans on her own, as if she actually had that authority, which she doesn’t!
And for some more truth, let us go back to the 115th Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 115–177, CONSTITUTION, JEFFERSON’S MANUAL AND RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS, where we have as follows in Rule No. 2:
Preservation of order
2. The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and, in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in the galleries or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared.
end quotes
So, on 6 January 2021, why didn’t she do that, given that it was her responsibility as speaker of the house according to her own book of rules?
Because for her purposes, she needed that riot to happen?
And how about Rule No. 3:
Control of Capitol facilities
3. Except as otherwise provided by rule or law, the Speaker shall have general control of the Hall of the House, the corridors and passages in the part of the Capitol assigned to the use of the House, and the disposal of unappropriated rooms in that part of the Capitol.
end quotes
If the rules Nancy is supposed to follow say that on 6 January 2021, it was Nancy in her capacity as speaker of the house who had general control of the Hall of the House, the corridors and passages in the part of the Capitol assigned to the use of the House, and the disposal of unappropriated rooms in that part of the Capitol, then why did she allow what happened on 6 January 2021 to happen?
Some serious questions before us, people, as we watch this Pelosi-ite WHITEWASH COMMITTEE seeks to do some serious blame-shifting here to protect Nancy, whose failures resulted in the breaching of the capitol on 6 January 2021.
Will they ever get answered?
Personally, I doubt it – the purpose of a WHITEWASH, afterall, is to bury those questions under the rug!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-393014
Paul Plante says:
And let me say here that when I use the term “witch-hunt,” I use it in its political context as a term that refers to a process whereby the authorities of a country, in this case, Nancy Pelosi and Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney, try to find out and punish people within the country who they believe are a threat to the well-being of the country, with the key phrase being, “THEY BELIEVE.”
That’s it!
It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with written laws or rules!
It is simply about their feelings!
What they feel the law should be is what their law is, not what is written on a piece of paper called a law book that we, the people rely on, and that brings us back to a POLITICO article entitled “Pelosi mulls adding more anti-Trump Republicans to Jan. 6 investigation” by Heather Caygle, Olivia Beavers and Nicholas Wu on 22 July 2021, where we had this drivel from Nancy Pelosi, to wit:
The effort to potentially beef up Republican representation on the select panel comes after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy pulled all five of his choices on Wednesday following Pelosi’s veto of the two most controversial names on his list, Reps. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday that it’s possible Jordan and other House Republicans who communicated with McCarthy could be asked to testify before the select panel.
But Pelosi dismissed McCarthy’s protests on Thursday, saying she made the right decision by blocking Banks and Jordan because of their “antics” in the months following the deadly insurrection.
Pelosi said her decision to block those two, while allowing McCarthy’s three other selections, to serve on the panel, had nothing to do with their votes to challenge certification of Trump’s loss on Jan. 6.
“The other two made statements and took actions that just would have been ridiculous to put them on a committee seeking the truth,” Pelosi told reporters.
end quotes
A committee seeking the truth?
And how about an Associated Press story entitled “Pelosi says ‘deadly serious’ Jan. 6 probe to go without GOP” by Mary Clare Jalonick on 23 July 2021, to wit:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Unfazed by Republican threats of a boycott, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Thursday that a congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection will take on its “deadly serious” work whether Republicans participate or not.
Pelosi made clear on Thursday that she won’t relent, and Democrats mulled filling the empty seats themselves.
“It is my responsibility as the speaker of the House to make sure we get to the truth of this, and we will not let their antics stand in the way of that,” Pelosi said of the Republicans.
end quotes
And is it really her responsibility as speaker of the house to get to the truth?
And in a nation of rule of law, where does Nancy get that responsibility from?
Wouldn’t it have to be from a book of rules?
How about the government publication titled “House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, Chapter 34. Office of the Speaker, From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://www.gpo.gov, where we have as follows, to wit:
Sec. 1 . Role of Speaker
The Speaker is the presiding officer of the House and is charged with numerous duties and responsibilities by law and by the House rules.
end quotes
Focus on those words, “charged with numerous duties and responsibilities by law and by the House rules,” which means Nancy doesn’t get to make it up as she goes as she is doing here with this horse**** about her “responsibility as the speaker of the House to make sure we get to the truth of this,” for the law of our land does not give her that responsibility, which takes us back to the rules as written, even if Nancy Pelosi disregards them in her arrogance at her own perfection, to wit:
As the presiding officer of the House, the Speaker maintains order, manages its proceedings, and governs the administration of its business. Manual Sec. 622; Deschler Ch 6 Sec. Sec. 2-8.
The major functions of the Speaker with respect to the consideration of measures on the floor include recognizing Members who seek to address the House (Manual Sec. 949), construing and applying the House rules (Manual Sec. 627), and putting the question on matters arising on the floor to a vote (Manual Sec. 630).
The Speaker’s role as presiding officer is an impartial one, and his rulings serve to protect the rights of the minority. 88-1, June 4, 1963, pp 10151-65.
In seeking to protect the interests of the minority, he has even asked unanimous consent that an order of the House be vacated where the circumstances so required. 89-1, May 18, 1965, p 10871.
end quotes
And once again, people, focus on these words: “The Speaker’s role as presiding officer is an impartial one, and his rulings serve to protect the rights of the minority.”
That, people, is the truth, because it comes from OUR book of rules, not the flawed version that Nancy Pelosi uses that turns lies into her version of the truth, which is a warped and twisted version.
Nancy Pelosi is hardly impartial, for one, despite the rules, and she is not interested in the rights of the minority, let alone protecting them.
To the contrary, her interest is in crushing the minority and with these hearings of hers, this WITCH HUNT, that is her goal!
As to more of the truth that we will never get from Nancy Pelosi, going back to the government publication titled “House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, Chapter 34. Office of the Speaker, we have this to consider, to wit:
Many matters have been held to be beyond the scope of the Speaker’s responsibility under the rules.
The Speaker does not:
Determine whether a Member should be censured or whether an office he holds is incompatible with his membership, these being matters for the House to decide. 2 Hinds Sec. 1275; 6 Cannon Sec. 253.
end quotes
Nonetheless, disregarding rule of law, which I doubt she has ever followed, Nancy is indeed censuring house members who are Republicans on her own, as if she actually had that authority, which she doesn’t!
And for some more truth, let us go back to the 115th Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 115–177, CONSTITUTION, JEFFERSON’S MANUAL AND RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS, where we have as follows in Rule No. 2:
Preservation of order
2. The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and, in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in the galleries or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared.
end quotes
So, on 6 January 2021, why didn’t she do that, given that it was her responsibility as speaker of the house according to her own book of rules?
Because for her purposes, she needed that riot to happen?
And how about Rule No. 3:
Control of Capitol facilities
3. Except as otherwise provided by rule or law, the Speaker shall have general control of the Hall of the House, the corridors and passages in the part of the Capitol assigned to the use of the House, and the disposal of unappropriated rooms in that part of the Capitol.
end quotes
If the rules Nancy is supposed to follow say that on 6 January 2021, it was Nancy in her capacity as speaker of the house who had general control of the Hall of the House, the corridors and passages in the part of the Capitol assigned to the use of the House, and the disposal of unappropriated rooms in that part of the Capitol, then why did she allow what happened on 6 January 2021 to happen?
Some serious questions before us, people, as we watch this Pelosi-ite WHITEWASH COMMITTEE seeks to do some serious blame-shifting here to protect Nancy, whose failures resulted in the breaching of the capitol on 6 January 2021.
Will they ever get answered?
Personally, I doubt it – the purpose of a WHITEWASH, afterall, is to bury those questions under the rug!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-393014
Re: THE JANUARY 6th SELECT COMMITTEE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 31, 2021 AT 9:23 PM
Paul Plante says:
Is it possible, people, to start with a pack of lies, and then somehow, distill the truth out of that pack of lies, which is what Nancy Pelosi wants us to believe is going to happen with this hand-picked “select committee” of hers?
And rather than take my word for the fact that in its first hearing, Chairman Bennie Thompson started right out in his opening statement feeding us a line of hog**** – let’s simply go to the transcript, where we have as follows from Chairman Bennie, Nancy’s hand-picked captain of her A-TEAM that is now going to get it done for Nancy after two previous dismal failures to nail Trump’s hide to the wall, to wit:
January 6 House Select Committee Hearing Investigation Day 1 Full Transcript
Chairman Thompson: A quorum being present, the select committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol will be in order.
The select committee is meeting today to receive testimony on the law enforcement experience on January 6th.
end quotes
Actually, they were receiving testimony from four very well-coached witnesses out of hundreds of law enforcement officers on duty at the capitol on 6 January 2021, and if the purpose of the committee is to find the truth of what happened on 6 January 2021, why then were they allowing testimony into the record by these witnesses as to what are their personal opinions, not facts?
For example, the Reuters article “Police recount mayhem and ‘attempted coup’ in U.S. Capitol riot” by Richard Cowan and Sarah N. Lynch on July 27, 2021, where we had the following political statement from one of the witnesses, to wit:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Four police officers on Tuesday told lawmakers they were beaten, taunted with racial insults, heard threats including “kill him with his own gun” and thought they might die as they struggled to defend the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 against a mob of then-President Donald Trump’s supporters.
Often tearful, sometimes profane, the officers called the rioters “terrorists” engaged in an “attempted coup” during a 3-1/2 hour congressional hearing in which they also criticized Republican lawmakers who have sought to downplay the attack.
end quotes
An attempted coup?
HUH?
When exactly was there an attempted coup?
Where is there any evidence anywhere that there was an attempted coup on 6 January 2021?
I thought it was an insurrection.
And in a supposedly non-partisan hearing, which is complete BULL****, given the highly partisan make-up of this hand-picked committee, why are criticisms of the Republicans, which are personal opinions, being allowed into the record, other than to taint the record and contribute to a narrative of the Republicans being enemies of democracy and therefore, enemies of America who must be crushed into non-existence by the Democrats, who are morally superior not only to the Republicans, but to all of us, as well.
And here, I would like to go to the HOUSE ETHICS MANUAL, COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT, which rules should apply to Nancy Pelosi, Bennie Thompson, Liz Cheney, Elaine Luria, Pete Aguilar, Zoe Lofgren, Stephanie Murphy, Jamie Raskin, Adam Schiff and Adam Kinzinger, although in truth, they all appear to be quite immune from the rules that govern others, probably because of their moral superiority, where we have as follows on the subject of ethics as it pertains to the members of this hand-picked KANGAROO COURT, to wit:
GENERAL ETHICAL STANDARDS
Overview
Members, officers, and employees of the House should:
Conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the
House;
Abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the House rules; and
Adhere to the broad ethical standards expressed in the Code of Ethics for
Government Service.
They should not in any way use their office for private gain.
Nor should they attempt to circumvent any House rule or standard of conduct.
end quotes
HA HA HA HA HAH, you know what I am saying, people?
Unless everything that happens in the so-called “PEOPLE’S HOUSE” is a lie and everyone in there a liar, which may well be the facts of the matter, then there is no way that this hand-picked committee can be said to be conducting themselves at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House, which takes us back to the ethics, as follows:
General Ethical Standards
Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.
– HENRY CLAY
That public office is a public trust has long been a guiding principle of government.
To uphold this trust, Congress has bound itself to abide by certain standards of conduct, expressed in the Code of Official Conduct (House Rule 23) and the Code of Ethics for Government Service.
These codes provide that Members, officers, and employees are to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect creditably on the House, work earnestly and thoughtfully for their salary, and that they may not seek to profit by virtue of their public office, allow themselves to be improperly influenced, or discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors.
This chapter discusses the overarching principles that inform both codes, the penalties for violating their provisions, and the history and procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Appropriate standards of conduct enhance the legislative process and build citizen confidence.
Ethics rules, if reasonably drafted and reliably enforced, increase the likelihood that legislators (and other officials) will make decisions and policies on the basis of the merits of issues, rather than on the basis of factors (such as personal gain) that should be irrelevant.
Members, officers, and employees should, at a minimum, familiarize themselves with the Code of Official Conduct and the Code of Ethics for Government Service.
The Code of Official Conduct and the Code of Ethics for Government Service not only state aspirational goals for public officials, but violations of provisions contained therein may also provide the basis for disciplinary action in accordance with House rules.
end quotes
And with that all stated, a bunch of empty words, actually, in reality, as is so much of what comes out of Washington, D.C. these days, let’s go back to Bennie, as follows:
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Let me say a few words at the outset about this committee’s work and how, as chairman, I plan to run things.
We’re going to be guided solely by the facts, the facts of what happened on January 6th and the run up to that tragic day and what has taken place since.
end quotes
Except they started out not with facts, but with personal opinions, which takes us back to Bennie for more bull****, as follows:
That’s what we’re charged to do by House Resolution 503.
There’s no place for politics or partisanship in this investigation.
end quotes
And while there might be no place for it, the reality is that the committee is rife with politics and partisanship, as we clearly see with the police officer’s criticisms of the Republicans.
Getting back to Bennie, he goes on as follows:
Our only charge is to follow the facts where they lead us.
And while we have a lot to uncover, there are a few things we already know.
We know that the insurrection on January 6th was a violent attack that involved vicious assault on law enforcement.
end quotes
And let us stop right there, people, because there was no insurrection on 6 January 2021.
Yes, the Democrats and their lapdogs in the compliant media keep bandying about the term “insurrection,” but the Democrats mouthing the word “insurrection” does not an insurrection make.
In the United States, insurrection is a crime!
Crimes are not proven in the house of representatives – that is a function of the justice system, and to date, no charges of insurrection have been brought against anyone, including Trump, outside of the failed second impeachment charges which committee member Jamie Raskin failed to prove!
So why is Bennie Thompson starting out the hearing before a word is heard from a single witness, talking about an “insurrection” that didn’t happen, priming the pump, so to speak, for the witnesses to then be able to talk about “insurrections” and “attempted coups” as if they had really happened?
How is that in any way ethical?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-393719
Paul Plante says:
Is it possible, people, to start with a pack of lies, and then somehow, distill the truth out of that pack of lies, which is what Nancy Pelosi wants us to believe is going to happen with this hand-picked “select committee” of hers?
And rather than take my word for the fact that in its first hearing, Chairman Bennie Thompson started right out in his opening statement feeding us a line of hog**** – let’s simply go to the transcript, where we have as follows from Chairman Bennie, Nancy’s hand-picked captain of her A-TEAM that is now going to get it done for Nancy after two previous dismal failures to nail Trump’s hide to the wall, to wit:
January 6 House Select Committee Hearing Investigation Day 1 Full Transcript
Chairman Thompson: A quorum being present, the select committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol will be in order.
The select committee is meeting today to receive testimony on the law enforcement experience on January 6th.
end quotes
Actually, they were receiving testimony from four very well-coached witnesses out of hundreds of law enforcement officers on duty at the capitol on 6 January 2021, and if the purpose of the committee is to find the truth of what happened on 6 January 2021, why then were they allowing testimony into the record by these witnesses as to what are their personal opinions, not facts?
For example, the Reuters article “Police recount mayhem and ‘attempted coup’ in U.S. Capitol riot” by Richard Cowan and Sarah N. Lynch on July 27, 2021, where we had the following political statement from one of the witnesses, to wit:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Four police officers on Tuesday told lawmakers they were beaten, taunted with racial insults, heard threats including “kill him with his own gun” and thought they might die as they struggled to defend the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 against a mob of then-President Donald Trump’s supporters.
Often tearful, sometimes profane, the officers called the rioters “terrorists” engaged in an “attempted coup” during a 3-1/2 hour congressional hearing in which they also criticized Republican lawmakers who have sought to downplay the attack.
end quotes
An attempted coup?
HUH?
When exactly was there an attempted coup?
Where is there any evidence anywhere that there was an attempted coup on 6 January 2021?
I thought it was an insurrection.
And in a supposedly non-partisan hearing, which is complete BULL****, given the highly partisan make-up of this hand-picked committee, why are criticisms of the Republicans, which are personal opinions, being allowed into the record, other than to taint the record and contribute to a narrative of the Republicans being enemies of democracy and therefore, enemies of America who must be crushed into non-existence by the Democrats, who are morally superior not only to the Republicans, but to all of us, as well.
And here, I would like to go to the HOUSE ETHICS MANUAL, COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT, which rules should apply to Nancy Pelosi, Bennie Thompson, Liz Cheney, Elaine Luria, Pete Aguilar, Zoe Lofgren, Stephanie Murphy, Jamie Raskin, Adam Schiff and Adam Kinzinger, although in truth, they all appear to be quite immune from the rules that govern others, probably because of their moral superiority, where we have as follows on the subject of ethics as it pertains to the members of this hand-picked KANGAROO COURT, to wit:
GENERAL ETHICAL STANDARDS
Overview
Members, officers, and employees of the House should:
Conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the
House;
Abide by the spirit as well as the letter of the House rules; and
Adhere to the broad ethical standards expressed in the Code of Ethics for
Government Service.
They should not in any way use their office for private gain.
Nor should they attempt to circumvent any House rule or standard of conduct.
end quotes
HA HA HA HA HAH, you know what I am saying, people?
Unless everything that happens in the so-called “PEOPLE’S HOUSE” is a lie and everyone in there a liar, which may well be the facts of the matter, then there is no way that this hand-picked committee can be said to be conducting themselves at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House, which takes us back to the ethics, as follows:
General Ethical Standards
Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.
– HENRY CLAY
That public office is a public trust has long been a guiding principle of government.
To uphold this trust, Congress has bound itself to abide by certain standards of conduct, expressed in the Code of Official Conduct (House Rule 23) and the Code of Ethics for Government Service.
These codes provide that Members, officers, and employees are to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect creditably on the House, work earnestly and thoughtfully for their salary, and that they may not seek to profit by virtue of their public office, allow themselves to be improperly influenced, or discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors.
This chapter discusses the overarching principles that inform both codes, the penalties for violating their provisions, and the history and procedures of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Appropriate standards of conduct enhance the legislative process and build citizen confidence.
Ethics rules, if reasonably drafted and reliably enforced, increase the likelihood that legislators (and other officials) will make decisions and policies on the basis of the merits of issues, rather than on the basis of factors (such as personal gain) that should be irrelevant.
Members, officers, and employees should, at a minimum, familiarize themselves with the Code of Official Conduct and the Code of Ethics for Government Service.
The Code of Official Conduct and the Code of Ethics for Government Service not only state aspirational goals for public officials, but violations of provisions contained therein may also provide the basis for disciplinary action in accordance with House rules.
end quotes
And with that all stated, a bunch of empty words, actually, in reality, as is so much of what comes out of Washington, D.C. these days, let’s go back to Bennie, as follows:
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Let me say a few words at the outset about this committee’s work and how, as chairman, I plan to run things.
We’re going to be guided solely by the facts, the facts of what happened on January 6th and the run up to that tragic day and what has taken place since.
end quotes
Except they started out not with facts, but with personal opinions, which takes us back to Bennie for more bull****, as follows:
That’s what we’re charged to do by House Resolution 503.
There’s no place for politics or partisanship in this investigation.
end quotes
And while there might be no place for it, the reality is that the committee is rife with politics and partisanship, as we clearly see with the police officer’s criticisms of the Republicans.
Getting back to Bennie, he goes on as follows:
Our only charge is to follow the facts where they lead us.
And while we have a lot to uncover, there are a few things we already know.
We know that the insurrection on January 6th was a violent attack that involved vicious assault on law enforcement.
end quotes
And let us stop right there, people, because there was no insurrection on 6 January 2021.
Yes, the Democrats and their lapdogs in the compliant media keep bandying about the term “insurrection,” but the Democrats mouthing the word “insurrection” does not an insurrection make.
In the United States, insurrection is a crime!
Crimes are not proven in the house of representatives – that is a function of the justice system, and to date, no charges of insurrection have been brought against anyone, including Trump, outside of the failed second impeachment charges which committee member Jamie Raskin failed to prove!
So why is Bennie Thompson starting out the hearing before a word is heard from a single witness, talking about an “insurrection” that didn’t happen, priming the pump, so to speak, for the witnesses to then be able to talk about “insurrections” and “attempted coups” as if they had really happened?
How is that in any way ethical?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-393719
Re: THE JANUARY 6th SELECT COMMITTEE
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR AUGUST 1, 2021 AT 6:54 PM
Paul Plante says:
So what do we have here, people, confronting us with this Pelosi-ite “selected” committee of hers to supposedly get to the bottom of what really happened on 6 January 2021, as if by now, none of us could possibly have a clue and so, would need Bennie Thompson and his crew to give us the unvarnished “truth,” as if there was any possibility of that happening, which there isn’t, because you cannot arrive at the truth by starting out with a pack of lies, as Bennie has done in his first hearing, which takes us back in time to May 10, 2021 and a House Administration Committee Hearing on the very same January 6 Capitol Attack that Bennie and his hand-selected crew on his committee are said to be investigating, where we had as follows:
Today’s hearing continues the oversight of this committee and the House of Representatives of issues related to January 6th, 2021, the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol.
Specifically, the scope of today’s hearing is the latest flash report by the inspector general for the US Capitol police, which was provided to congressional oversight committees and the department on April 30th.
end quotes
And there we are, back to the same BULL**** Bennie is pushing about an “insurrection” on 6 January 2021.
So what is the relevance here?
Why am I going back to that hearing?
And the answer to that question is Zoe Lofgren, the chair of that committee, as well as being a member of Bennie Thompson’s COMMITTEE OF INQUSITION, Jamie Raskin, also a member of that committee as well as being a member of Bennie’s WITCH HUNTERS, and Pete Aguilar, himself also a member of Zoe’s committee as well as being a member of Bennie’s FLIM-FLAM, and according to the transcript, along with Zoe, both Jamie Raskin and Peter Aguilar were present at that May 10, 2021 hearing, to wit:
Chairperson (Zoe Lofgren): The Committee on House Administration will come to order.
I’d like to welcome our members.
We have a quorum present.
The ranking member.
Mr. Raskin, Mr. Style, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Scanlan and Ms. Fernandez.
And so we have a quorum and I’d like to welcome everyone.
end quotes
And since they were all there, Zoe, Jamie and Peter, on that day, at that hearing, this is what the three of them heard, which is a matter of public record given the existence of the transcript, to wit:
But before we get to that, I want to take a moment to clarify what I think appeared to be some confusion the last time Mr. Bolton appeared before us.
I asked a question that apparently some misinterpreted as a statement, but I was merely quoting from an officer who was part of an office of professional responsibility review.
It was not a review of the radio transmission.
It was a quote from an officer who was interviewed, and I’d like to quote this officer directly.
“I was originally drafted for CDU at 1000 hours on January 6, 2021.”
“I then swapped my starting time with another officer who starting time was 0800 hours.”
“I enjoyed being part of the CDU.”
“Few minutes after our roll call, my squad was directed to help the east front security posture at the Capitol division.”
“As I was crossing the street at traffic six, a radio broadcast was sent out to all outside unit: ‘Attention. All unit on the field, we’re not looking for any pro-Trump in the crowd.'”
“‘We’re only looking for anti pro-Trump, who wants to start a fight.’”
“At that point, I started thinking about my initial intelligence that was disseminated.”
“The entire crowd was a threat based on the intelligence.”
“The pro-Trump were the threat because they’re coming to stop the count.”
“However, I convinced myself that perhaps the mission has changed.”
“The CDU that was scheduled at 1000 hours was initially supposed to be part of our rotation.”
“However, they were sent to patrol garages around the House division.”
“At that point, I was convinced that the mission has changed and the threat was not a high level threat because of the radio call and the decisions that were made to send the other group to patrol garages.”
“I was on at the east front with officers, a small group, perhaps prior or still in the military, approach one officer and ask him if he wants to talk, because what is happening at the lower west front terrace, what happened at the east front as well, and nothing will stop that.”
“I automatically realized that there was a disconnect or a miscommunication about the event that is occurring today.”
And that’s the point.
We need to make sure the threat assessments and the planning and the preparation were adequate for the event that was to present this huge challenge to our country, and specifically to the officers who protected us.
As inspector general Bolton reported, he and his team have concluded to date that the department’s threat assessment and counter surveillance programs had a number of deficiencies, including: operating under outdated or vague guidance; failure to adequately report, stop, or contact activities; lack of a dedicated counter-surveillance entity; and insufficient resources for supporting both threat assessment and counter surveillance activities among other shortcomings.
end quotes
So, when Bennie Thompson on 27 July 2021 told the people of America and the watching world “A quorum being present, the select committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol will be in order,” and “The select committee is meeting today to receive testimony on the law enforcement experience on January 6th,” why didn’t Bennie include that above testimony from a police officer who was quite obviously present at the capitol on 6 January 2021?
Why wasn’t that “law enforcement experience” which was relevant on May 10, 2021 no longer relevant on 27 July 2021?
Because it would mess up the narrative Nancy Pelosi has Bennie Thompson trying to create to WHITEWASH the failures of the Democrats to protect the capitol on 6 January 2021?
And when Bennie told us on 27 July 2021 “And while we have a lot to uncover, there are a few things we already know,” why is it that he did not include any of what committee members Zoe Lofgren, Jamie Raskin, who is a constitutional scholar, you know, one of the best in the world, they say, and Peter Aguilar all knew on May 10, 2021 as a result of that earlier hearing where it was clearly stated by Zoe, that as inspector general Bolton reported, he and his team have concluded to date that the department’s threat assessment and counter surveillance programs had a number of deficiencies, including: operating under outdated or vague guidance; failure to adequately report, stop, or contact activities; lack of a dedicated counter-surveillance entity; and insufficient resources for supporting both threat assessment and counter surveillance activities among other shortcomings?
And why didn’t any of them make an effort to remind him of those earlier findings?
Oh, right, they are the truth that Nancy Pelosi wants buried.
How could I have forgotten that!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-394321
Paul Plante says:
So what do we have here, people, confronting us with this Pelosi-ite “selected” committee of hers to supposedly get to the bottom of what really happened on 6 January 2021, as if by now, none of us could possibly have a clue and so, would need Bennie Thompson and his crew to give us the unvarnished “truth,” as if there was any possibility of that happening, which there isn’t, because you cannot arrive at the truth by starting out with a pack of lies, as Bennie has done in his first hearing, which takes us back in time to May 10, 2021 and a House Administration Committee Hearing on the very same January 6 Capitol Attack that Bennie and his hand-selected crew on his committee are said to be investigating, where we had as follows:
Today’s hearing continues the oversight of this committee and the House of Representatives of issues related to January 6th, 2021, the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol.
Specifically, the scope of today’s hearing is the latest flash report by the inspector general for the US Capitol police, which was provided to congressional oversight committees and the department on April 30th.
end quotes
And there we are, back to the same BULL**** Bennie is pushing about an “insurrection” on 6 January 2021.
So what is the relevance here?
Why am I going back to that hearing?
And the answer to that question is Zoe Lofgren, the chair of that committee, as well as being a member of Bennie Thompson’s COMMITTEE OF INQUSITION, Jamie Raskin, also a member of that committee as well as being a member of Bennie’s WITCH HUNTERS, and Pete Aguilar, himself also a member of Zoe’s committee as well as being a member of Bennie’s FLIM-FLAM, and according to the transcript, along with Zoe, both Jamie Raskin and Peter Aguilar were present at that May 10, 2021 hearing, to wit:
Chairperson (Zoe Lofgren): The Committee on House Administration will come to order.
I’d like to welcome our members.
We have a quorum present.
The ranking member.
Mr. Raskin, Mr. Style, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Scanlan and Ms. Fernandez.
And so we have a quorum and I’d like to welcome everyone.
end quotes
And since they were all there, Zoe, Jamie and Peter, on that day, at that hearing, this is what the three of them heard, which is a matter of public record given the existence of the transcript, to wit:
But before we get to that, I want to take a moment to clarify what I think appeared to be some confusion the last time Mr. Bolton appeared before us.
I asked a question that apparently some misinterpreted as a statement, but I was merely quoting from an officer who was part of an office of professional responsibility review.
It was not a review of the radio transmission.
It was a quote from an officer who was interviewed, and I’d like to quote this officer directly.
“I was originally drafted for CDU at 1000 hours on January 6, 2021.”
“I then swapped my starting time with another officer who starting time was 0800 hours.”
“I enjoyed being part of the CDU.”
“Few minutes after our roll call, my squad was directed to help the east front security posture at the Capitol division.”
“As I was crossing the street at traffic six, a radio broadcast was sent out to all outside unit: ‘Attention. All unit on the field, we’re not looking for any pro-Trump in the crowd.'”
“‘We’re only looking for anti pro-Trump, who wants to start a fight.’”
“At that point, I started thinking about my initial intelligence that was disseminated.”
“The entire crowd was a threat based on the intelligence.”
“The pro-Trump were the threat because they’re coming to stop the count.”
“However, I convinced myself that perhaps the mission has changed.”
“The CDU that was scheduled at 1000 hours was initially supposed to be part of our rotation.”
“However, they were sent to patrol garages around the House division.”
“At that point, I was convinced that the mission has changed and the threat was not a high level threat because of the radio call and the decisions that were made to send the other group to patrol garages.”
“I was on at the east front with officers, a small group, perhaps prior or still in the military, approach one officer and ask him if he wants to talk, because what is happening at the lower west front terrace, what happened at the east front as well, and nothing will stop that.”
“I automatically realized that there was a disconnect or a miscommunication about the event that is occurring today.”
And that’s the point.
We need to make sure the threat assessments and the planning and the preparation were adequate for the event that was to present this huge challenge to our country, and specifically to the officers who protected us.
As inspector general Bolton reported, he and his team have concluded to date that the department’s threat assessment and counter surveillance programs had a number of deficiencies, including: operating under outdated or vague guidance; failure to adequately report, stop, or contact activities; lack of a dedicated counter-surveillance entity; and insufficient resources for supporting both threat assessment and counter surveillance activities among other shortcomings.
end quotes
So, when Bennie Thompson on 27 July 2021 told the people of America and the watching world “A quorum being present, the select committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol will be in order,” and “The select committee is meeting today to receive testimony on the law enforcement experience on January 6th,” why didn’t Bennie include that above testimony from a police officer who was quite obviously present at the capitol on 6 January 2021?
Why wasn’t that “law enforcement experience” which was relevant on May 10, 2021 no longer relevant on 27 July 2021?
Because it would mess up the narrative Nancy Pelosi has Bennie Thompson trying to create to WHITEWASH the failures of the Democrats to protect the capitol on 6 January 2021?
And when Bennie told us on 27 July 2021 “And while we have a lot to uncover, there are a few things we already know,” why is it that he did not include any of what committee members Zoe Lofgren, Jamie Raskin, who is a constitutional scholar, you know, one of the best in the world, they say, and Peter Aguilar all knew on May 10, 2021 as a result of that earlier hearing where it was clearly stated by Zoe, that as inspector general Bolton reported, he and his team have concluded to date that the department’s threat assessment and counter surveillance programs had a number of deficiencies, including: operating under outdated or vague guidance; failure to adequately report, stop, or contact activities; lack of a dedicated counter-surveillance entity; and insufficient resources for supporting both threat assessment and counter surveillance activities among other shortcomings?
And why didn’t any of them make an effort to remind him of those earlier findings?
Oh, right, they are the truth that Nancy Pelosi wants buried.
How could I have forgotten that!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-394321