REUTERS
"Capitol police officer pleads not guilty to obstruction charges"
By Mark Hosenball
19 OCTOBER 2021
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Capitol Police officer on Tuesday pleaded not guilty to charges that he obstructed a probe into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol complex by supporters of then-President Donald Trump by urging a participant to destroy Facebook posts showing him inside, warning that he could be prosecuted.
At a hearing before U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, Michael Riley, who served on the Capitol Police force for 25 years, formally entered not guilty pleas to two obstruction charges filed against him last week, according to court records.
A status conference was scheduled on the case for Nov. 29.
The court docket notes that if the Nov. 29 hearing "is to be converted to a disposition" then "the parties must email the draft plea paperwork" to a court clerk by Nov. 24.
A lawyer for Riley could not immediately be reached for comment.
In a six-page indictment, prosecutors alleged Riley became a Facebook friend with a suspect identified as "Person 1" on Jan. 1 and then direct messaged the individual on Jan. 7.
"Hey (Person 1), im a capitol police officer who agrees with your political stance," Riley said in the message.
"Take down the part about being in the building they are currently investigating and everyone who was in the building is going to be charged."
Prosecutors say Riley exchanged "dozens more" direct messages with the riot suspect on Jan. 7, including one in which he wrote "Im glad you got out of there unscathed."
"We had over 50 officers hurt, some pretty bad."
Each of two obstruction charges Riley faces carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, though judges often impose sentences below the maximum.
More than 650 people have been charged with taking part in the attack, an unsuccessful attempt to stop Congress from certifying Democratic President Joe Biden's election victory, which Trump falsely claimed was the result of widespread fraud.
(Reporting By Mark Hosenball; Editing by Bill Berkrot)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/capit ... d=msedgntp
POLITICS
Re: POLITICS
THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
"FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6"
Conn Carroll
8/20/2021
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”
By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI.
Reuters reports:
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
…
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.
"Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized."
"But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."
This report is a devastating blow to President Joe Biden and Democrats, who have attempted to make the existence of an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections.
Reuters does note that some “cells of protesters,” including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, did coordinate to “break into the Capitol,” but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”
None of this excuses the violent riot that happened on Jan. 6.
The FBI has arrested 570 rioters and each and every one of them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
But that is what the event was: a riot, just like so many other riots.
Trying to politicize it and turn it into something it wasn't won’t make the Capitol any safer.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-c ... ar-AANxOuQ
"FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6"
Conn Carroll
8/20/2021
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”
By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI.
Reuters reports:
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
…
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.
"Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized."
"But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."
This report is a devastating blow to President Joe Biden and Democrats, who have attempted to make the existence of an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections.
Reuters does note that some “cells of protesters,” including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, did coordinate to “break into the Capitol,” but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”
None of this excuses the violent riot that happened on Jan. 6.
The FBI has arrested 570 rioters and each and every one of them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
But that is what the event was: a riot, just like so many other riots.
Trying to politicize it and turn it into something it wasn't won’t make the Capitol any safer.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-c ... ar-AANxOuQ
Re: POLITICS
REUTERS
"Fed report shows wage pressures amid 'modest to moderate' economic growth"
By Ann Saphir, Lindsay Dunsmuir
OCTOBER 20, 2021
(Reuters) -U.S. employers reported significant increases in prices and wages even as economic growth decelerated to a “modest to moderate” pace in September and early October, the Federal Reserve said on Wednesday in its latest compendium of reports about the economy.
“Outlooks for near-term economic activity remained positive, overall, but some Districts noted increased uncertainty and more cautious optimism than in previous months,” according to the summary of information from the Fed’s 12 regional districts, prepared as part of a broad range of briefings ahead of policymakers’ Nov. 2-3 meeting.
Employment increased, though labor growth was dampened by a low supply of workers, despite wage increases designed to attract new hires and keep existing employees, the report said.
Most districts reported “significantly elevated prices,” with some expecting prices to stay high or increase further, and others expecting inflation to moderate.
“Many firms raised selling prices indicating a greater ability to pass along cost increases to customers amid strong demand,” the Fed districts reported.
Policymakers are poised to begin reducing their $120 billion in monthly asset purchases as soon as next month after what most see as substantial improvement in the labor market since the end of last year.
The report isn’t likely to alter that decision, but it does expose the tensions Fed policymakers face as they move beyond the taper and begin contemplating when to raise rates.
Inflation has been running well above the Fed’s 2% target for the last several months.
Fed Governor Randal Quarles on Wednesday said current high inflation may test the Fed’s patience as it leaves rates low to encourage hiring.
His current view, like that of most of his colleagues, is that inflation will subside next year.
But if wages start to push prices into an upward spiral, or inflation expectations begin to get unmoored, he said, the Fed may need to act sooner to raise rates.
Policymakers are keenly focused on the drivers of those price rises and whether they will, as most expect, recede next year.
If current high inflation persists, the Fed may need to start raising rates sooner than widely assumed, several here policymakers have said here recently.
However, Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester pushed back against those concerns on Wednesday afternoon, saying that although she sees upside risks to inflation, she expects inflation will come back down next year.
“I don’t think that interest rate hikes are coming any time soon,” Mester said during an interview with CNBC.
FIRMS RAISE PRICES
Wednesday’s report showed companies in most districts were feeling price and wage pressures from supply chain bottlenecks as well as from labor constraints.
The Philadelphia Fed reported on one firm that was offering as much as “$90,000 for a second-year CPA position that might have commanded $65,000 before the pandemic.”
The Cleveland Fed said nearly 60% of its contacts reported raising wages recently, but with supply chains slowing production of goods, even that appeared not to be enough.
One auto dealer, the district reported, noted that “supply chain disruptions were causing his labor challenges, adding, ‘nothing to sell makes it hard to keep employees.’”
A furniture retailer told the Boston Fed it had raised prices more than 30% since February 2021 to reflect increased shipping and materials costs.
The San Francisco Fed reported competition for talent and workers’ willingness to switch jobs as driving up wages, with one contact from the banking sector calling it “a wage war.”
Meanwhile, the increase in available workers that many employers expected to see as pandemic unemployment benefits expired and schools came back into session failed to materialize in many districts, the report showed.
Reporting by Ann Saphir and Lindsay Dunsmuir; Additional reporting by Jonnelle Marte; Editing by Andrea Ricci and Diane Craft
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fed ... SKBN2HA2AN
"Fed report shows wage pressures amid 'modest to moderate' economic growth"
By Ann Saphir, Lindsay Dunsmuir
OCTOBER 20, 2021
(Reuters) -U.S. employers reported significant increases in prices and wages even as economic growth decelerated to a “modest to moderate” pace in September and early October, the Federal Reserve said on Wednesday in its latest compendium of reports about the economy.
“Outlooks for near-term economic activity remained positive, overall, but some Districts noted increased uncertainty and more cautious optimism than in previous months,” according to the summary of information from the Fed’s 12 regional districts, prepared as part of a broad range of briefings ahead of policymakers’ Nov. 2-3 meeting.
Employment increased, though labor growth was dampened by a low supply of workers, despite wage increases designed to attract new hires and keep existing employees, the report said.
Most districts reported “significantly elevated prices,” with some expecting prices to stay high or increase further, and others expecting inflation to moderate.
“Many firms raised selling prices indicating a greater ability to pass along cost increases to customers amid strong demand,” the Fed districts reported.
Policymakers are poised to begin reducing their $120 billion in monthly asset purchases as soon as next month after what most see as substantial improvement in the labor market since the end of last year.
The report isn’t likely to alter that decision, but it does expose the tensions Fed policymakers face as they move beyond the taper and begin contemplating when to raise rates.
Inflation has been running well above the Fed’s 2% target for the last several months.
Fed Governor Randal Quarles on Wednesday said current high inflation may test the Fed’s patience as it leaves rates low to encourage hiring.
His current view, like that of most of his colleagues, is that inflation will subside next year.
But if wages start to push prices into an upward spiral, or inflation expectations begin to get unmoored, he said, the Fed may need to act sooner to raise rates.
Policymakers are keenly focused on the drivers of those price rises and whether they will, as most expect, recede next year.
If current high inflation persists, the Fed may need to start raising rates sooner than widely assumed, several here policymakers have said here recently.
However, Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester pushed back against those concerns on Wednesday afternoon, saying that although she sees upside risks to inflation, she expects inflation will come back down next year.
“I don’t think that interest rate hikes are coming any time soon,” Mester said during an interview with CNBC.
FIRMS RAISE PRICES
Wednesday’s report showed companies in most districts were feeling price and wage pressures from supply chain bottlenecks as well as from labor constraints.
The Philadelphia Fed reported on one firm that was offering as much as “$90,000 for a second-year CPA position that might have commanded $65,000 before the pandemic.”
The Cleveland Fed said nearly 60% of its contacts reported raising wages recently, but with supply chains slowing production of goods, even that appeared not to be enough.
One auto dealer, the district reported, noted that “supply chain disruptions were causing his labor challenges, adding, ‘nothing to sell makes it hard to keep employees.’”
A furniture retailer told the Boston Fed it had raised prices more than 30% since February 2021 to reflect increased shipping and materials costs.
The San Francisco Fed reported competition for talent and workers’ willingness to switch jobs as driving up wages, with one contact from the banking sector calling it “a wage war.”
Meanwhile, the increase in available workers that many employers expected to see as pandemic unemployment benefits expired and schools came back into session failed to materialize in many districts, the report showed.
Reporting by Ann Saphir and Lindsay Dunsmuir; Additional reporting by Jonnelle Marte; Editing by Andrea Ricci and Diane Craft
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fed ... SKBN2HA2AN
Re: POLITICS
REUTERS
"White House tells Democrats corporate tax hike unlikely -congressional source"
By Reuters Staff
OCTOBER 20, 2021
Oct 20 (Reuters) - The White House told Democratic lawmakers in a meeting on Wednesday that a proposed hike in corporate taxes is unlikely to make it into a final reconciliation bill, according to a congressional source familiar with the discussions.
President Joe Biden had proposed increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, which would unwind the tax cuts enacted under Republican former President Donald Trump.
(Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw; Editing by Leslie Adler)
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-inf ... SW1N2M9054
"White House tells Democrats corporate tax hike unlikely -congressional source"
By Reuters Staff
OCTOBER 20, 2021
Oct 20 (Reuters) - The White House told Democratic lawmakers in a meeting on Wednesday that a proposed hike in corporate taxes is unlikely to make it into a final reconciliation bill, according to a congressional source familiar with the discussions.
President Joe Biden had proposed increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, which would unwind the tax cuts enacted under Republican former President Donald Trump.
(Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw; Editing by Leslie Adler)
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-inf ... SW1N2M9054
Re: POLITICS
REUTERS
"Boston Fed will not release documents on its former president's trades"
By Howard Schneider
OCTOBER 20, 2021
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Boston Federal Reserve will not release documents that could show whether its former president vetted a series of personal investments last year with its ethics officer, a spokesman for the regional Fed bank said, a key point in an ongoing ethics controversy at the U.S. central bank.
Eric Rosengren, along with Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan, stepped down after details of their trading activities in 2020 were reported in the media last month, raising questions about whether Fed rules on policymakers’ financial investments are strict enough given their market-sensitive roles.
Their investing activities and those of other top Fed officials including Chair Jerome Powell, in a year when the central bank delivered an unprecedented response to the economic threat posed by the coronavirus pandemic, have erupted into a full-blown controversy that may weigh on whether Powell is reappointed as Fed chief.
In a statement issued shortly after the initial reports, Rosengren said he would sell the securities in question, including shares in real estate investment trusts, the value of which could be influenced by Fed policy decisions.
Rosengren also said the investments “were permissible under Fed ethics rules for asset types and timeframes for transactions.”
Responding to a Reuters request for any documents from the Boston Fed’s general counsel or ethics officer underlying that comment, a spokesman for the regional bank emailed a statement on Tuesday that deferred to a broad review of Fed ethics rules launched by Powell last month.
“We will not be able to provide internal communications of that nature,” the statement said.
“The Chair has called for reviews of the ethics rules and frameworks."
"We welcome them, and will cooperate fully - and won’t publicly address specifics so as to see those reviews proceed fully, without prejudgment or distraction.”
Reuters has requested similar documents from the Dallas Fed as well as the Fed’s Board of Governors - the panel of officials who oversee the entire U.S. central bank system.
A Dallas Fed spokesman said the request had been forwarded to the regional bank’s general counsel.
There has been no response yet on the request filed to the Fed’s Board of Governors under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
The 12 regional Fed banks are quasi-private entities not governed by the Freedom of Information Act, and can be selective about the documents they make public.
Republican U.S. Senator Steve Daines pointedly questioned Powell about this issue at a recent congressional hearing.
Other prominent lawmakers, including Senate Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, plan to introduce legislation restricting Fed officials’ ownership of shares of individual companies.
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren has asked for securities regulators to investigate the transactions and demanded an ethics overhaul at the Fed’s regional banks.
In a Sept. 20 letter to Warren, St. Louis Fed President James Bullard, writing on behalf of all the Fed regional banks, said they would abide by whatever new guidance emerges from Powell’s review.
POWELL’S FUTURE
The ethics controversy has become an issue for Powell as he awaits word on whether President Joe Biden will appoint him to a second four-year term as Fed chief when his current one expires in February.
Reports on some of Powell’s own transactions last year have highlighted the potential reputational damage the central bank now faces as the controversy lingers.
In Powell’s case, that involved between $1 million and $5 million in proceeds from the sale of a stock market index fund a few days before he delivered a policy speech.
Under forms that Fed governors file each year with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, the values of holdings and transactions are recorded only in broad categories so the exact amount of the sale is not known.
A Fed spokesman said the sale and six smaller ones that year were to cover Powell’s family expenses.
From a personal finance perspective, it was a bad move.
The fund, the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, which tracks the broader U.S. equity market, has risen more than 30% since Powell sold it.
But, as with Rosengren and Kaplan, the context has become as important as the details.
Their transactions took place in a year of enormous economic uncertainty and hyperactivity by the Fed in response, actions that had tremendous influence on both the economy and financial markets.
In Powell’s case, the apparent liquidation of his stake in the Vanguard fund - his annual disclosure for 2020 shows effectively no holding in it at the end of that year - came with the U.S. unemployment rate at a lofty 7.8%, the initial rounds of federal pandemic-related aid due to expire, and no vaccines against COVID-19 in sight.
Powell has been a clear favorite for renomination, and still may be.
The online political betting market PredictIt.org, where the pace of transactions has surged since the ethics controversy emerged, suggests about a 70% probability he will be renamed to the job.
But that is down from 90% just before the matter arose.
Added to discussion around Powell’s management of monetary policy and bank regulation - the substance of his job - he now faces what Fed historian Peter Conti-Brown called a “legitimacy crisis.”
“There should be a very clear bright line rule, and that is that no central banker, or frankly any Fed employee with access to (Federal Open Market Committee) deliberations, can be an active market participant,” Conti-Brown said on a podcast with David Beckworth, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center.[-
“I would prefer to see central bankers buy structured products that rebalance by algorithm."
"So there’s no human discretion involved.”
Reporting by Howard Schneider; Editing by Dan Burns and Paul Simao
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fed ... SKBN2HA2AT
"Boston Fed will not release documents on its former president's trades"
By Howard Schneider
OCTOBER 20, 2021
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Boston Federal Reserve will not release documents that could show whether its former president vetted a series of personal investments last year with its ethics officer, a spokesman for the regional Fed bank said, a key point in an ongoing ethics controversy at the U.S. central bank.
Eric Rosengren, along with Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan, stepped down after details of their trading activities in 2020 were reported in the media last month, raising questions about whether Fed rules on policymakers’ financial investments are strict enough given their market-sensitive roles.
Their investing activities and those of other top Fed officials including Chair Jerome Powell, in a year when the central bank delivered an unprecedented response to the economic threat posed by the coronavirus pandemic, have erupted into a full-blown controversy that may weigh on whether Powell is reappointed as Fed chief.
In a statement issued shortly after the initial reports, Rosengren said he would sell the securities in question, including shares in real estate investment trusts, the value of which could be influenced by Fed policy decisions.
Rosengren also said the investments “were permissible under Fed ethics rules for asset types and timeframes for transactions.”
Responding to a Reuters request for any documents from the Boston Fed’s general counsel or ethics officer underlying that comment, a spokesman for the regional bank emailed a statement on Tuesday that deferred to a broad review of Fed ethics rules launched by Powell last month.
“We will not be able to provide internal communications of that nature,” the statement said.
“The Chair has called for reviews of the ethics rules and frameworks."
"We welcome them, and will cooperate fully - and won’t publicly address specifics so as to see those reviews proceed fully, without prejudgment or distraction.”
Reuters has requested similar documents from the Dallas Fed as well as the Fed’s Board of Governors - the panel of officials who oversee the entire U.S. central bank system.
A Dallas Fed spokesman said the request had been forwarded to the regional bank’s general counsel.
There has been no response yet on the request filed to the Fed’s Board of Governors under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
The 12 regional Fed banks are quasi-private entities not governed by the Freedom of Information Act, and can be selective about the documents they make public.
Republican U.S. Senator Steve Daines pointedly questioned Powell about this issue at a recent congressional hearing.
Other prominent lawmakers, including Senate Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, plan to introduce legislation restricting Fed officials’ ownership of shares of individual companies.
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren has asked for securities regulators to investigate the transactions and demanded an ethics overhaul at the Fed’s regional banks.
In a Sept. 20 letter to Warren, St. Louis Fed President James Bullard, writing on behalf of all the Fed regional banks, said they would abide by whatever new guidance emerges from Powell’s review.
POWELL’S FUTURE
The ethics controversy has become an issue for Powell as he awaits word on whether President Joe Biden will appoint him to a second four-year term as Fed chief when his current one expires in February.
Reports on some of Powell’s own transactions last year have highlighted the potential reputational damage the central bank now faces as the controversy lingers.
In Powell’s case, that involved between $1 million and $5 million in proceeds from the sale of a stock market index fund a few days before he delivered a policy speech.
Under forms that Fed governors file each year with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, the values of holdings and transactions are recorded only in broad categories so the exact amount of the sale is not known.
A Fed spokesman said the sale and six smaller ones that year were to cover Powell’s family expenses.
From a personal finance perspective, it was a bad move.
The fund, the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, which tracks the broader U.S. equity market, has risen more than 30% since Powell sold it.
But, as with Rosengren and Kaplan, the context has become as important as the details.
Their transactions took place in a year of enormous economic uncertainty and hyperactivity by the Fed in response, actions that had tremendous influence on both the economy and financial markets.
In Powell’s case, the apparent liquidation of his stake in the Vanguard fund - his annual disclosure for 2020 shows effectively no holding in it at the end of that year - came with the U.S. unemployment rate at a lofty 7.8%, the initial rounds of federal pandemic-related aid due to expire, and no vaccines against COVID-19 in sight.
Powell has been a clear favorite for renomination, and still may be.
The online political betting market PredictIt.org, where the pace of transactions has surged since the ethics controversy emerged, suggests about a 70% probability he will be renamed to the job.
But that is down from 90% just before the matter arose.
Added to discussion around Powell’s management of monetary policy and bank regulation - the substance of his job - he now faces what Fed historian Peter Conti-Brown called a “legitimacy crisis.”
“There should be a very clear bright line rule, and that is that no central banker, or frankly any Fed employee with access to (Federal Open Market Committee) deliberations, can be an active market participant,” Conti-Brown said on a podcast with David Beckworth, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center.[-
“I would prefer to see central bankers buy structured products that rebalance by algorithm."
"So there’s no human discretion involved.”
Reporting by Howard Schneider; Editing by Dan Burns and Paul Simao
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fed ... SKBN2HA2AT
Re: POLITICS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 20, 2021 AT 10:50 AM
Paul Plante says:
Axis Sally, Tokyo Rose and Jen Psaki!
What do they all have in common?
Mildred Elizabeth Gillars (November 29, 1900 – June 25, 1988), nicknamed “Axis Sally” along with Rita Zucca, was an American broadcaster employed by Nazi Germany to disseminate Axis propaganda during World War II.
Tokyo Rose was a name given by Allied troops in the South Pacific during World War II to all female English-speaking radio broadcasters of Japanese propaganda.
And Biden-ista Jen Psaki follows in their footsteps by disseminating CULT OF JOE propaganda here in the United States as she did just yesterday ( https://theglobalherald.com/news/trumps ... jen-psaki/ ) with her very ridiculous and absurd statement that Donald Trump posed a ‘unique and existential threat to our democracy,’ a statement so bizarre as to be totally unbelievable and which has American citizens who are not Biden or Psaki KOOL-AID DRINKERS now comparing Jen, America’s favorite bobble-head, to Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, known as “Baghdad Bob,” Saddam’s Minister of Information as the bobble-head Jen is Joe Biden’s MINISTER OF INFORMATION, who in March of 2003, like Jen today, was everybody’s favorite inadvertent comedian.
Sporting a kicky black beret and delightfully bombastic lexicon, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf appeared on TV daily to predict American failure and deny the Baghdad invasion — sometimes even as U.S. tanks appeared behind him.
“He’s great,” President George W. Bush said of Sahaf, admitting that he occasionally interrupted meetings to watch Sahaf’s briefings.
“Someone accused us of hiring him and putting him there.”
“He was a classic.”
And people, today, our very own Jen is also a classic with her line in response to Peter Doocy, the White House correspondent for Fox News, that “Well, since you give me the opportunity here, former President Trump used his office to incite an insurrection,” which idiotic statement is Bizarre Beyond Belief (BBB), given a Washington Examiner story sixty-one (61) days earlier, a story Jen apparently missed or disregarded since it did not agree with the BIDEN-ESQUE PROPAGANDA she is spewing, entitled “FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6” by Conn Carroll on 8/20/2021, where we had another completely different version of reality than the mythical horse**** Jen is spewing, to wit:
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”
By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI. Reuters reports:
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
“Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.
“Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized.”
“But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”
This report is a devastating blow to President Joe Biden and Democrats, who have attempted to make the existence of an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections.
Reuters does note that some “cells of protesters,” including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, did coordinate to “break into the Capitol,” but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”
The FBI has arrested 570 rioters and each and every one of them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
But that is what the event was: a riot, just like so many other riots.
Trying to politicize it and turn it into something it wasn’t won’t make the Capitol any safer.
end quotes
But people, disregard that, because what Jen says is THE TRUTH, while everybody knows the FBI lies, which takes us back to “Baghdad Bob” who became the subject of T-shirts, mugs, adoring websites, a pop song, and an action figure.
Will our very own Jen achieve the greatness of a “Baghdad Bob” and herself became the subject of T-shirts, mugs, adoring websites, a pop song, and an action figure?
Will we see bobble-head dolls of Jen riding on the dashboards of American cars all over the nation right up there next to the Plastic Jesus?
I don’t care if it rains or freezes
Long as I got my plastic Jen
Riding on the dashboard of my car.
Through my trials and tribulations
And my travels through the nations
With my plastic Jen I’ll go far.
Plastic Jen plastic Jen,
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Plastic Jen doesn’t hear
‘Cause she has a plastic ear
Plastic Jen plastic Jen,
Riding on the dashboard of my car!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-448957
Paul Plante says:
Axis Sally, Tokyo Rose and Jen Psaki!
What do they all have in common?
Mildred Elizabeth Gillars (November 29, 1900 – June 25, 1988), nicknamed “Axis Sally” along with Rita Zucca, was an American broadcaster employed by Nazi Germany to disseminate Axis propaganda during World War II.
Tokyo Rose was a name given by Allied troops in the South Pacific during World War II to all female English-speaking radio broadcasters of Japanese propaganda.
And Biden-ista Jen Psaki follows in their footsteps by disseminating CULT OF JOE propaganda here in the United States as she did just yesterday ( https://theglobalherald.com/news/trumps ... jen-psaki/ ) with her very ridiculous and absurd statement that Donald Trump posed a ‘unique and existential threat to our democracy,’ a statement so bizarre as to be totally unbelievable and which has American citizens who are not Biden or Psaki KOOL-AID DRINKERS now comparing Jen, America’s favorite bobble-head, to Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, known as “Baghdad Bob,” Saddam’s Minister of Information as the bobble-head Jen is Joe Biden’s MINISTER OF INFORMATION, who in March of 2003, like Jen today, was everybody’s favorite inadvertent comedian.
Sporting a kicky black beret and delightfully bombastic lexicon, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf appeared on TV daily to predict American failure and deny the Baghdad invasion — sometimes even as U.S. tanks appeared behind him.
“He’s great,” President George W. Bush said of Sahaf, admitting that he occasionally interrupted meetings to watch Sahaf’s briefings.
“Someone accused us of hiring him and putting him there.”
“He was a classic.”
And people, today, our very own Jen is also a classic with her line in response to Peter Doocy, the White House correspondent for Fox News, that “Well, since you give me the opportunity here, former President Trump used his office to incite an insurrection,” which idiotic statement is Bizarre Beyond Belief (BBB), given a Washington Examiner story sixty-one (61) days earlier, a story Jen apparently missed or disregarded since it did not agree with the BIDEN-ESQUE PROPAGANDA she is spewing, entitled “FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6” by Conn Carroll on 8/20/2021, where we had another completely different version of reality than the mythical horse**** Jen is spewing, to wit:
The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”
By that definition, there was no “insurrection” at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the FBI. Reuters reports:
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
“Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.
“Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized.”
“But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”
This report is a devastating blow to President Joe Biden and Democrats, who have attempted to make the existence of an “insurrection” on Jan. 6 a key issue in the 2022 midterm elections.
Reuters does note that some “cells of protesters,” including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, did coordinate to “break into the Capitol,” but the FBI found “no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside.”
The FBI has arrested 570 rioters and each and every one of them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
But that is what the event was: a riot, just like so many other riots.
Trying to politicize it and turn it into something it wasn’t won’t make the Capitol any safer.
end quotes
But people, disregard that, because what Jen says is THE TRUTH, while everybody knows the FBI lies, which takes us back to “Baghdad Bob” who became the subject of T-shirts, mugs, adoring websites, a pop song, and an action figure.
Will our very own Jen achieve the greatness of a “Baghdad Bob” and herself became the subject of T-shirts, mugs, adoring websites, a pop song, and an action figure?
Will we see bobble-head dolls of Jen riding on the dashboards of American cars all over the nation right up there next to the Plastic Jesus?
I don’t care if it rains or freezes
Long as I got my plastic Jen
Riding on the dashboard of my car.
Through my trials and tribulations
And my travels through the nations
With my plastic Jen I’ll go far.
Plastic Jen plastic Jen,
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Plastic Jen doesn’t hear
‘Cause she has a plastic ear
Plastic Jen plastic Jen,
Riding on the dashboard of my car!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-448957
Re: POLITICS
THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
"Terry McAuliffe shuts down interview and chides reporter for not asking 'better questions'"
Asher Notheis
20 OCTOBER 2021
Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for Virginia governor, shut down an interview while complaining about the questions.
ABC 7, a D.C.-area affiliate, interviewed McAuliffe and his GOP rival, Glenn Youngkin, on Oct. 13 and 14 respectively.
The outlet said both were given 20 minutes to talk about how they would lead Virginia if elected next month.
McAuliffe ended his interview after a little more than 10 minutes, telling interviewer Nick Minock he "should have asked better questions early on."
The ABC 7 transcript shows he ended it after a member of the Democrat's team claimed they were out of time.
"Hey, I gave you extra time," McAuliffe told the interviewer as he stood up and left.
"C’mon, man."
"You should have asked better questions early on."
"You should have asked questions your viewers care about.”
Prior to cutting the interview short, McAuliffe told the outlet if he is elected he will work to raise the minimum wage and create paid sick days.
He also warned viewers of Youngkin being "a Donald Trump right-wing agenda" who would ban abortions.
In his interview, Youngkin warned of McAuliffe, who previously served as Virginia governor from 2014 to 2018, wanting to "make your life difficult" for those who do not vaccinate against COVID-19.
Youngkin also said McAuliffe stands for himself and big government, while he stands for Virginians and individual freedom.
A recent poll from the Trafalgar Group found McAuliffe at 48% among likely voters, in a dead heat with Youngkin.
The election is set for Nov. 2.
McAuliffe's campaign did not immediately respond to the Washington Examiner's request for comment on the interview.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
"Terry McAuliffe shuts down interview and chides reporter for not asking 'better questions'"
Asher Notheis
20 OCTOBER 2021
Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for Virginia governor, shut down an interview while complaining about the questions.
ABC 7, a D.C.-area affiliate, interviewed McAuliffe and his GOP rival, Glenn Youngkin, on Oct. 13 and 14 respectively.
The outlet said both were given 20 minutes to talk about how they would lead Virginia if elected next month.
McAuliffe ended his interview after a little more than 10 minutes, telling interviewer Nick Minock he "should have asked better questions early on."
The ABC 7 transcript shows he ended it after a member of the Democrat's team claimed they were out of time.
"Hey, I gave you extra time," McAuliffe told the interviewer as he stood up and left.
"C’mon, man."
"You should have asked better questions early on."
"You should have asked questions your viewers care about.”
Prior to cutting the interview short, McAuliffe told the outlet if he is elected he will work to raise the minimum wage and create paid sick days.
He also warned viewers of Youngkin being "a Donald Trump right-wing agenda" who would ban abortions.
In his interview, Youngkin warned of McAuliffe, who previously served as Virginia governor from 2014 to 2018, wanting to "make your life difficult" for those who do not vaccinate against COVID-19.
Youngkin also said McAuliffe stands for himself and big government, while he stands for Virginians and individual freedom.
A recent poll from the Trafalgar Group found McAuliffe at 48% among likely voters, in a dead heat with Youngkin.
The election is set for Nov. 2.
McAuliffe's campaign did not immediately respond to the Washington Examiner's request for comment on the interview.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
Re: POLITICS
NEWSWEEK
"Psaki Says Trump 'Incited Insurrection,' Pressured DOJ to 'Propagate Lies'"
BY JUSTIN KLAWANS ON 10/18/21 AT 5:26 PM EDT
White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded Monday to a reporter who attempted to compare the recent actions of President Joe Biden to the usage of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) by former President Donald Trump.
During the daily White House press briefing, Psaki was asked by Peter Doocy, the White House correspondent for Fox News, about a promise President Biden had made during the campaign that he would not use the DOJ in a similar manner.
"What's changed since last year when [President Biden] said 'I will not do what former President Trump does and use the Justice Department as my vehicle to insist that something happened,'" Doocy asked.
In answering Doocy's question, Psaki stated that the former president had used his office to his personal advantage by citing the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, as well as pressuring DOJ officials to lie about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
"Well, since you give me the opportunity here, former President Trump used his office to incite an insurrection, he put political pressure on senior DOJ officials to propagate lies about the election to the point where they threatened to resign en masse," Psaki replied.
"I think there's hardly a comparison there," she continued.
Psaki and Doocy have had a contentious relationship since the Biden administration took office, and have clashed over numerous policies and subjects, including immigration and COVID vaccines, among other issues.
Doocy's question was in response to President Biden's remarks Friday in which he stated that the DOJ should go after people that ignored subpoenas from the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 insurrection.
The president told CNN White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins that "I hope that the committee goes after [those people] and holds them accountable."
Collins then asked President Biden if he believed the DOJ should then prosecute those individuals criminally, to which the president replied "I do, yes."
Jen Psaki White House briefing
White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question from Fox News reporter Peter Doocy Monday, stating that former President Donald Trump incited the January 6 insurrection and used the Justice Department to his advantage.
Here, Psaki can be seen in the White House Press Briefing Room.
While the president made his opinion on the matter known, Psaki reiterated that any action taken by the DOJ would be done in a manner independent from White House interference.
"That would be up to the Department of Justice, and it would be their purview to determine."
"They're an independent agency," Psaki said at a press briefing on October 8.
"They're independent."
"They would — they would determine any decision on criminal prosecutions."
"I'd point you to them and, of course, the committee."
Psaki did not elaborate on whether or not President Biden had discussed any possible criminal outcomes with DOJ officials, including Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Steve Bannon, a high-profile member of former President Trump's cabinet, made headlines earlier in October when he defied his subpoena from the House Select Committee.
The Washington Post said that the Committee was planning to "aggressively enforce" its subpoenas, including Bannon's.
Additionally, Representative Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican, told CNN's Jake Tapper that subpoenaing the former president was not off the table.
"If we subpoena all of a sudden the former president, we know that's going to become kind of a circus so that's not necessarily something we want to do up front," Kinzinger said.
"But if he has pieces of information we need, we certainly will."
Newsweek has reached out to the White House press office for comment.
https://www.newsweek.com/psaki-says-tru ... es-1640073
"Psaki Says Trump 'Incited Insurrection,' Pressured DOJ to 'Propagate Lies'"
BY JUSTIN KLAWANS ON 10/18/21 AT 5:26 PM EDT
White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded Monday to a reporter who attempted to compare the recent actions of President Joe Biden to the usage of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) by former President Donald Trump.
During the daily White House press briefing, Psaki was asked by Peter Doocy, the White House correspondent for Fox News, about a promise President Biden had made during the campaign that he would not use the DOJ in a similar manner.
"What's changed since last year when [President Biden] said 'I will not do what former President Trump does and use the Justice Department as my vehicle to insist that something happened,'" Doocy asked.
In answering Doocy's question, Psaki stated that the former president had used his office to his personal advantage by citing the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, as well as pressuring DOJ officials to lie about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
"Well, since you give me the opportunity here, former President Trump used his office to incite an insurrection, he put political pressure on senior DOJ officials to propagate lies about the election to the point where they threatened to resign en masse," Psaki replied.
"I think there's hardly a comparison there," she continued.
Psaki and Doocy have had a contentious relationship since the Biden administration took office, and have clashed over numerous policies and subjects, including immigration and COVID vaccines, among other issues.
Doocy's question was in response to President Biden's remarks Friday in which he stated that the DOJ should go after people that ignored subpoenas from the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 insurrection.
The president told CNN White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins that "I hope that the committee goes after [those people] and holds them accountable."
Collins then asked President Biden if he believed the DOJ should then prosecute those individuals criminally, to which the president replied "I do, yes."
Jen Psaki White House briefing
White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question from Fox News reporter Peter Doocy Monday, stating that former President Donald Trump incited the January 6 insurrection and used the Justice Department to his advantage.
Here, Psaki can be seen in the White House Press Briefing Room.
While the president made his opinion on the matter known, Psaki reiterated that any action taken by the DOJ would be done in a manner independent from White House interference.
"That would be up to the Department of Justice, and it would be their purview to determine."
"They're an independent agency," Psaki said at a press briefing on October 8.
"They're independent."
"They would — they would determine any decision on criminal prosecutions."
"I'd point you to them and, of course, the committee."
Psaki did not elaborate on whether or not President Biden had discussed any possible criminal outcomes with DOJ officials, including Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Steve Bannon, a high-profile member of former President Trump's cabinet, made headlines earlier in October when he defied his subpoena from the House Select Committee.
The Washington Post said that the Committee was planning to "aggressively enforce" its subpoenas, including Bannon's.
Additionally, Representative Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican, told CNN's Jake Tapper that subpoenaing the former president was not off the table.
"If we subpoena all of a sudden the former president, we know that's going to become kind of a circus so that's not necessarily something we want to do up front," Kinzinger said.
"But if he has pieces of information we need, we certainly will."
Newsweek has reached out to the White House press office for comment.
https://www.newsweek.com/psaki-says-tru ... es-1640073
Re: POLITICS
FORBES
"‘We Won’t Take No For An Answer’: Jan. 6 Committee Recommends Holding Steve Bannon In Criminal Contempt"
Joe Walsh, Forbes Staff
Oct 19, 2021
TOPLINE - A House committee investigating the Capitol riot on Tuesday recommended charging Steve Bannon with contempt of Congress, as lawmakers pressure former President Donald Trump’s ally to comply with a subpoena — and threaten to push for criminal charges if he defies them.
KEY FACTS
The select committee’s seven Democrats and two Republicans voted unanimously Tuesday evening to pass a report encouraging the House to hold Bannon in contempt over his refusal to testify or hand over documents tied to the January 6 riot.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) — the committee’s chair — said lawmakers believe Bannon has pertinent information and wants to deter other witnesses from refusing subpoenas: “Left unaddressed, this defiance may encourage others to follow Mr. Bannon down the same path.”
The committee accused Bannon of playing a “multi-faceted role” in the leadup to the riot: He backed Trump’s voter fraud claims, and he purportedly met with other Trump allies at a hotel near the White House ahead of the riot, the committee’s report claims.
Bannon also predicted on the eve of the January 6 riot that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow,” which lawmakers interpreted in their report to mean Bannon “had some foreknowledge about extreme events that would occur the next day.”
Bannon claims he can’t testify or turn over records because Trump has asserted “executive privilege,” a legal doctrine allowing presidents to keep certain internal communications secret, but lawmakers argued this concept doesn’t apply to Bannon because he was a private citizen at the time of the Capitol riot.
Forbes has reached out to Bannon’s attorney for comment.
CRUCIAL QUOTE
“It's a shame that Mr. Bannon has put us in this position, but we won't take no for an answer,” Thompson said Tuesday evening.
“We believe Mr. Bannon has information relevant to our probe, and we'll use the tools at our disposal to get that information.”
WHAT TO WATCH FOR
The entire House of Representatives will vote on whether to hold Bannon in contempt.
If the measure passes the Democrat-controlled House, it’s up to the Department of Justice to weigh criminal charges, which could result in fines and 12 months in jail.
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW
It’s unclear whether the DOJ plans to seek criminal charges.
The select committee has argued prosecutors have a “duty” to seek an indictment from a grand jury if Congress refers a contempt charge to them, but the DOJ has asserted in the past that it can choose not to send contempt allegations to a grand jury or pursue criminal charges.
President Joe Biden said last week he believes the DOJ should prosecute witnesses who fail to comply with the January 6 committee’s subpoenas, but the DOJ told several news outlets it “will make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law.”
KEY BACKGROUND
Tasked with investigating the Capitol riot and its immediate runup, the January 6 committee has subpoenaed a range of Trump administration officials and outside allies.
It has requested scores of White House documents tied to both the violence at the Capitol and Trump’s months-long gambit to overturn his 2020 reelection loss, and lawmakers asked Trump’s former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and several other staffers to hand over records and sit for testimony.
Bannon’s subpoena directed the political operative and ex-White House strategist to sit for a deposition and produce a range of records, including any communications with Trump about January 6 and discussions with the former president and his legal team about efforts to contest the 2020 election.
Trump has argued many of the records sought by the committee are protected by executive privilege, and Bannon’s attorney told lawmakers earlier this month he can’t comply with their subpoena because he “must accept [Trump’s] direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege,” leading the committee to threaten to pursue contempt.
SURPRISING FACT
Thompson said Bannon currently “stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena,” but the committee will pursue contempt of Congress against any other witnesses who refuse to testify or turn over records.
TANGENT
Trump wants the Biden administration to shield certain White House records he claims are subject to executive privilege, but Biden rejected this argument for an initial wave of documents requested by the select committee earlier this month.
This week, Trump filed a lawsuit against the committee and the National Archives and Records Administration, seeking to block what his attorneys described as a “vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration.”
Joe Walsh
I am a breaking news reporter at Forbes. I previously covered local news for the Boston Guardian, and I graduated from Tufts University in 2019.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2 ... 56a527082c
"‘We Won’t Take No For An Answer’: Jan. 6 Committee Recommends Holding Steve Bannon In Criminal Contempt"
Joe Walsh, Forbes Staff
Oct 19, 2021
TOPLINE - A House committee investigating the Capitol riot on Tuesday recommended charging Steve Bannon with contempt of Congress, as lawmakers pressure former President Donald Trump’s ally to comply with a subpoena — and threaten to push for criminal charges if he defies them.
KEY FACTS
The select committee’s seven Democrats and two Republicans voted unanimously Tuesday evening to pass a report encouraging the House to hold Bannon in contempt over his refusal to testify or hand over documents tied to the January 6 riot.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) — the committee’s chair — said lawmakers believe Bannon has pertinent information and wants to deter other witnesses from refusing subpoenas: “Left unaddressed, this defiance may encourage others to follow Mr. Bannon down the same path.”
The committee accused Bannon of playing a “multi-faceted role” in the leadup to the riot: He backed Trump’s voter fraud claims, and he purportedly met with other Trump allies at a hotel near the White House ahead of the riot, the committee’s report claims.
Bannon also predicted on the eve of the January 6 riot that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow,” which lawmakers interpreted in their report to mean Bannon “had some foreknowledge about extreme events that would occur the next day.”
Bannon claims he can’t testify or turn over records because Trump has asserted “executive privilege,” a legal doctrine allowing presidents to keep certain internal communications secret, but lawmakers argued this concept doesn’t apply to Bannon because he was a private citizen at the time of the Capitol riot.
Forbes has reached out to Bannon’s attorney for comment.
CRUCIAL QUOTE
“It's a shame that Mr. Bannon has put us in this position, but we won't take no for an answer,” Thompson said Tuesday evening.
“We believe Mr. Bannon has information relevant to our probe, and we'll use the tools at our disposal to get that information.”
WHAT TO WATCH FOR
The entire House of Representatives will vote on whether to hold Bannon in contempt.
If the measure passes the Democrat-controlled House, it’s up to the Department of Justice to weigh criminal charges, which could result in fines and 12 months in jail.
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW
It’s unclear whether the DOJ plans to seek criminal charges.
The select committee has argued prosecutors have a “duty” to seek an indictment from a grand jury if Congress refers a contempt charge to them, but the DOJ has asserted in the past that it can choose not to send contempt allegations to a grand jury or pursue criminal charges.
President Joe Biden said last week he believes the DOJ should prosecute witnesses who fail to comply with the January 6 committee’s subpoenas, but the DOJ told several news outlets it “will make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law.”
KEY BACKGROUND
Tasked with investigating the Capitol riot and its immediate runup, the January 6 committee has subpoenaed a range of Trump administration officials and outside allies.
It has requested scores of White House documents tied to both the violence at the Capitol and Trump’s months-long gambit to overturn his 2020 reelection loss, and lawmakers asked Trump’s former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and several other staffers to hand over records and sit for testimony.
Bannon’s subpoena directed the political operative and ex-White House strategist to sit for a deposition and produce a range of records, including any communications with Trump about January 6 and discussions with the former president and his legal team about efforts to contest the 2020 election.
Trump has argued many of the records sought by the committee are protected by executive privilege, and Bannon’s attorney told lawmakers earlier this month he can’t comply with their subpoena because he “must accept [Trump’s] direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege,” leading the committee to threaten to pursue contempt.
SURPRISING FACT
Thompson said Bannon currently “stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena,” but the committee will pursue contempt of Congress against any other witnesses who refuse to testify or turn over records.
TANGENT
Trump wants the Biden administration to shield certain White House records he claims are subject to executive privilege, but Biden rejected this argument for an initial wave of documents requested by the select committee earlier this month.
This week, Trump filed a lawsuit against the committee and the National Archives and Records Administration, seeking to block what his attorneys described as a “vexatious, illegal fishing expedition openly endorsed by Biden and designed to unconstitutionally investigate President Trump and his administration.”
Joe Walsh
I am a breaking news reporter at Forbes. I previously covered local news for the Boston Guardian, and I graduated from Tufts University in 2019.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2 ... 56a527082c
Re: POLITICS
REUTERS
"U.S. House committee rejects Bannon 'privilege' argument in Jan. 6 probe"
By Patricia Zengerle and Jan Wolfe
October 19, 2021
WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. congressional committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol said on Monday that it rejected Steve Bannon's arguments for failing to cooperate with the probe, as the panel pursues a contempt of Congress charge against the long-time adviser to former President Donald Trump.
Trump has claimed that materials and testimony sought by the House of Representatives Select Committee are covered by executive privilege, a legal doctrine that protects the confidentially of some White House communications.
Bannon, through his lawyer, has said he will not cooperate with the committee until Trump's executive privilege claim is resolved by a court or through a settlement agreement.
In its report released on Monday making the case for criminal contempt charges against Bannon, the committee said Bannon "relied on no legal authority to support his refusal to comply in any fashion," and said his testimony is critical because he appears to have "had some foreknowledge about extreme events that would occur" on Jan. 6.
According to the report, Bannon in a podcast on Jan. 5 told his listeners, "All hell is going to break loose tomorrow..."
"So many people said, 'Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.'"
"Well, this is your time in history."
The Select Committee is scheduled to meet on Tuesday evening to vote on the report recommending that the House cite Bannon for criminal contempt of Congress and refer him to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution.
The U.S. Justice Department has not said whether it plans to prosecute Bannon for contempt of Congress, a crime that carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.
Bannon's attorney, Robert Costello, did not respond to a request for comment on the committee's argument.
The attack on the Capitol by thousands of Trump supporters took place as Congress met to certify Democrat Joe Biden's election victory over Trump, delaying that process for several hours as then-Vice President Mike Pence, members of Congress, staff and journalists fled.
More than 600 people face criminal charges stemming from the event.
The committee also said that Bannon has "had multiple roles" relevant to its investigation, including helping to construct and participate in the "stop the steal" public relations effort that helped motivate the Jan. 6 attack.
"Stop the steal" refers to Trump's false claims that Biden's victory was the result of widespread fraud.
Multiple courts, state election officials and members of Trump's own administration rejected those claims as false.
Reporting by Patricia Zengerle in Washington Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe in Washington; Editing by Aurora Ellis, Matthew Lewis and Cynthia Osterman
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-hou ... 021-10-18/
"U.S. House committee rejects Bannon 'privilege' argument in Jan. 6 probe"
By Patricia Zengerle and Jan Wolfe
October 19, 2021
WASHINGTON, Oct 18 (Reuters) - The U.S. congressional committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol said on Monday that it rejected Steve Bannon's arguments for failing to cooperate with the probe, as the panel pursues a contempt of Congress charge against the long-time adviser to former President Donald Trump.
Trump has claimed that materials and testimony sought by the House of Representatives Select Committee are covered by executive privilege, a legal doctrine that protects the confidentially of some White House communications.
Bannon, through his lawyer, has said he will not cooperate with the committee until Trump's executive privilege claim is resolved by a court or through a settlement agreement.
In its report released on Monday making the case for criminal contempt charges against Bannon, the committee said Bannon "relied on no legal authority to support his refusal to comply in any fashion," and said his testimony is critical because he appears to have "had some foreknowledge about extreme events that would occur" on Jan. 6.
According to the report, Bannon in a podcast on Jan. 5 told his listeners, "All hell is going to break loose tomorrow..."
"So many people said, 'Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.'"
"Well, this is your time in history."
The Select Committee is scheduled to meet on Tuesday evening to vote on the report recommending that the House cite Bannon for criminal contempt of Congress and refer him to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution.
The U.S. Justice Department has not said whether it plans to prosecute Bannon for contempt of Congress, a crime that carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.
Bannon's attorney, Robert Costello, did not respond to a request for comment on the committee's argument.
The attack on the Capitol by thousands of Trump supporters took place as Congress met to certify Democrat Joe Biden's election victory over Trump, delaying that process for several hours as then-Vice President Mike Pence, members of Congress, staff and journalists fled.
More than 600 people face criminal charges stemming from the event.
The committee also said that Bannon has "had multiple roles" relevant to its investigation, including helping to construct and participate in the "stop the steal" public relations effort that helped motivate the Jan. 6 attack.
"Stop the steal" refers to Trump's false claims that Biden's victory was the result of widespread fraud.
Multiple courts, state election officials and members of Trump's own administration rejected those claims as false.
Reporting by Patricia Zengerle in Washington Additional reporting by Jan Wolfe in Washington; Editing by Aurora Ellis, Matthew Lewis and Cynthia Osterman
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-hou ... 021-10-18/