ROLL CALL
"McCarthy names five choices for Jan. 6 select committee - Pelosi could veto any and all GOP leader's picks"
By Chris Marquette
Posted July 19, 2021 at 8:06pm
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appointed Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks to lead Republicans on the Jan. 6 select committee, but his position and the four other GOP picks are contingent on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s approval.
If Pelosi signs off on McCarthy’s picks, Banks would serve as ranking member and would be joined on the panel to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol attack by Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas.
Banks said Pelosi created the panel to “malign conservatives” but added that he will work to provide Americans with the facts surrounding the attack.
“I have accepted Leader McCarthy’s appointment to this committee because we need leaders who will force the Democrats and the media to answer questions so far ignored,” the Indiana Republican said in a statement.
“Among them, why was the Capitol unprepared and vulnerable to attack on January 6?”
Banks indicated that the GOP might use the panel as a forum to attack President Joe Biden, who was not sworn in yet on the day of the Jan. 6 attack.
“I will do everything possible to give the American people the facts about the lead up to January 6, the riot that day, and the responses from Capitol leadership and the Biden administration."
"I will not allow this committee to be turned into a forum for condemning millions of Americans because of their political beliefs,” he stated.
Davis is the top Republican on the House Administration Committee, a panel that has held several hearings about the shortcomings of the Capitol Police.
Jordan is the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, which has oversight of the Justice Department.
Pelosi announced her eight selections to the committee on July 1, a roster that includes Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, who was purged from her role as GOP Conference chair, the party’s No. 3 position in leadership, for criticizing former President Donald Trump’s lies about election fraud.
House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who brokered a deal for a bipartisan, independent, 9/11-style commission that was later blocked by Senate Republicans, will chair the 13-member select committee.
Pelosi also named Democrats Adam B. Schiff, Zoe Lofgren and Pete Aguilar of California, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Elaine Luria of Virginia and Stephanie Murphy of Florida to the select committee.
The panel’s first hearing is scheduled for July 27 and will feature testimony from Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department officers.
https://www.rollcall.com/2021/07/19/mcc ... committee/
POLITICS
Re: POLITICS
REUTERS
"U.S. housing starts accelerate, building permits skid to eight-month low"
Lucia Mutikani
July 20, 2021
Summary
* Housing starts increase 6.3% in June; May revised down
* Single-family starts rise 6.3%; multi-family up 6.2%
* Building permits drop 5.1%; single-family down 6.3%
WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - U.S. homebuilding increased more than expected in June, but permits for future home construction fell to an eight-month low, likely reflecting hesitancy caused by expensive building materials as well as shortages of labor and land.
The report from the Commerce Department on Tuesday suggested a severe shortage of houses, which has boosted prices and sparked bidding wars across the country, could persist for a while.
Demand for houses is being driven by low mortgage rates and a desire for more spacious accommodations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Though lumber prices are coming down from record highs, builders are paying more for steel, concrete and lighting, and are grappling with shortages of appliances like refrigerators.
"Reports of multi-month delays in the delivery of windows, heating units, refrigerators and other items have popped up across the country, delaying delivery of homes and forcing builders to cap activity, and many builders continue to point to a shortage of available workers as a separate challenge," said Matthew Speakman, an economist at Zillow.
Housing starts rose 6.3% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.643 million units last month.
Data for May was revised down to a rate of 1.546 million units from the previously reported 1.572 million units.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast starts would rise to a rate of 1.590 million units.
Despite last month's increase, starts remained below March's rate of 1.737 million units, which was the highest level since July 2006.
Homebuilding increased in the West and the populous South, but fell in the Northeast and Midwest.
Single-family starts rose 6.3% to a rate of 1.160 million units.
The volatile multi-family homebuilding category advanced 6.2% to a pace of 483,000 units.
Starts increased 29.1% on a year-on-year basis in June.
Permits for future homebuilding fell 5.1% to a rate of 1.598 million units in June, the lowest level since October 2020.
Permits are now lagging starts, suggesting that homebuilding will slow in the coming months.
Stocks on Wall Street were trading higher after a sharp selloff on Monday.
The dollar gained versus a basket of currencies.
U.S. Treasury yields fell.
BUILDERS CAUTIOUS
While lumber futures have dropped nearly 70% from a record high in early May, economists caution that higher prices are likely to prevail because of wildfires in the Western United States.
Dustin Jalbert, head of Fastmarkets RISI's lumber team, also noted that log prices are soaring in the interior of the Canadian province of British Columbia and duties are potentially set to increase on Canadian producers later this year.
There are also signs that the exodus to suburbs and other low-density areas in search of larger homes for home offices and schooling is gradually fading as COVID-19 vaccinations allow companies to recall workers back to offices in city centers.
A rise in COVID-19 infections among unvaccinated Americans also poses a risk to the housing market outlook.
Economists expect the housing market, one of the economy's star performers during the coronavirus pandemic, was a mild drag on gross domestic product in the second quarter.
Still, homebuilding remains underpinned by the dearth of homes available for sale.
The inventory of previously-owned homes is near record lows, leading to double-digit growth in the median house price.
A survey from the National Association of Home Builders on Monday showed confidence among single-family homebuilders fell to an 11-month low in July.
Shortages and higher input prices likely weighed on new home sales in June.
The Mortgage Bankers Association Builder Application Survey, which was published on Tuesday, showed mortgage applications for new home purchases fell 23.8% in June from a year ago.
Applications decreased 3% compared to May.
The data has not been adjusted for typical seasonal patterns.
The Commerce Department is due to publish new home sales data for June next Monday.
Homebuilders and a group of other stakeholders met last Friday with White House officials, including Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge, to discuss strategies to address the short-term supply chain disruptions in the homebuilding sector.
Building permits fell in all four regions in June.
Single-family permits dropped 6.3% to a rate of 1.063 million units, the lowest since August 2020. Permits for multifamily housing slipped 2.6% to a rate of 535,000 units.
The backlog of single-family homes yet to be started grew in June to the highest level since October 2006.
"Widespread anecdotal reports point to builders delaying or turning down orders to allow shortages to ease and to catch up to a growing construction backlog," said Mark Palim, deputy chief economist at Fannie Mae in Washington.
Housing completions fell 1.4% to a rate of 1.324 million units last month.
Single-family home completions declined 6.1% to a rate of 902,000 units, the lowest level since October.
Realtors estimate that single-family housing starts and completion rates need to be in a range of 1.5 million to 1.6 million units per month to close the inventory gap.
The stock of housing under construction rose 1.8% to a rate of 1.359 million units last month.
Reporting by Lucia Mutikani Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Paul Simao
https://www.reuters.com/business/us-hou ... 021-07-20/
"U.S. housing starts accelerate, building permits skid to eight-month low"
Lucia Mutikani
July 20, 2021
Summary
* Housing starts increase 6.3% in June; May revised down
* Single-family starts rise 6.3%; multi-family up 6.2%
* Building permits drop 5.1%; single-family down 6.3%
WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - U.S. homebuilding increased more than expected in June, but permits for future home construction fell to an eight-month low, likely reflecting hesitancy caused by expensive building materials as well as shortages of labor and land.
The report from the Commerce Department on Tuesday suggested a severe shortage of houses, which has boosted prices and sparked bidding wars across the country, could persist for a while.
Demand for houses is being driven by low mortgage rates and a desire for more spacious accommodations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Though lumber prices are coming down from record highs, builders are paying more for steel, concrete and lighting, and are grappling with shortages of appliances like refrigerators.
"Reports of multi-month delays in the delivery of windows, heating units, refrigerators and other items have popped up across the country, delaying delivery of homes and forcing builders to cap activity, and many builders continue to point to a shortage of available workers as a separate challenge," said Matthew Speakman, an economist at Zillow.
Housing starts rose 6.3% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.643 million units last month.
Data for May was revised down to a rate of 1.546 million units from the previously reported 1.572 million units.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast starts would rise to a rate of 1.590 million units.
Despite last month's increase, starts remained below March's rate of 1.737 million units, which was the highest level since July 2006.
Homebuilding increased in the West and the populous South, but fell in the Northeast and Midwest.
Single-family starts rose 6.3% to a rate of 1.160 million units.
The volatile multi-family homebuilding category advanced 6.2% to a pace of 483,000 units.
Starts increased 29.1% on a year-on-year basis in June.
Permits for future homebuilding fell 5.1% to a rate of 1.598 million units in June, the lowest level since October 2020.
Permits are now lagging starts, suggesting that homebuilding will slow in the coming months.
Stocks on Wall Street were trading higher after a sharp selloff on Monday.
The dollar gained versus a basket of currencies.
U.S. Treasury yields fell.
BUILDERS CAUTIOUS
While lumber futures have dropped nearly 70% from a record high in early May, economists caution that higher prices are likely to prevail because of wildfires in the Western United States.
Dustin Jalbert, head of Fastmarkets RISI's lumber team, also noted that log prices are soaring in the interior of the Canadian province of British Columbia and duties are potentially set to increase on Canadian producers later this year.
There are also signs that the exodus to suburbs and other low-density areas in search of larger homes for home offices and schooling is gradually fading as COVID-19 vaccinations allow companies to recall workers back to offices in city centers.
A rise in COVID-19 infections among unvaccinated Americans also poses a risk to the housing market outlook.
Economists expect the housing market, one of the economy's star performers during the coronavirus pandemic, was a mild drag on gross domestic product in the second quarter.
Still, homebuilding remains underpinned by the dearth of homes available for sale.
The inventory of previously-owned homes is near record lows, leading to double-digit growth in the median house price.
A survey from the National Association of Home Builders on Monday showed confidence among single-family homebuilders fell to an 11-month low in July.
Shortages and higher input prices likely weighed on new home sales in June.
The Mortgage Bankers Association Builder Application Survey, which was published on Tuesday, showed mortgage applications for new home purchases fell 23.8% in June from a year ago.
Applications decreased 3% compared to May.
The data has not been adjusted for typical seasonal patterns.
The Commerce Department is due to publish new home sales data for June next Monday.
Homebuilders and a group of other stakeholders met last Friday with White House officials, including Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge, to discuss strategies to address the short-term supply chain disruptions in the homebuilding sector.
Building permits fell in all four regions in June.
Single-family permits dropped 6.3% to a rate of 1.063 million units, the lowest since August 2020. Permits for multifamily housing slipped 2.6% to a rate of 535,000 units.
The backlog of single-family homes yet to be started grew in June to the highest level since October 2006.
"Widespread anecdotal reports point to builders delaying or turning down orders to allow shortages to ease and to catch up to a growing construction backlog," said Mark Palim, deputy chief economist at Fannie Mae in Washington.
Housing completions fell 1.4% to a rate of 1.324 million units last month.
Single-family home completions declined 6.1% to a rate of 902,000 units, the lowest level since October.
Realtors estimate that single-family housing starts and completion rates need to be in a range of 1.5 million to 1.6 million units per month to close the inventory gap.
The stock of housing under construction rose 1.8% to a rate of 1.359 million units last month.
Reporting by Lucia Mutikani Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Paul Simao
https://www.reuters.com/business/us-hou ... 021-07-20/
Re: POLITICS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 20, 2021 AT 7:14 PM
Paul Plante says:
And how the horse**** does flow freely here, people, and I am referring to a Roll Call article entitled “McCarthy names five choices for Jan. 6 select committee – Pelosi could veto any and all GOP leader’s picks” by Chris Marquette on July 19, 2021, where we had as follows with respect to this supposedly “bipartisan” committee, to wit:
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appointed Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks to lead Republicans on the Jan. 6 select committee, but his position and the four other GOP picks are contingent on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s approval.
If Pelosi signs off on McCarthy’s picks, Banks would serve as ranking member and would be joined on the panel to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol attack by Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas.
end quotes
So what is up with that?
Unless people who are Republicans are acceptable to Nancy Pelosi, who has already declared that an insurrection occurred on 6 January 2021 when there was no insurrection, thus tainting this committee before it has had a single meeting, they can’t be on this committee?
What kind of partisan bull**** is that?
Pelosi ought to save us time and money by simply writing the report she wants written instead of going though all this rigmarole with this bogus committee of hers, which takes us back to the Roll Call story, to wit:
Banks said Pelosi created the panel to “malign conservatives” but added that he will work to provide Americans with the facts surrounding the attack.
“I have accepted Leader McCarthy’s appointment to this committee because we need leaders who will force the Democrats and the media to answer questions so far ignored,” the Indiana Republican said in a statement.
“Among them, why was the Capitol unprepared and vulnerable to attack on January 6?”
“I will do everything possible to give the American people the facts about the lead up to January 6, the riot that day, and the responses from Capitol leadership and the Biden administration.”
“I will not allow this committee to be turned into a forum for condemning millions of Americans because of their political beliefs,” he stated.
The panel’s first hearing is scheduled for July 27 and will feature testimony from Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department officers.
end quotes
So things are definitely heating up here and where they will go from here, nobody knows, so stay tuned for more breaking news as it happens!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-386672
Paul Plante says:
And how the horse**** does flow freely here, people, and I am referring to a Roll Call article entitled “McCarthy names five choices for Jan. 6 select committee – Pelosi could veto any and all GOP leader’s picks” by Chris Marquette on July 19, 2021, where we had as follows with respect to this supposedly “bipartisan” committee, to wit:
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appointed Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks to lead Republicans on the Jan. 6 select committee, but his position and the four other GOP picks are contingent on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s approval.
If Pelosi signs off on McCarthy’s picks, Banks would serve as ranking member and would be joined on the panel to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol attack by Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas.
end quotes
So what is up with that?
Unless people who are Republicans are acceptable to Nancy Pelosi, who has already declared that an insurrection occurred on 6 January 2021 when there was no insurrection, thus tainting this committee before it has had a single meeting, they can’t be on this committee?
What kind of partisan bull**** is that?
Pelosi ought to save us time and money by simply writing the report she wants written instead of going though all this rigmarole with this bogus committee of hers, which takes us back to the Roll Call story, to wit:
Banks said Pelosi created the panel to “malign conservatives” but added that he will work to provide Americans with the facts surrounding the attack.
“I have accepted Leader McCarthy’s appointment to this committee because we need leaders who will force the Democrats and the media to answer questions so far ignored,” the Indiana Republican said in a statement.
“Among them, why was the Capitol unprepared and vulnerable to attack on January 6?”
“I will do everything possible to give the American people the facts about the lead up to January 6, the riot that day, and the responses from Capitol leadership and the Biden administration.”
“I will not allow this committee to be turned into a forum for condemning millions of Americans because of their political beliefs,” he stated.
The panel’s first hearing is scheduled for July 27 and will feature testimony from Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Department officers.
end quotes
So things are definitely heating up here and where they will go from here, nobody knows, so stay tuned for more breaking news as it happens!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-386672
Re: POLITICS
THE GUARDIAN
"Capitol attack committee chair vows to investigate Trump: ‘Nothing is off limits’"
Hugo Lowell in Washington
21 JULY 2021
Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the new House select committee to scrutinize the Capitol attack, says he will investigate Donald Trump as part of his inquiry into the events of 6 January – a day he sees as the greatest test to the United States since the civil war.
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.”
The aggressive move to place Trump in the crosshairs of the select committee underscores Thompson’s determination to uncover the root causes of 6 January, even after Senate Republicans, fearing political damage, blocked the creation of a 9/11-style commission.
The move comes at the same time as many Republicans have been seeking to downplay the attack on the Capitol – in which five people died – or, in the case of Trump himself, cast its protagonists in a more positive light.
But there is no doubt in Thompson’s mind of the seriousness of the event.
Addressing some of the key questions at the heart of the select committee’s investigation into the attack, Thompson characterized the inquiry as an undertaking to safeguard the peaceful transition of power and the future of American democracy.
“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.
The central thrust of the investigation will focus on the facts and circumstances surrounding the Capitol attack, Thompson said, and the first hearing scheduled for 27 July will feature current and former US Capitol police and DC Metro police officers.
But in pursuing a broad mandate to also examine the root causes of the insurrection, Thompson reiterated that he remains prepared to issue subpoenas to compel testimony from an array of Trump officials connected to the attack should they refuse to appear voluntarily.
Trump and McCarthy among top witnesses
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.”
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.
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.
That prospect took on added significance on Monday, after McCarthy named House judiciary committee chairman Jim Jordan as one of his picks for the panel.
Jordan has previously suggested he may have also spoken to Trump as the assault took place.
“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.
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.
Subpoenas to be enforced in court
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.
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.
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.
The senior staff may be named as soon as this week, according to a source familiar with the matter.
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.
Thompson also said he expects the National Archives, the agency now in possession of records from the Trump White House, to make materials available for his investigation.
“That should not be an issue,” he said, though he left open the possibility of subpoenas in the event of noncompliance.
And he vowed to refer criminal charges should Trump White House records, covering the period from the November election through 6 January, be missing or destroyed – a persistent worry among Democrats as Trump grew increasingly unhinged in the final weeks of the administration.
“That violates the law,” Thompson said.
“I don’t see any hesitation on our part to pursue that."
"If the respect for the rule of law is not adhered to, that’s even more reason for this select committee to exist.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... hp&pc=U531
"Capitol attack committee chair vows to investigate Trump: ‘Nothing is off limits’"
Hugo Lowell in Washington
21 JULY 2021
Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the new House select committee to scrutinize the Capitol attack, says he will investigate Donald Trump as part of his inquiry into the events of 6 January – a day he sees as the greatest test to the United States since the civil war.
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.”
The aggressive move to place Trump in the crosshairs of the select committee underscores Thompson’s determination to uncover the root causes of 6 January, even after Senate Republicans, fearing political damage, blocked the creation of a 9/11-style commission.
The move comes at the same time as many Republicans have been seeking to downplay the attack on the Capitol – in which five people died – or, in the case of Trump himself, cast its protagonists in a more positive light.
But there is no doubt in Thompson’s mind of the seriousness of the event.
Addressing some of the key questions at the heart of the select committee’s investigation into the attack, Thompson characterized the inquiry as an undertaking to safeguard the peaceful transition of power and the future of American democracy.
“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.
The central thrust of the investigation will focus on the facts and circumstances surrounding the Capitol attack, Thompson said, and the first hearing scheduled for 27 July will feature current and former US Capitol police and DC Metro police officers.
But in pursuing a broad mandate to also examine the root causes of the insurrection, Thompson reiterated that he remains prepared to issue subpoenas to compel testimony from an array of Trump officials connected to the attack should they refuse to appear voluntarily.
Trump and McCarthy among top witnesses
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.”
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.
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.
That prospect took on added significance on Monday, after McCarthy named House judiciary committee chairman Jim Jordan as one of his picks for the panel.
Jordan has previously suggested he may have also spoken to Trump as the assault took place.
“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.
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.
Subpoenas to be enforced in court
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.
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.
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.
The senior staff may be named as soon as this week, according to a source familiar with the matter.
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.
Thompson also said he expects the National Archives, the agency now in possession of records from the Trump White House, to make materials available for his investigation.
“That should not be an issue,” he said, though he left open the possibility of subpoenas in the event of noncompliance.
And he vowed to refer criminal charges should Trump White House records, covering the period from the November election through 6 January, be missing or destroyed – a persistent worry among Democrats as Trump grew increasingly unhinged in the final weeks of the administration.
“That violates the law,” Thompson said.
“I don’t see any hesitation on our part to pursue that."
"If the respect for the rule of law is not adhered to, that’s even more reason for this select committee to exist.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... hp&pc=U531
Re: POLITICS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 20, 2021 AT 9:39 PM
Paul Plante says:
And going back for the moment to the statement issued by the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs on 12 July 2021 where we were told “USS Benfold conducted this FONOP (freedom of navigation operation) in accordance with international law and then continued on to conduct normal operations in international waters,” and “(T)he operation reflects our commitment to uphold freedom of navigation and lawful uses of the sea as a principle,” and “(T)he PLA(N)’s [People’s Liberation Army Navy] statement is the latest in a long string of PRC actions to misrepresent lawful U.S. maritime operations and assert its excessive and illegitimate maritime claims at the expense of its Southeast Asian neighbors in the South China Sea,” and “(T)he PRC’s behavior stands in contrast to the United States’ adherence to international law and our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific region,” with respect to what the Navy press dudes are calling “international law,” as if that term meant anything concrete, we need to bring into the discussion the international treaty known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was never ratified by the United States.
As we learn from Wikipedia on that subject, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) was convened from June to August in Caracas, Venezuela in 1974.
The most significant issues which were covered were setting limits, navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), continental shelf jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation regime, protection of the marine environment, scientific research, and settlement of maritime boundary disputes.
With more than 160 nations participating, the Conference continued until its final meeting in late 1982, at which time the final act was signed and the Convention was opened for signature.
As time went on, it became clear that the United States, among other developed states, was not willing to agree to Part XI of the Convention concerning deep seabed portions and mining of potentially valuable metals.
The United States objected to Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests.
The U.S. claimed that the provisions of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states.
The U.S. also argued that the International Seabed Authority established by the Convention might become a bloated and expensive bureaucracy, due to a combination of large revenues and insufficient control over what the revenues could be used for.
The United States accepted all but Part XI as customary international law.
In March 1983 President Ronald Reagan, through Proclamation No. 5030, claimed a 200-mile exclusive economic zone.
In December 1988 President Reagan, through Proclamation No. 5928, extended U.S. territorial waters from three nautical miles to twelve nautical miles for national security purposes.
However a legal opinion from the Justice Department questioned the President’s constitutional authority to extend sovereignty as Congress has the power to make laws concerning the territory belonging to the United States under the U.S. Constitution.
In any event, Congress needs to pass laws defining if the extended waters, including oil and mineral rights, are under State or Federal control.
end quotes
So if we do not believe in international law, why is it that we would expect any different from the Chinese?
A mystery to me, anyway.
Perhaps as a congresswoman, Elaine Luria can give us some much needed guidance on that subject.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-386739
Paul Plante says:
And going back for the moment to the statement issued by the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs on 12 July 2021 where we were told “USS Benfold conducted this FONOP (freedom of navigation operation) in accordance with international law and then continued on to conduct normal operations in international waters,” and “(T)he operation reflects our commitment to uphold freedom of navigation and lawful uses of the sea as a principle,” and “(T)he PLA(N)’s [People’s Liberation Army Navy] statement is the latest in a long string of PRC actions to misrepresent lawful U.S. maritime operations and assert its excessive and illegitimate maritime claims at the expense of its Southeast Asian neighbors in the South China Sea,” and “(T)he PRC’s behavior stands in contrast to the United States’ adherence to international law and our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific region,” with respect to what the Navy press dudes are calling “international law,” as if that term meant anything concrete, we need to bring into the discussion the international treaty known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was never ratified by the United States.
As we learn from Wikipedia on that subject, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) was convened from June to August in Caracas, Venezuela in 1974.
The most significant issues which were covered were setting limits, navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), continental shelf jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation regime, protection of the marine environment, scientific research, and settlement of maritime boundary disputes.
With more than 160 nations participating, the Conference continued until its final meeting in late 1982, at which time the final act was signed and the Convention was opened for signature.
As time went on, it became clear that the United States, among other developed states, was not willing to agree to Part XI of the Convention concerning deep seabed portions and mining of potentially valuable metals.
The United States objected to Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests.
The U.S. claimed that the provisions of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states.
The U.S. also argued that the International Seabed Authority established by the Convention might become a bloated and expensive bureaucracy, due to a combination of large revenues and insufficient control over what the revenues could be used for.
The United States accepted all but Part XI as customary international law.
In March 1983 President Ronald Reagan, through Proclamation No. 5030, claimed a 200-mile exclusive economic zone.
In December 1988 President Reagan, through Proclamation No. 5928, extended U.S. territorial waters from three nautical miles to twelve nautical miles for national security purposes.
However a legal opinion from the Justice Department questioned the President’s constitutional authority to extend sovereignty as Congress has the power to make laws concerning the territory belonging to the United States under the U.S. Constitution.
In any event, Congress needs to pass laws defining if the extended waters, including oil and mineral rights, are under State or Federal control.
end quotes
So if we do not believe in international law, why is it that we would expect any different from the Chinese?
A mystery to me, anyway.
Perhaps as a congresswoman, Elaine Luria can give us some much needed guidance on that subject.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-386739
Re: POLITICS
NEWSWEEK
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Tells Sean Spicer What Capitalism Is"
Khaleda Rahman
20 JULY 2021
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has hit back at Sean Spicer after he claimed she was "using capitalism to push socialism" by selling merchandise.
Spicer, a former While House press secretary, made the comment in a tweet on Monday that also included a link to a Reuters report about the New York congresswoman's investment in her online store.
Ocasio-Cortez's campaign paid Financial Innovations, a political merchandise firm which operates her online store and supplies merchandise, more than $1.4 million in the first half of 2021, according to campaign disclosures to the Federal Election Commission.
Not sure if you know this Sean, but transactions aren’t capitalism.
Capitalism is a system that prioritizes profit at any & all human/enviro cost.
But fwiw our shop is unionized, doesn’t operate for profit,& funds projects like free tutoring, food programs,& local organizing.🌱 https://t.co/RPnMlg0mpS
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 19, 2021
Her store sells T-shirts, hats and other items featuring "AOC," "The Green New Deal" and slogans such as "Tax the Rich" and "Fight for my Future" on them.
According to Reuters, Ocasio-Cortez's heavy investment is "aimed at both fundraising and building the second-term lawmaker's profile nationally."
Ocasio-Cortez's campaign told the agency that the its online store is focused on "uplifting independent artists of color whose work tells a story of community and imagines a more equitable world for all."
But Spicer took to Twitter to suggest the lawmaker — a self-described democratic socialist - selling merchandise was somehow hypocritical.
Ocasio-Cortez responded to Spicer's tweet, stating that "transactions aren't capitalism."
"Not sure if you know this Sean, but transactions aren't capitalism."
"Capitalism is a system that prioritizes profit at any & all human/enviro cost," she wrote in a tweet that amassed more than 40,000 likes in about nine hours.
"But [for what it's worth] our shop is unionized, doesn't operate for profit, & funds projects like free tutoring, food programs, & local organizing."
Webster's dictionary defines capitalism as: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
Other Twitter users responded to Spicer's tweet to tell him that he appeared to not understand what capitalism means.
"The right continues to prove it doesn't even understand the one sacrosanct term in its lexicon," one person wrote.
Another person joked: "As much as you get publicly owned, I thought you'd be a big fan of socialism."
Others thanked Spicer for informing them about Ocasio-Cortez's store.
"Wow thanks for alerting me to AOCs business!"
"Can't wait to buy her merchandise!" one person wrote.
Another added: "Not sure what you're trying to say about socialism and capitalism but that looks like some sweet merch!"
"Thanks for the link."
Spicer served as former President Donald Trump's press secretary from January to July 2017, a tenure that included regular clashes with the media.
He went on to appear on ABC's Dancing with the Stars, and now hosts an evening program on conservative network Newsmax.
Last year, he released his second book, titled Leading America: President Trump's Commitment to People, Patriotism, and Capitalism.
Representatives for Ocasio-Cortez and Spicer have been contacted for additional comment.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/al ... d=msedgntp
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Tells Sean Spicer What Capitalism Is"
Khaleda Rahman
20 JULY 2021
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has hit back at Sean Spicer after he claimed she was "using capitalism to push socialism" by selling merchandise.
Spicer, a former While House press secretary, made the comment in a tweet on Monday that also included a link to a Reuters report about the New York congresswoman's investment in her online store.
Ocasio-Cortez's campaign paid Financial Innovations, a political merchandise firm which operates her online store and supplies merchandise, more than $1.4 million in the first half of 2021, according to campaign disclosures to the Federal Election Commission.
Not sure if you know this Sean, but transactions aren’t capitalism.
Capitalism is a system that prioritizes profit at any & all human/enviro cost.
But fwiw our shop is unionized, doesn’t operate for profit,& funds projects like free tutoring, food programs,& local organizing.🌱 https://t.co/RPnMlg0mpS
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 19, 2021
Her store sells T-shirts, hats and other items featuring "AOC," "The Green New Deal" and slogans such as "Tax the Rich" and "Fight for my Future" on them.
According to Reuters, Ocasio-Cortez's heavy investment is "aimed at both fundraising and building the second-term lawmaker's profile nationally."
Ocasio-Cortez's campaign told the agency that the its online store is focused on "uplifting independent artists of color whose work tells a story of community and imagines a more equitable world for all."
But Spicer took to Twitter to suggest the lawmaker — a self-described democratic socialist - selling merchandise was somehow hypocritical.
Ocasio-Cortez responded to Spicer's tweet, stating that "transactions aren't capitalism."
"Not sure if you know this Sean, but transactions aren't capitalism."
"Capitalism is a system that prioritizes profit at any & all human/enviro cost," she wrote in a tweet that amassed more than 40,000 likes in about nine hours.
"But [for what it's worth] our shop is unionized, doesn't operate for profit, & funds projects like free tutoring, food programs, & local organizing."
Webster's dictionary defines capitalism as: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
Other Twitter users responded to Spicer's tweet to tell him that he appeared to not understand what capitalism means.
"The right continues to prove it doesn't even understand the one sacrosanct term in its lexicon," one person wrote.
Another person joked: "As much as you get publicly owned, I thought you'd be a big fan of socialism."
Others thanked Spicer for informing them about Ocasio-Cortez's store.
"Wow thanks for alerting me to AOCs business!"
"Can't wait to buy her merchandise!" one person wrote.
Another added: "Not sure what you're trying to say about socialism and capitalism but that looks like some sweet merch!"
"Thanks for the link."
Spicer served as former President Donald Trump's press secretary from January to July 2017, a tenure that included regular clashes with the media.
He went on to appear on ABC's Dancing with the Stars, and now hosts an evening program on conservative network Newsmax.
Last year, he released his second book, titled Leading America: President Trump's Commitment to People, Patriotism, and Capitalism.
Representatives for Ocasio-Cortez and Spicer have been contacted for additional comment.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/al ... d=msedgntp
Re: POLITICS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 21, 2021 AT 6:35 PM
Paul Plante says:
And talk about the train leaving the station with no brakes, square wheels and a full head of steam and then some, with the boiler about to explode as the DEMOCRATS on Nancy Pelosi’s hand-picked KANGAROO COURT pour on the coal, and true to form the TYRANNICAL DESPOT Nancy Pelosi has vetoed two of the Republican choices because they didn’t meet her standards, while there is no challenge whatsoever of obviously biased and prejudiced DEMOCRATS on the hand-picked KANGAROO COURT like Elaine Luria, let’s go 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 as follows:
Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the new House select committee to scrutinize the Capitol attack, says he will investigate Donald Trump as part of his inquiry into the events of 6 January – a day he sees as the greatest test to the United States since the civil war.
end quotes
And talk about HYPERBOLIC (exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally) HORSE****, people, there we have it in spades staring us right in the face, because as events go, what happened on January 6 was a YAWNER, despite what Bennie wants us to believe, an event bordering on HO ******* HUM and it certainly was far from the “greatest test to the United States since the Civil War,” as we can clearly see from this newsreel footage of an assault on the Pentagon by protesters during the DEMOCRAT VEET NAM DEBACLE:
Anti Vietnam War Protest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk09F1fTs1E
Or this assault on the capitol in 1971 by VEET NAM WAR protesters:
1971 MAY DAY ANTI-VIETNAM WAR PROTEST FILM “THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING” WASHINGTON D.C. XD13614
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQzgchtpUFc
Or how about this for a candidate for the “greatest test to the United States since the Civil War,” to wit:
Protesters besiege White House as chaos sweeps Washington | ITV News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwDcvAH43UQ
And my goodness, having been around back then, who can possibly forget this from a time when the United States was truly at the breaking point:
Vietnam War protest in Washington
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv7Gk-Pg7Rw
Which thought about America at the breaking point back then because of the Democrats and the VEET NAM war of Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson takes us to this:
1969 Point Of Breaking (The Vietnam Protest – Washington, DC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoeWqtjCJ_I
And this makes what took place on 6 January 2021 look like small potatoes:
Largest Anti-Vietnam War protest in Washington, D.C. – 1969 | Movietone Moment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nT-_ieQ57A
And my goodness, people, talking about an event that is another prime candidate for the “greatest test to the United States since the Civil War,” who can possibly forget the Bonus Army, which was a group of 43,000 demonstrators – made up of 17,000 U.S. World War I veterans, together with their families and affiliated groups – who gathered in Washington, D.C. in mid-1932 to demand early cash redemption of their service certificates.
According to Wikipedia, organizers called the demonstrators the “Bonus Expeditionary Force,” to echo the name of World War I’s American Expeditionary Forces, while the media referred to them as the “Bonus Army” or “Bonus Marchers.”
Many of the war veterans had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression.
The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1945.
Each certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier’s promised payment with compound interest.
The principal demand of the Bonus Army was the immediate cash payment of their certificates.
On July 28, 1932, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property.
Washington police met with resistance, shot at the protestors, and two veterans were wounded and later died.
President Herbert Hoover then ordered the U.S. Army to clear the marchers’ campsite.
Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks.
The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.
end quotes
So, bottom line, people, do not let Bennie Thompson and the Democrats bury you under a mountain of hyperbolic horse**** that simply is not true.
This nation has faced far worse in its history than what happened on 6 January 2021 and we survived.
And we survived 6 January 2021, as well, although the Democrats will have us believing otherwise with their full-bore propaganda barrage, which is what these hearings will be, this as we read in the breaking NBC News story entitled “McCarthy threatens to pull his choices from Jan. 6 panel after Pelosi rejects GOP Reps. Jordan and Banks” by Teaganne Finn and Leigh Ann Caldwell on 21 July 2021, as follows:
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., rejected two of Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s picks for the select committee charged with investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, prompting the Republican leader to threaten to pull all of his proposed appointees.
end quotes
What ******* BULL****!
Pelosi DEMOCRACY in action, right before our eyes!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-387306
Paul Plante says:
And talk about the train leaving the station with no brakes, square wheels and a full head of steam and then some, with the boiler about to explode as the DEMOCRATS on Nancy Pelosi’s hand-picked KANGAROO COURT pour on the coal, and true to form the TYRANNICAL DESPOT Nancy Pelosi has vetoed two of the Republican choices because they didn’t meet her standards, while there is no challenge whatsoever of obviously biased and prejudiced DEMOCRATS on the hand-picked KANGAROO COURT like Elaine Luria, let’s go 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 as follows:
Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the new House select committee to scrutinize the Capitol attack, says he will investigate Donald Trump as part of his inquiry into the events of 6 January – a day he sees as the greatest test to the United States since the civil war.
end quotes
And talk about HYPERBOLIC (exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally) HORSE****, people, there we have it in spades staring us right in the face, because as events go, what happened on January 6 was a YAWNER, despite what Bennie wants us to believe, an event bordering on HO ******* HUM and it certainly was far from the “greatest test to the United States since the Civil War,” as we can clearly see from this newsreel footage of an assault on the Pentagon by protesters during the DEMOCRAT VEET NAM DEBACLE:
Anti Vietnam War Protest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk09F1fTs1E
Or this assault on the capitol in 1971 by VEET NAM WAR protesters:
1971 MAY DAY ANTI-VIETNAM WAR PROTEST FILM “THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING” WASHINGTON D.C. XD13614
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQzgchtpUFc
Or how about this for a candidate for the “greatest test to the United States since the Civil War,” to wit:
Protesters besiege White House as chaos sweeps Washington | ITV News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwDcvAH43UQ
And my goodness, having been around back then, who can possibly forget this from a time when the United States was truly at the breaking point:
Vietnam War protest in Washington
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv7Gk-Pg7Rw
Which thought about America at the breaking point back then because of the Democrats and the VEET NAM war of Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson takes us to this:
1969 Point Of Breaking (The Vietnam Protest – Washington, DC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoeWqtjCJ_I
And this makes what took place on 6 January 2021 look like small potatoes:
Largest Anti-Vietnam War protest in Washington, D.C. – 1969 | Movietone Moment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nT-_ieQ57A
And my goodness, people, talking about an event that is another prime candidate for the “greatest test to the United States since the Civil War,” who can possibly forget the Bonus Army, which was a group of 43,000 demonstrators – made up of 17,000 U.S. World War I veterans, together with their families and affiliated groups – who gathered in Washington, D.C. in mid-1932 to demand early cash redemption of their service certificates.
According to Wikipedia, organizers called the demonstrators the “Bonus Expeditionary Force,” to echo the name of World War I’s American Expeditionary Forces, while the media referred to them as the “Bonus Army” or “Bonus Marchers.”
Many of the war veterans had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression.
The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1945.
Each certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier’s promised payment with compound interest.
The principal demand of the Bonus Army was the immediate cash payment of their certificates.
On July 28, 1932, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property.
Washington police met with resistance, shot at the protestors, and two veterans were wounded and later died.
President Herbert Hoover then ordered the U.S. Army to clear the marchers’ campsite.
Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks.
The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.
end quotes
So, bottom line, people, do not let Bennie Thompson and the Democrats bury you under a mountain of hyperbolic horse**** that simply is not true.
This nation has faced far worse in its history than what happened on 6 January 2021 and we survived.
And we survived 6 January 2021, as well, although the Democrats will have us believing otherwise with their full-bore propaganda barrage, which is what these hearings will be, this as we read in the breaking NBC News story entitled “McCarthy threatens to pull his choices from Jan. 6 panel after Pelosi rejects GOP Reps. Jordan and Banks” by Teaganne Finn and Leigh Ann Caldwell on 21 July 2021, as follows:
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., rejected two of Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s picks for the select committee charged with investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, prompting the Republican leader to threaten to pull all of his proposed appointees.
end quotes
What ******* BULL****!
Pelosi DEMOCRACY in action, right before our eyes!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-387306
Re: POLITICS
THE HILL
"Pelosi rejects Jordan, Banks for Jan. 6 committee"
Mike Lillis
21 JULY 2021
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday rejected two of the Republican picks - Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Jim Banks (Ind.) - for the Jan. 6 select committee.
Both GOP lawmakers are staunch allies of former President Trump, and both had voted in January against certifying President Biden's election victory.
In a statement, Pelosi said Democrats in her caucus had raised specific objections to Jordan and Banks "and the impact their appointments may have on the integrity of the investigation."
"With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee," she said.
Jordan and Banks were part of a group of five GOP lawmakers nominated by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to serve on the 13-member select committee.
But Pelosi ultimately had veto power over the Republican selections.
Pelosi said she spoke with McCarthy Wednesday morning to inform him of her decision, and she requested that he recommend two alternative Republicans to replace Jordan and Banks.
Here is Pelosi's full statement:
"The violent domestic attack on Congress on January 6th was the worst assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the worst domestic assault on American Democracy since the Civil War."
"We are facing a radically new threat in the kinds of forces that combined to attack our government on January 6th."
"The future of our democracy is on the line."
"This assault was an attempt to overthrow the government."
"We need a comprehensive investigation as to who organized this attack, who paid for it, how they nearly succeeded in overthrowing a presidential election, why they did it and how we must organize ourselves to prevent anything like it from ever happening again."
"It had been our hope to establish a bipartisan, independent National Commission, but there is no prospect for that Commission at this time because of insufficient support from Republican Senators."
"Therefore, the House established the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol."
"The Select Committee on the January 6th Insurrection will investigate and report upon the facts and causes of the terrorist mob attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021."
"It will also be charged with reporting its findings, conclusions and recommendations for preventing future attacks."
"Monday evening, the Minority Leader recommended 5 Members to serve on the Select Committee."
"I have spoken with him this morning about the objections raised about Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan and the impact their appointments may have on the integrity of the investigation."
"I also informed him that I was prepared to appoint Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls, and requested that he recommend two other Members."
"With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee."
"The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
"Pelosi rejects Jordan, Banks for Jan. 6 committee"
Mike Lillis
21 JULY 2021
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday rejected two of the Republican picks - Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Jim Banks (Ind.) - for the Jan. 6 select committee.
Both GOP lawmakers are staunch allies of former President Trump, and both had voted in January against certifying President Biden's election victory.
In a statement, Pelosi said Democrats in her caucus had raised specific objections to Jordan and Banks "and the impact their appointments may have on the integrity of the investigation."
"With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee," she said.
Jordan and Banks were part of a group of five GOP lawmakers nominated by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to serve on the 13-member select committee.
But Pelosi ultimately had veto power over the Republican selections.
Pelosi said she spoke with McCarthy Wednesday morning to inform him of her decision, and she requested that he recommend two alternative Republicans to replace Jordan and Banks.
Here is Pelosi's full statement:
"The violent domestic attack on Congress on January 6th was the worst assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the worst domestic assault on American Democracy since the Civil War."
"We are facing a radically new threat in the kinds of forces that combined to attack our government on January 6th."
"The future of our democracy is on the line."
"This assault was an attempt to overthrow the government."
"We need a comprehensive investigation as to who organized this attack, who paid for it, how they nearly succeeded in overthrowing a presidential election, why they did it and how we must organize ourselves to prevent anything like it from ever happening again."
"It had been our hope to establish a bipartisan, independent National Commission, but there is no prospect for that Commission at this time because of insufficient support from Republican Senators."
"Therefore, the House established the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol."
"The Select Committee on the January 6th Insurrection will investigate and report upon the facts and causes of the terrorist mob attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021."
"It will also be charged with reporting its findings, conclusions and recommendations for preventing future attacks."
"Monday evening, the Minority Leader recommended 5 Members to serve on the Select Committee."
"I have spoken with him this morning about the objections raised about Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan and the impact their appointments may have on the integrity of the investigation."
"I also informed him that I was prepared to appoint Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls, and requested that he recommend two other Members."
"With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee."
"The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
Re: POLITICS
REUTERS
"Republicans abandon Capitol riot probe after Pelosi rejects Jordan, Banks"
Reuters
July 21, 2021
WASHINGTON, July 21 (Reuters) - The top Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday withdrew his five nominees to serve on the special committee probing the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol after Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two of them.
Pelosi had earlier rejected Representatives Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, staunch defenders of former President Donald Trump, from serving on the panel investigating the Trump supporters who assaulted Congress in an attempt to stop it from certifying President Joe Biden's election.
The violence followed a fiery speech in which Trump repeated his false claims that his defeat was the result of widespread fraud and urged his supporters to "fight" the election outcome.
"With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee," Pelosi said in a statement.
“The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision."
Pelosi created the 13-member panel after congressional Republicans rejected a bipartisan panel to probe the violence, which saw hundreds of Trump supporters storm the building, assaulting police, smashing windows and sending lawmakers and then-Vice President Mike Pence scrambling for safety.
"Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts," House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a statement withdrawing his nominees.
Pelosi had previously appointed one Republican, Liz Cheney, to the panel.
Pelosi had said she would accept McCarthy's other three nominees -- Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls -- and had asked him to pick two new members.
Cheney, who was stripped of her leadership position among House Republicans for rejecting Trump's false claims, told reporters she would remain on the commission and agreed with Pelosi's decision.
"I am absolutely confident that we will have a non-partisan investigation," she told reporters.
Jordan is an ardent Trump supporter who served as one of his main defenders during his two impeachment trials, the latter of which was on a charge of inciting the Capitol riot.
The then-Republican-controlled Senate acquitted Trump both times.
Four people died on the day of the violence, one shot dead by police and the other three of natural causes.
A Capitol Police officer who had been attacked by protesters died the following day.
Two police officers who responded to the assault on the Capitol later took their own lives.
More than a hundred police officers were injured.
Reporting by Jan Wolfe and David Morgan; Editing by Scott Malone, Susan Heavey and Aurora Ellis
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pelosi ... 021-07-21/
"Republicans abandon Capitol riot probe after Pelosi rejects Jordan, Banks"
Reuters
July 21, 2021
WASHINGTON, July 21 (Reuters) - The top Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday withdrew his five nominees to serve on the special committee probing the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol after Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two of them.
Pelosi had earlier rejected Representatives Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, staunch defenders of former President Donald Trump, from serving on the panel investigating the Trump supporters who assaulted Congress in an attempt to stop it from certifying President Joe Biden's election.
The violence followed a fiery speech in which Trump repeated his false claims that his defeat was the result of widespread fraud and urged his supporters to "fight" the election outcome.
"With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee," Pelosi said in a statement.
“The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision."
Pelosi created the 13-member panel after congressional Republicans rejected a bipartisan panel to probe the violence, which saw hundreds of Trump supporters storm the building, assaulting police, smashing windows and sending lawmakers and then-Vice President Mike Pence scrambling for safety.
"Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts," House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a statement withdrawing his nominees.
Pelosi had previously appointed one Republican, Liz Cheney, to the panel.
Pelosi had said she would accept McCarthy's other three nominees -- Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls -- and had asked him to pick two new members.
Cheney, who was stripped of her leadership position among House Republicans for rejecting Trump's false claims, told reporters she would remain on the commission and agreed with Pelosi's decision.
"I am absolutely confident that we will have a non-partisan investigation," she told reporters.
Jordan is an ardent Trump supporter who served as one of his main defenders during his two impeachment trials, the latter of which was on a charge of inciting the Capitol riot.
The then-Republican-controlled Senate acquitted Trump both times.
Four people died on the day of the violence, one shot dead by police and the other three of natural causes.
A Capitol Police officer who had been attacked by protesters died the following day.
Two police officers who responded to the assault on the Capitol later took their own lives.
More than a hundred police officers were injured.
Reporting by Jan Wolfe and David Morgan; Editing by Scott Malone, Susan Heavey and Aurora Ellis
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pelosi ... 021-07-21/
Re: POLITICS
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 21, 2021 AT 9:07 PM
Paul Plante says:
And as we pause here to consider the word hypocrisy as it pertains and applies to the Biden government inside the TEN MILES SQUARE of Washington, D.C., which in the Cato V political essay by Cato on November 22, 1787 was described quite accurately as “the ten miles square, if the remarks of one of the wisest men, drawn from the experience of mankind, may be credited, would be the asylum of the base, idle, avaricious and ambitious,” which word as applied to the Biden administration means “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform,” and here we are talking with respect to China’s hotly contested Economic Opportunity Zone, let us go back into our own history, which you would think if you were rational that the Biden-istas and CULT OF JOE along with the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs would be aware of as they do all this posturing and make these bellicose Jingoistic threats of theirs towards China, to Proclamation 5030–Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America, Source: The provisions of Proclamation 5030 of Mar. 10, 1983, appear at 48 FR 10605, 3 CFR, 1983 Comp., p. 22, unless otherwise noted, where we have as follows concerning our own history as it pertains to our own Exclusive Economic Zone, or the liberties we grant ourselves, but would at the same time deny to China, to wit:
WHEREAS the Government of the United States of America desires to facilitate the wise development and use of the oceans consistent with international law;
WHEREAS international law recognizes that, in a zone beyond its territory and adjacent to its territorial sea, known as the Exclusive Economic Zone, a coastal State may assert certain sovereign rights over natural resources and related jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS the establishment of an Exclusive Economic Zone by the United States will advance the development of ocean resources and promote the protection of the marine environment, while not affecting other lawful uses of the zone, including the freedoms of navigation and overflight, by other States;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States of America and confirm also the rights and freedoms of all States within an Exclusive Economic Zone, as described herein.
The Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States is a zone contiguous to the territorial sea, including zones contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (to the extent consistent with the Covenant and the United Nations Trusteeship Agreement), and United States overseas territories and possessions.
The Exclusive Economic Zone extends to a distance 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
In cases where the maritime boundary with a neighboring State remains to be determined, the boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone shall be determined by the United States and other State concerned in accordance with equitable principles.
Within the Exclusive Economic Zone, the United States has, to the extent permitted by international law, (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, both living and non-living, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; and (b) jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, and installations and structures having economic purposes, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
This Proclamation does not change existing United States policies concerning the continental shelf, marine mammals and fisheries, including highly migratory species of tuna which are not subject to United States jurisdiction and require international agreements for effective management.
The United States will exercise these sovereign rights and jurisdiction in accordance with the rules of international law.
Without prejudice to the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States, the Exclusive Economic Zone remains an area beyond the territory and territorial sea of the United States in which all States enjoy the high seas freedoms of navigation, overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventh.
end quotes
So, because we are the United States, the greatest nation ever since we made Joe Biden the president, we get to have an Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles.
So what is China claiming then?
How about this: The exclusive economic zone of the People’s Republic of China is the area adjacent to and beyond the territorial sea of the People’s Republic of China, extending as far as 200 nautical miles measured from the baseline that is used for calculating the breadth of the territorial sea.
Doesn’t that language sound familiar, as if it was lifted straight out of Proclamation 5030–Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America?
And of course it was.
So why the hypocrisy of the Biden administration?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-387378
Paul Plante says:
And as we pause here to consider the word hypocrisy as it pertains and applies to the Biden government inside the TEN MILES SQUARE of Washington, D.C., which in the Cato V political essay by Cato on November 22, 1787 was described quite accurately as “the ten miles square, if the remarks of one of the wisest men, drawn from the experience of mankind, may be credited, would be the asylum of the base, idle, avaricious and ambitious,” which word as applied to the Biden administration means “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform,” and here we are talking with respect to China’s hotly contested Economic Opportunity Zone, let us go back into our own history, which you would think if you were rational that the Biden-istas and CULT OF JOE along with the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs would be aware of as they do all this posturing and make these bellicose Jingoistic threats of theirs towards China, to Proclamation 5030–Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America, Source: The provisions of Proclamation 5030 of Mar. 10, 1983, appear at 48 FR 10605, 3 CFR, 1983 Comp., p. 22, unless otherwise noted, where we have as follows concerning our own history as it pertains to our own Exclusive Economic Zone, or the liberties we grant ourselves, but would at the same time deny to China, to wit:
WHEREAS the Government of the United States of America desires to facilitate the wise development and use of the oceans consistent with international law;
WHEREAS international law recognizes that, in a zone beyond its territory and adjacent to its territorial sea, known as the Exclusive Economic Zone, a coastal State may assert certain sovereign rights over natural resources and related jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS the establishment of an Exclusive Economic Zone by the United States will advance the development of ocean resources and promote the protection of the marine environment, while not affecting other lawful uses of the zone, including the freedoms of navigation and overflight, by other States;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States of America and confirm also the rights and freedoms of all States within an Exclusive Economic Zone, as described herein.
The Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States is a zone contiguous to the territorial sea, including zones contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (to the extent consistent with the Covenant and the United Nations Trusteeship Agreement), and United States overseas territories and possessions.
The Exclusive Economic Zone extends to a distance 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
In cases where the maritime boundary with a neighboring State remains to be determined, the boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone shall be determined by the United States and other State concerned in accordance with equitable principles.
Within the Exclusive Economic Zone, the United States has, to the extent permitted by international law, (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, both living and non-living, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; and (b) jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, and installations and structures having economic purposes, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
This Proclamation does not change existing United States policies concerning the continental shelf, marine mammals and fisheries, including highly migratory species of tuna which are not subject to United States jurisdiction and require international agreements for effective management.
The United States will exercise these sovereign rights and jurisdiction in accordance with the rules of international law.
Without prejudice to the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States, the Exclusive Economic Zone remains an area beyond the territory and territorial sea of the United States in which all States enjoy the high seas freedoms of navigation, overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventh.
end quotes
So, because we are the United States, the greatest nation ever since we made Joe Biden the president, we get to have an Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles.
So what is China claiming then?
How about this: The exclusive economic zone of the People’s Republic of China is the area adjacent to and beyond the territorial sea of the People’s Republic of China, extending as far as 200 nautical miles measured from the baseline that is used for calculating the breadth of the territorial sea.
Doesn’t that language sound familiar, as if it was lifted straight out of Proclamation 5030–Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America?
And of course it was.
So why the hypocrisy of the Biden administration?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-387378