Connect with us


Read Now: Donald Trump’s tampering, a rioter’s remorse, and other January 6 hearing takeaways – 101 Latest News



Donald Trump’s tampering, a rioter’s remorse, and other January 6 hearing takeaways

#Donald #Trumps #tampering #rioters #remorse #January #hearing #takeaways

The seventh hearing of the January 6 commission, unlike the ones that were held before it, didn’t stick to a theme. The prior hearings focused on specific prongs of former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, like his pressure campaign against Vice President Mike Pence or his scheme for states to select alternate slates of electors.

Tuesday’s hearing was chronologically organized, focusing on the three weeks between the meeting of the Electoral College on December 14, 2020, and the certification of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, and the avenues Trump kept pursuing to stay in power.

It still provided lots of new information and teed up what the committee members promise will be “a profound moment of reckoning” for America in their hearing next week. Here are five of the biggest takeaways from Tuesday’s wide-ranging hearing.

1) The committee referred Trump to the Justice Department for witness tampering

Perhaps the most stunning moment happened at the very end of the hearing. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) said in her closing statement that the former president had tried to contact a committee witness.

“After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in one of our investigations,” she said. “A witness you have not seen in these hearings. That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump’s call and instead alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us. And this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice.”

The call came after the June hearing where the committee said a prior witness had received calls from other Trump associates urging the witness “to be a team player” and “to do the right thing” before their deposition.

Cheney added Tuesday, “Let me say one more time: We will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously.”

The question of whether the committee would issue formal criminal referrals has occupied a considerable amount of cable news time, though these referrals have no legal significance. But this is the first time the committee has said in its public hearings that it has explicitly flagged evidence for prosecutors that Trump may have potentially committed a crime.

2) Brad Parscale blamed Trump for January 6

Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale held the former president responsible for the violence on January 6. In text messages that day to Katrina Pierson, another longtime Trump aide, he wrote that this was “a sitting president asking for civil war. This week I feel guilty for helping him win.” Parscale went on to add, “yes, it was” Trump’s rhetoric that caused the mayhem and death that day.

It represents a rare admission of Trump’s culpability that day from a hardcore loyalist to the former president and makes clear what some close allies thought at the time. However, like many Republicans, Parscale has seemingly changed his tune about January 6. He has continued to work for Trump and his PAC after the attack on the Capitol.

3) The march to the Capitol was planned in advance

The committee also established that Trump’s call on the crowd at the “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6 to march to the Capitol was planned and not an ad-lib.

There had been a long-planned effort to get rally attendees to then march to the Capitol, as documented by texts from rally organizers and a draft tweet that Trump never sent.

As one organizer texted a conservative journalist on January 5, “Trump is supposed to order us to capitol at the end of his speech, but we will see.” Another organizer texted that the plans had been kept under wraps to keep it a surprise: “It can also not get out about the march because I will be in trouble with the national park service and all the agencies but POTUS is going to just call for it ‘unexpectedly.’”

This establishes that the convergence on the Capitol was planned and that the attack was not spontaneous, but the culmination of a coordinated effort to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election.

4) A rioter says he entered and left the Capitol because of Trump

Stephen Ayres, a rioter who pleaded guilty to breaching the Capitol on January 6, testified before the committee about how Trump influenced his actions that day.

Ayres said that he had come to Washington, DC, with the sincere belief that the election was stolen but only planned to attend the rally at a park near the Capitol. However, he decided to march on the Capitol after Trump urged the crowd to do so. He thought Trump would also go. Ayres said he only left the Capitol after Trump tweeted out the video message asking people to go home.

“As soon as that come out, everybody started talking about it and it seemed like it started to disperse,” Ayres said. It served to reinforce the committee’s argument that the mob that attacked the Capitol was there at Trump’s direction and that he had the ability to call them off at any time.

5) The “unhinged” Oval Office meeting

The committee also shared eyewitness testimony about the epic Oval Office meeting between White House lawyers and Trump’s outside advisers on December 18, 2020, the night before he sent the tweet urging people to come to Washington on January 6.

At the time, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson wrote in a text, “The west wing is UNHINGED.”

However, that perhaps understates the fiery showdown between top White House lawyers like Pat Cipollone and an assorted cast of characters including Trump lawyer Sidney Powell and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, which included insults, personal attacks, and even challenges to fistfights as they sparred over whether Trump should issue an unprecedented executive order to have the military seize voting machines.

The order was never formally issued, and it was left unclear whether Trump had assented to Powell’s appointment to be a special counsel. Early the next morning, Trump issued his now-infamous tweet calling for a “big protest” on January 6 and promising it “will be wild.”


Read Now: Jeffries Hasn’t Spoken to McCarthy Since Agreement – 101 Latest News



Quote of the Day

#Jeffries #Hasnt #Spoken #McCarthy #Agreement

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told Fox News the debt ceiling deal contained no wins for Democrats, claiming that Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) told him that himself.

Said McCarthy: “One thing Hakeem told me: there’s nothing in the bill for them. There’s not one thing in the bill for Democrats.”

But Jeffries told CBS News it’s not true: “I have no idea what he’s talking about, particularly because I have not been able to review the actual legislative text. I talked to him yesterday afternoon… I haven’t spoken to him since that point and time.”

LoadingSave to Favorites

Continue Reading


Read Now: Conservatives continue to rage against debt limit deal, while eyes turn to Progressive Caucus – 101 Latest News



WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 18: Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) speaks with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol Building on November 18, 2021 in Washington, DC. DC. Democratic leaders in the House are waiting on the final Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for President Joe Biden's Build Back Better before scheduling a vote on the $1.75 trillion social benefits and climate legislation. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

#Conservatives #continue #rage #debt #limit #deal #eyes #turn #Progressive #Caucus

Let’s start with the Democrats, who had been pretty quiet as the early details leaked. The Progressive Caucus chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal told CNN earlier today that she was waiting on the legislative text to make a final voting decision, “That’s always, you know, a problem, if you can’t see the exact legislative text. And we’re all trying to wade through spin right now.” That said, she mocked Republicans for not getting what they claimed to want—a reduction in the deficit. Hard to do that when they increased Pentagon spending and removed IRS funding designed to collect unpaid tax revenues.


With the legislative text out, House Democratic leaders sounded optimistic late in the day about Progressive caucus support. 


That is the standard reaction after expecting the worst—relief, mixed with surprise, like new food-stamp access for the homeless and veterans—a huge progressive win. (I can’t believe that wasn’t already a thing.)

Aside from question marks about the Progressive Caucus membership, the bulk of the party remained supportive. Insofar as I’m seeing any reaction, it’s simply parroting the White House’s talking points. If anything, any celebrations are muted, lest they add fuel to conservative efforts to scuttle the deal.

But as the Semafor headline noted, “The Democrats (mostly) won the debt ceiling fight.” Or as progressive journalist Josh Marshall put it, Republicans walked into a Deny’s at gunpoint, demanded money, and walked out with nothing more than breakfast. It’s okay to both be disappointed at some of the concessions, while also celebrate Biden’s major negotiating victory in a government in which Republicans, with the House, unfortunately do have a say

Many conservatives remain furious.

Rep. Chip Roy continues his tirade against the deal, tweeting at one point that “it’s worse than I thought every minute that goes by.” 


And Roy understands the leverage Republicans are losing in the regular budget appropriations process, tweeting that “If you want the border to be secure – no member of the @HouseGOP can vote for this #debtceiling ‘deal’ because it will remove all leverage we have to force action on the border.” 

Of further conservative ire, Roy tweeted that the deal threw out the $131 billion House Republicans cut in their debt limit show bill, designed to get spending back to pre-COVID levels, and replaced them with “what appears to be effectively flat spending […] at the bloated 2023 Omnibus spending level, jammed through in a rush in December…”

In response, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee tweeted, “With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

Of particular interest is former Trump budget director Russ Vought, who is currently rallying opposition to the deal:

While we wait on text, let’s take the numbers as the GOP is claiming w/o knowing the gimmicks (Dems are claiming higher spending). Deal provides $1.59 trillion in FY24 v. $1.602 in FY23. You gave Biden $4 trillion for $12 billion in cuts largely coming from unspent COVID$?

Or take “It cuts nondefense spending to 2022!” No it doesn’t. FY22 nondefense spending was $689 billion. GOP numbers claim FY24 will be $704 billion. You don’t get a dog biscuit for that.  

Reviewing the text now. Confirms that there only 2 years of actual caps and then 4 years of meaningless language that binds only Congress & easily waived.

 The “administrative PAYGO” is totally worthless. It’s not just that it can be gamed with plans for fake offsets in exchange for real spending. Its that the OMB Director has complete waiver authority in Section 265 if “necessary for program delivery”

So I’m not a budget expert, but what that tells me is that whatever budgetary restrictions exist in the deal, they can easily be waived. 

Furthermore, responding to a seemingly sensible conservative noting that McCarthy’s leverage was limited given that Democrats control the White House and the Senate, Vought furiously responded, “What exactly did [McCarthy] deliver on? You can’t build on it because he gave every leverage point away for the remainder of Biden’s tenure. The bill is worse than a clean debt limit.”

Savor that.

The bill is worse than a clean debt limit.

I actually don’t know if that’s true, to be sure. But I desperately hope it is. 

Continue Reading


Read Now: Biden CBP Denies Government is Providing Financial Support to Illegal Immigrants, Gets Immediately Slapped With Fact Checks – 101 Latest News



Biden CBP Denies Government is Providing Financial Support to Illegal Immigrants, Gets Immediately Slapped With Fact Checks

#Biden #CBP #Denies #Government #Providing #Financial #Support #Illegal #Immigrants #Immediately #Slapped #Fact #Checks

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) denied that the federal government provides help or financial assistance to illegal immigrants, prompting a torrent of fact-checkers to come along and state that they are lying.

“NOTICE: Claims that migrants will be provided free travel and transportation to their destination are false,” the CBP’s official Twitter feed posted Thursday. “The U.S. government does not provide help or financial support for noncitizens.”

It is the second time they have made such a claim, posting a duplicate tweet roughly one month ago.

It is unclear what “claims” they are referencing or if the group was simply trying to get out in front of a situation in which illegal aliens coming in are expecting travel and transportation to new locations to be provided.

Regardless, several sources were quick to jump all over the CBP’s claims calling them alternately misleading, false, or a flat-out lie.

RELATED: Invasion Begins: Video Purportedly Shows Illegal Aliens Opening DHS Packets With Smartphones, Some Court Dates Not Until 2035

CBP Gets a Brutal Fact Check or Two

The Heritage Foundation think tank came along and, not pleased with the length of time Twitter’s Community Notes was taking to correct the CBP statement, provided their own fact check.

“Since @CommunityNotes hasn’t shown up yet, we’ll say it. This is a lie,” they wrote. “The U.S. Government pays NGO’s to do the work for them.”

The Heritage Foundation provided a link to their research showing the federal government uses charities “to hide the true cost of the border crisis.”

The report calls the funding of NGO’s through taxpayer funds Biden’s “dirty little secret” and describes them as “charities or religiously affiliated nonprofits but who spend most of their money and time helping illegal immigrants settle in the United States.”

That’s right. Your money helping to resettle illegal aliens into America so they can take even more of your money through social services or by taking jobs from Americans or legal immigrants.

RELATED: Texas Blocks Border Crossing Where Soldier Was Seen Opening Gate for Illegal Immigrants

More Call Out CBP’s Lies

Twitter’s Community Notes did catch up to the situation and slapped the CBP’s tweet with a little fact-check of their own.

“This statement by CBP is misleading as the federal government funds non-government organizations such as Catholic charities to assist in the travel, food, and shelter for illegal aliens and is coordinated by FEMA,” the label reads.

They provide a link to FEMA’s website promoting over $332 million in grants to provide “food, shelter, and services to individuals and families … who entered through the Southwestern Border and who are now awaiting their immigration court proceedings.”

Oh, good. So they’re only providing help and financial assistance until their court dates. Well, at least that shouldn’t take long, right?

Except, as The Political Insider reported earlier this month, documentation provided to illegal immigrants at the border had some being provided with court dates set as late as 2032 and 2035 in Chicago and Florida.

Potentially twelve years of financial assistance and the CBP wants you to believe that nah, we don’t provide financial support for illegal immigrants.

Fox News national correspondent Bill Melugin also called the CBP out over their statement.

“This is blatantly false,” he tweeted.

“The U.S. government indirectly provides financial support for migrants by giving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to NGOs via FEMA’s Emergency Food & Shelter Program,” Melugin continued. “The NGOs then assist migrants w/ transportation around U.S & other services.”

Melugin just weeks ago posted a video showing a female National Guard soldier opening a gate and allowing a large crowd of illegal immigrants across the border onto private property in Texas.

The soldier did so, Melugin reported, because she “was following CBP directives to open the gate because the migrants had already crossed onto US soil and needed to be processed.”

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

Continue Reading