Republicans uses state capitol protests to redefine ‘insurrection’

Silenced by her Republican colleagues, Montana state Rep. Zooey Zephyr looked up from the House floor to supporters in the gallery shouting “Let her speak!” and thrust her microphone into the air — amplifying the sentiment the Democratic transgender lawmaker was forbidden from expressing.

It was a brief moment of defiance and chaos. While seven people were arrested for trespassing, the boisterous demonstration was free of violence or damage. Yet later that day, a group of Republican lawmakers described it in darker tones, saying Zephyr's actions were responsible for "encouraging an insurrection.”

It’s the third time in the last five weeks — and one of at least four times this year — that Republicans have attempted to compare disruptive but nonviolent protests at state capitols to insurrections.

The tactic follows a pattern set over the past two years when the term has been misused to describe public demonstrations and even the 2020 election that put Democrat Joe Biden in the White House. It’s a move experts say dismisses legitimate speech and downplays the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump. Shortly after, the U.S. House voted to impeach him for “incitement of insurrection.”

Ever since, many Republicans have attempted to turn the phrase on Democrats.

“They want to ring alarm bells and they want to compare this to Jan. 6," said Andy Nelson, the Democratic Party chair in Missoula County, which includes Zephyr's district. “There’s absolutely no way you can compare what happened on Monday with the Jan. 6 insurrection. Violence occurred that day. No violence occurred in the gallery of the Montana House.”

This week's events in the Montana Legislature drew comparisons to a similar demonstration in Tennessee. Republican legislative leaders there used “insurrection” to describe a protest on the House floor by three Democratic lawmakers who were calling for gun control legislation in the aftermath of a Nashville school shooting that killed three students and three staff. Two of them chanted “Power to the people” through a megaphone and were expelled before local commissions reinstated them.

As in Montana, their supporters were shouting from the gallery above, and the scene brought legislative proceedings to a halt. Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton condemned the Democratic lawmakers.

“(What) they did today was equivalent, at least equivalent, maybe worse depending on how you look at it, of doing an insurrection in the Capitol,” Sexton, a Republican, told a conservative radio station on March 30.

He later clarified to reporters that he was talking just about the lawmakers and not the protesters who were at the Capitol. He has maintained that the Democratic lawmakers were trying to cause a riot.

To Democrats, Republicans' reaction was seen as a way to distract discussion from a critical topic.

“They are trying to dismiss the integrity and sincerity of what all these people are calling for,” said Tennessee Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons. “They’re dismissing what it is just to avoid the debate on this issue.”

Legal experts say the term insurrection has a specific meaning — a violent uprising that targets government authority.

That’s how dictionaries described it in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the term was added to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University.

Protests at the capitols in Montana and Tennessee didn’t involve violence or any real attempts to dismantle or replace a government, so it’s wrong to call them insurrections, Tribe said.

Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, said insurrection is understood as a coordinated attempt to overthrow government.

“Disrupting things is a far cry from insurrection,” Gerhardt said. “It’s just a protest, and protesters are not insurrectionists.”

Nevertheless, conservative social media commentators and bloggers have used the word insurrection alongside videos of protesters at state capitols in attempts to equate those demonstrations to the Jan. 6 attack, when thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to halt certification of the presidential vote and keep Trump in office. Some of the rioters sought out then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and shouted “Hang Mike Pence” as they roamed the Capitol.

Republicans’ use of the term insurrection in these cases isn't just wrong, it's also strategic, said Yotam Ophir, a University at Buffalo communications professor who focuses on misinformation. Repeating a loaded term over and over makes it lose its meaning and power, he said.

The term also serves two other purposes for Republicans: demonizing Democrats as violent and implying that the accusations against Trump supporters on Jan. 6 were exaggerated, Ophir said.

In Montana, one widely shared Twitter post falsely claimed transgender “insurgents” had “seized” the Capitol, while the right-wing website Breitbart called the protest Democrats’ “second ‘insurrection’ in as many months.”

The Montana Freedom Caucus, which issued the statement that included the insurrection description, also demanded that Zephyr be disciplined. The group includes 21 Montana Republican lawmakers, or a little less than a third of Republicans in the Legislature. It was founded in January with the encouragement of U.S. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Matt Rosendale, a hardline Montana conservative who backed Trump’s false statements about fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

Republican lawmakers eventually voted to bar Zephyr from participating on the House floor, forcing her to vote remotely. Notably, Republicans largely avoided referencing insurrection when discussing the motion, but some did accuse Zephyr of attempting to incite violence and putting her colleagues at risk of harm.

The Montana and Tennessee examples follow at least two other statehouse protests that prompted cries of “insurrection” from Republicans.

Donald Trump Jr. cited “insurrection” in February in a tweet claiming transgender activists had taken over and occupied the Oklahoma Capitol. But according to local news reports, hundreds of supporters of transgender rights who rallied against a gender-affirming care ban before the Republican-controlled Legislature were led in through metal detectors by law enforcement and protested peacefully.

In Minnesota, some conservative commentators used the word insurrection earlier this month as demonstrators gathered peacefully outside the Senate chambers while lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled Legislature debated contentious bills ranging from LGBTQ issues to abortion. There was no violence or damage.

The rhetoric lines up with the refusal among many Republicans to acknowledge that the Jan. 6 attack was an assault on American democracy and the peaceful transfer of power.

“My colleagues across the aisle have spent so much time trying to silence the minority party that anyone speaking up and amplifying their voice probably strikes them as insurrectionist, even though it doesn’t resemble anything like it,” said Clemmons, the Democratic lawmaker in Tennessee.

McConnell will do anything to win back Senate, insurrection be damned

Mitch McConnell’s cravenness knows no bounds. The Senate minority leader is proving it again, basically promising the Senate to former insurrection-loving President Donald Trump—as long as Republicans win in 2024.

When Sen. Steve Daines, the Montanan running the GOP Senate’s 2024 campaign effort, told McConnell he was considering endorsing Trump’s reelection bid, McConnell gave Daines his blessing, The New York Times reports. Because the main thing is winning, a source close to McConnell told the Times, so he is just fine with someone in his leadership team having close ties to the guy he acknowledged is the one who “provoked” the violent Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

"The mob was fed lies," McConnell said on the Senate floor on the occasion of Trump’s second impeachment. "They were provoked by the president and other powerful people, and they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like."

McConnell voted to acquit Trump anyway, despite saying, “There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.” His condemnation of Trump was unequivocal: “Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty.”

“We all were here. We saw what happened. It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election, from one administration to the next. That’s what it was,” McConnell said in a news conference one year later.

When the Jan. 6 committee voted to refer criminal charges against Trump to the Justice Department at the end of last year, McConnell simply said, “The entire nation knows who is responsible for that day.”

According to Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in their book about Trump and the 2020 election, titled “Peril,” Trump called McConnell to yell at him on Dec. 15, 2020, after the senator congratulated President-elect Joe Biden from the Senate floor. The Kentucky Republican reportedly said, “Mr. President, the Electoral College has spoken. That's the way we pick a president in this country.”

That was the last time the two spoke, and McConnell’s last words were: “You lost the election, the Electoral College has spoken.” McConnell told numerous people he never wanted to talk to Trump again.

With all that said (not to mention Trump’s litany of racist attacks against McConnell’s wife and former Cabinet member Elaine Chao), McConnell wants to win the Senate back so badly that he’s willing to see the man he accused of leading the attack on the Capitol back in the White House. More than that, he’s willing to help him get back in there: That’s what having a member of Republican Senate leadership on Team Trump means.

The goal is to win back the Senate, “and in service of that goal he is already making accommodations for the former president,” the Times reports. That includes reiterating that he would “absolutely” support Trump if he wins the Republican Party nomination for 2024.

“The thing about Mitch is, he wants a majority in the Senate,” one Republican senator told Politico. That’s all he wants and he will do anything to get it—even if it means putting the guy he admits attacked democracy right back in the Oval Office.

RELATED STORIES: This is a new low, even for Mitch McConnell McConnell's destruction of the Senate continues apace with an unprecedented judicial confirmation

McConnell gleeful over his wanton destruction of the Senate and the Judiciary

McConnell is not a master tactician, but a master of destruction, breaking the Senate and the SCOTUS

Can we have fairer, more representative elections in the U.S.? Absolutely, says Deb Otis on this week's episode of "The Downballot." Otis, the director of research at FairVote, tells us about her organization's efforts to advocate for two major reforms—ranked-choice voting and proportional representation—and the prospects for both. RCV, which is growing in popularity, not only helps ensure candidates win with majorities but can lower the temperature by encouraging cross-endorsements. PR, meanwhile, would give voters a stronger voice, especially when they're a minority in a dark red or dark blue area.

GOP knocks itself out in Round 1, names Trump undisputed champ

When Donald Trump first entered the 2016 Republican presidential primary, he was more of a punchline than a candidate because no one imagined he could win.

Now, Trump is all anyone ever talks about because nearly everyone, save several of his Republican challengers, believes he's inevitable. While Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis briefly offered the GOP a glimmer of hope that the party could have its MAGA cake and eat it too, chastened Republicans are already talking like losers, according to a Politico Magazine piece by Jonathan Martin.

“We’re just going to have to go into the basement, ride out the tornado and come back up when it’s over to rebuild the neighborhood," said one Republican strategist, who declined to be named.

But the problem isn't that the twice-impeached, criminally indicted former president is unbeatable, it's that Republicans are too craven to go all in on beating him. Literally three people are officially in the race and many Republicans are all but throwing in the towel. It's like a disease—no one is willing to stick their neck out, particularly after they all watched erstwhile GOP rising stars like former Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming get drummed out of her leadership role and then her seat for possessing the rarest of Republican qualities: a spine.

The only Republican members who are willing to go on the record against Trump talk in code. Take GOP Rep. Mike Lawler from upstate New York, who flipped a Biden district last cycle and knows a Trump nomination would doom his reelection.

“Whoever the nominee is going to be needs to be forward-looking and they need to be focused on the American people, not the grievances of the past, and it certainly can’t be about the 2020 election,” Lawler said, trying to thread the needle of making an anti-Trump pitch that avoids summoning his wrath.

Trump is also shaping the Senate Republican field without lifting a finger, as potential candidates wait and wonder whether an alternative will emerge. If Trump looks inevitable, "it makes it harder to get in," one would-be GOP Senate candidate said because Trump's a killer in the suburbs.

For years, Washington journalists consistently reported that many, if not most, congressional Republicans secretly loathed Trump during his tenure. Despite these many colorful reports, Cheney remains the sole Republican who was willing to lambaste Trump, vote for his impeachment, and still run for reelection. Every other Republican Trump critic (of which there were few) either receded into the woodwork to salvage their political careers or retired from Congress.

Even the Republican National Committee (RNC), whose primary job is to help Republicans win elections, is cowed by Trump. The RNC is currently putting the finishing touches on an examination of why Republicans so severely underperformed in the midterms, and the report never once mentions Trump, nor does it name any his losing candidates.

Naturally, Trump is turning that cowardice against the RNC, threatening to not participate in the GOP debates. During a recent dinner at Mar-a-Lago, Trump verbally polled members of the Florida congressional delegation who have endorsed him about whether he should dignify the first debate with his presence.

It's all a ridiculous bluff—Trump would never let a bunch of challengers soak up the limelight of a nationally televised debate. He's simply using the threat to bully the RNC, which has already made peace with being exceedingly weak for yet another cycle.

One of the only Republicans willing to broadside Trump is former rival-turned ally-turned enemy Chris Christie, whose main calling card as a potential GOP 2024 candidate is simply the fact that he's the only one willing to take on Trump.

“I think that the majority of the party doesn’t want him,” Christie told Politico, pegging Trump as a surefire loser. But asked if Republicans had tired of losing yet, Christie responded, “I think we’re going to find out.”

At a speech in New Hampshire last week, the former New Jersey governor tested the presidential waters, asking attendees whether they were content to fold already and let Trump walk away with all the chips.  

“What you need to decide is: Are we just going to put this race on autopilot, ‘he’s ahead, let him win, let’s see what happens, how bad can it be?’”

Bad is, of course, a relative term. Some MAGA cultists clearly thought Jan. 6 was swell and still do—though they wouldn't be wasting their time at a Christie event. Trump is their guy.

But presumably, many Republican elders think Trump's death grip on the party has been bad for business—at least electorally speaking—even if they like his tax cuts for the rich and Supreme Court packing.

Christie's pitch is precisely geared toward that donor class and a mix of conservative swing voters, anti-Trumpers, and even Trumpers who don't want to keep losing elections in perpetuity.

Whether Christie can secure the funding he needs to launch a presidential campaign will be at least one test of Republican resolve to leave Trump in the rearview mirror. To date, that resolve has proven pathetically weak.

The past week seems to have packed in a month’s worth of news. Markos and Kerry tackle it all, from Joe Biden’s big announcement to Tucker Carlson’s early retirement from Fox News.

Tough guy Jim Jordan turns outrage on teachers, unions

On Wednesday, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, where the odious Rep. Jim Jordan tried to grill her on school closures during COVID and “culture wars.” To no one’s surprise, his effort was a flop.

According to the subcommittee’s Republican chairman, Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, the committee’s job is to investigate “the decision-making process behind school closures [during the COVID-19 pandemic] and the effects it had so that we can do better in the future.” 

Weingarten was brought in by Republicans because the conservative movement in our country wants the trials and tribulations we all dealt with during the pandemic—in this case, school closures—to be blamed on workers in all sectors of society, especially teachers and school staff.

Like most Republican-led committee meetings, this one was part circus, part conspiracy theory, and all useless. Committee hearings under Republican leaders are a cauldron of hypocrisies—too many to enumerate here. This committee could have made an effort to actually find out how school closures impacted students and educators. But instead, the general tenor of the Republicans’ questions for Weingarten was “unions and labor rights are bad.” After enduring some new lows from moral sewer-dweller Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who used her time to attack adoptive parents (including Weingarten herself), Weingarten had to answer a series of Jordan’s “gotcha” questions.

RELATED STORY: Marjorie Taylor Greene finally shuts up. It wasn't her decision

While Greene’s attacks on Weingarten were clearly personal, Jordan’s low-level interrogation was an attempt to paint Weingarten as a left-wing radical culture warrior for the implied crime of closing schools during a lethal pandemic. There are very few people who are less smart than Jordan, and Weingarten ain’t one of them, so Jordan’s plans blew up in his face.

Jordan, no stranger to wasting breath, began his interrogation by asking Weingarten, “Who cares more about a child's education, the teacher's union, or the child's parents?”

Weingarten replied that both parents and teachers care about children, and that obviously no one cares for individual children more than their parents. It’s hard to know what response Jordan thought he was going to get, but he evidently didn’t get the one he wanted—so he asked the question again. Weingarten easily circumvented Jordan’s sophomoric line of questioning, saying, “Look, I'm not here to be in a competition. Parents are so important in children's lives. Teachers are so important in children's lives, too.”

Jordan, whose cross-examination style might be a result of watching too many “L.A. Law” episodes, asked Weingarten, “Who are the ‘extremist politicians’?” The attempt to put Weingarten on her heels by employing a non sequitur failed miserably. Jordan read  Weingarten’s writing aloud on the matter of school safety during the pandemic, where she asserted that “attacks by extremist politicians have undermined teachers in schools.” That led to this amazing exchange:

REP. JIM JORDAN: Well, who are the extremist politicians?

RANDI WEINGARTEN: I think you just heard one, sir.

JORDAN: So Ms. Greene’s one of them.

Indeed. Weingarten pivoted to explaining how the conservative preoccupation with “culture wars” is anti-educational, then implied that book banning is a tell-tale sign of having lost an argument. Another swing and a miss for Jordan!

It is important to note here that Jordan—a coward of a man who clearly likes to talk fast but allegedly kept conspicuously silent when young men under his charge were being sexually molested at Ohio State University—pretends to do a lot of busywork when he’s supposed to be listening. It is his attempt to seem like he’s got everything under control, but he so clearly has nothing under control. His next question: “Who started the culture wars?”

Weingarten responded by explaining, once again, that the moment you start banning books about people like Anne Frank and Roberto Clemente, you’ve stepped into a place that can only be called “wrong.” Jordan, desperate to resuscitate his pointless existence on this committee, tried a transphobic attack, which Weingarten redirected back to the question he said he was asking.

The Republican Party’s extremism comes with an enormous price: narcissistic incompetence. Even when they are in control of congressional committees, they cannot turn their circus “investigations” into anything worthwhile. Instead, like all Republican-led committees at this point, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic is mostly a performance art space for right-wing political theater performed by dunderheaded goblins like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jim Jordan.

RELATED STORIES:

Marjorie Taylor Greene is wrong (again): Non-biological parents are parents. Full stop

MTG offers up ludicrous series of questions with fake 'facts' during committee hearing

Twitter has a field day with Jim Jordan's craven behavior at impeachment hearing

One Florida school district with optional masks has had 17 staff die of COVID-19 since August

Chief Justice John Roberts Tells Democrats to Get Lost After They Request He Testify on Supreme Court Ethics

Chief Justice John Roberts rejected an invitation from Senator Dick Durbin to testify before Congress on ethics rules for the Supreme Court.

Roberts sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman implying that such testimony would threaten the basic government concept of separation of powers.

“I must respectfully decline your invitation,” he wrote.

“Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence,” Roberts explained.

Accompanying his letter declining Durbin’s invite was a copy of the court’s Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices.

Roberts stated “all of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe” to that ethics statement.

RELATED: Clarence Thomas, Consistent Target Of The Left, Explains ‘Right Is Still Right Even If You Stand By Yourself’

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Declines to Participate in Dick Durbin’s Sideshow

Dick Durbin’s invitation to Chief Justice John Roberts was little more than a thinly-veiled effort to address allegations against Justice Clarence Thomas.

Another one of those ‘high-tech lynchings’ the left likes to engage in every now and again regarding the longest-tenured black justice serving on the court.

A report this month by the left-leaning outlet Pro Publica alleged billionaire Harlan Crow, a GOP donor,  provided trips and gifts to Thomas that were not disclosed.

Following that report, other liberal media outlets have tried to make specious links between Thomas and other gifts from friends that they suddenly find scandalous.

Thomas, following allegations of impropriety, explained slowly and carefully to those wondering, that the gifts in question were from close personal friends and, as they “did not have business before the Court” it “was not reportable.”

He said he would amend his financial disclosure forms to comply with changes made to disclosure rules that were announced last month.

RELATED: Liberal Group Publishes Home Addresses Of Supreme Court Justices, Calls For Protests

Roberts Often Sides With the Left

It’s good to see Roberts stand up to Durbin, a rare morphing from a spineless jellyfish patsy for the Democrats to somebody finally showing a modicum of intestinal fortitude.

Think about it – Roberts has spent the vast majority of his time as Chief Justice abandoning his principles and voting intentionally with the liberal wing of the Court as a means to convey an image of fairness.

His lone goal is to create a legacy of a court not swayed by politics, but rather, guided by the law. And he’s been more than eager to side with the left to create that faux ethical image.

And Durbin has the gall to question the ethics of his court?

In June of 2020, Roberts cast the deciding vote, joining the court’s liberal justices in a 5-4 decision that ruled against the Trump administration’s bid to end the DACA program, despite it having been implemented illegally.

That same year he sided with the liberal court justices, ruling in favor of coronavirus restrictions on religious services in the state of California.

He ruled alongside liberals yet again in a ruling that struck down a Louisiana abortion safety law.

There are so many other cases in which Roberts abandoned the rule of law to cast his lot with the left just to seem impartial.

How bad must Durbin’s circus request be that even he would stand up and say, ‘No, this is a bit too much.’

Roberts though, does have a bit of a history of being irked by Democrats for daring to question the legitimacy of his Supreme Court.

He became visibly agitated after having to read a question from Senator Elizabeth Warren which suggested the legitimacy of the Court, the Constitution, and his own career would be tainted following the impeachment trial of then-President Donald Trump.

Fox News reported at the time that upon finishing the question, Roberts became “visibly irritated” and “pursed his lips and shot a chagrined look.”

We imagine he had the same look while writing the letter to Durbin.

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.”

The post Chief Justice John Roberts Tells Democrats to Get Lost After They Request He Testify on Supreme Court Ethics appeared first on The Political Insider.

Markey calls for Clarence Thomas to resign: ‘reputation is unsalvageable’

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Monday called for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign amid controversy over the justice’s financial disclosures and ethical concerns about the nation’s highest court.

“I will say what needs to be said: Clarence Thomas should resign from the Supreme Court of the United States. His reputation is unsalvageable,” Markey said at an event to advocate for Supreme Court reforms.

“It is evident that he cannot judge right from wrong. So why should he be judging the country's most important cases, on its highest court?” the senator added.

Recent reporting from ProPublica found that Texas billionaire Harlan Crow paid for Thomas to take part in luxury vacations over two decades without the justice reporting them. Thomas said later that he was “advised” he did not need to disclose the trips. 

Another ProPublica report found that Thomas also didn’t disclose a 2014 real estate deal he’d made with the same Republican megadonor. 

Markey joins Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and a handful of House lawmakers, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), in calling for Thomas to leave the court after the reports sparked renewed debate over ethics standards for the justices.

“Justice Thomas should resign - to uphold the Court and American justice. The unavoidable, sickening appearance of impropriety stains trust & credibility in our whole judiciary,” Blumenthal said earlier this month.

Ocasio-Cortez said “this degree of corruption is shocking — almost cartoonish” and called for Thomas to be impeached.

Markey on Monday gathered with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and others to kick off "the Just Majority bus tour" and push for expanding the court and shoring up ethics standards.

In addition to criticisms about Thomas's ties to Crow, who Markey called "a rich right-wing bad actor pushing a far-right agenda," the senator also criticized Thomas for not recusing himself "on cases about efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, in spite of the fact that his wife was implicated in them."

"We have to ensure that the mockery which Justice Clarence Thomas is actually committing is corrected because it is a violation of public trust," Markey said, adding, "Clarence Thomas is serving on the high court with the highest level of corruption."

Green vs Greene: Mayorkas testimony overshadowed by MTG Swalwell allegations

They called them "green on green" attacks in Afghanistan. That’s when Afghan police fought with local military troops.

On Capitol Hill recently, it was "Green on Greene."

"Green" is Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "Greene" is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

And late last week, "Green" finally had enough of "Greene" during a hearing with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE LEADS NYC RALLY PROTESTING TRUMP INDICTMENT, AFTER RECEIVING WARNING FROM MAYOR ADAMS

You may not have heard much about Mayorkas’s testimony because of a parliamentary kerfuffle.

It started when it was Greene’s time to pose questions to Mayorkas, just seconds after Rep. Eric Swalwell, R-Calif., concluded his questions. Swalwell burned some of his time asking about GOP demands to slash funding for the FBI.

MAYORKAS SPEWS NOTHING BUT ‘POLITICAL RHETORIC,' IGNORING FACTS ABOUT BORDER: BRANDON JUDD

With a smile, Greene looked across the dais at Swalwell.

"That was quite entertaining for someone that had a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy. And everyone knows it," said Greene, flashing her teeth, voice dripping with sarcasm.

That’s long been a right-wing charge against Swalwell, but no one’s ever substantiated the claim.

Several years ago, Chinese intelligence operative Fang Fang targeted American politicians. Fang assisted in fundraising efforts for Swalwell in 2014. Swalwell’s office says he reported information about Fang to the FBI and cut off ties with her. The FBI put Fang under surveillance and presented Swalwell with a "defensive" briefing about Fang.

After Greene’s imputation, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., immediately moved "take her words down."

The "taking down of words" on the House floor or in committee is the equivalent of a parliamentary indictment. A Member might flag the conduct or "words" of a fellow Member of not comporting with the rules of the House, engaging with appropriate decorum, bringing dishonor on the body or impugning the motives or character of a fellow lawmaker.

"Completely inappropriate!" shouted Goldman.

Mark Green halted the hearing immediately.

TOM HOMAN RIPS SEC. MAYORKAS FOR ‘CONSTANTLY LYING’: HE HAS ‘NO INTERGRITY’

The full House or committee then reviews the language in question. If they violated the rules, the offending Member is then given an opportunity to retract them and continue.

But Greene wasn’t having it.

Green asked Greene if she would retract her broadside directed Swalwell.

"No, I will not," replied Greene.

Despite the weight of such a shocking allegation — uttered by one lawmaker and directed toward another at a public hearing — the committee voted that Greene’s conduct was appropriate. That meant Greene could continue to speak. The panel would have silenced Greene for the remainder of the day had they deemed her philippic out of order. It’s kind of like a player getting ejected from a baseball game. They can’t play the rest of the day.

So, Greene remained on the field.

Note that House Democrats who in the majority two years ago voted to remove Greene from her committee assignments because of her conduct.

"I don’t think there’s any question about what the gentle lady has said (is improper)," lamented Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the top Democrat on the panel. "We have never had an accusation made of any member like that and I’m appalled by it. We all ought to be embarrassed by it."

Since the committee didn’t sanction Greene, she appeared emboldened and tore into Mayorkas.

"How many more people do we have to watch die every single day in America?" Greene said to Mayorkas, slapping the dais multiple times with an open palm. "You are a liar!"

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Tex., found himself sitting in for Green, chairing the committee. That’s when Thompson raised issues to McCaul about Greene excoriating Mayorkas.

"You don’t have to call a witness a liar," said Thompson.

He also asked that the committee again "take down" Greene’s words

"We’ve gotten to the point that the language is not the kind of language that this committee would use," said Thompson.

McCaul again offered Greene the option of withdrawing her incendiary accusations.

MAYORKAS APOLOGIZES TO FAMILY MEMBERS GREIVING 7-YEAR-OLD AND GRANDMOTHER KILLED BY FLEEING HUMAN SMUGGLER

"I will not withdraw my remarks because the facts show the proof," said defiant Greene.

"Okay," said a resigned McCaul. By that point, Chairman Mark Green returned to oversee the hearing.

"The rules state that it’s pretty clear that you can’t impugn someone’s character," said the chairman. "Identifying someone or calling someone a liar is unacceptable in this committee. And I make the ruling that we strike those words."

With that, Green rapped the gavel. That censored Greene’s charges directed at Mayorkas and banished her from further questioning for the remainder of the hearing.

Goldman sought clarification from the chairman as to what just unfolded. But Greene interrupted.

"Personal inquiry?" requested Greene, her tone shallow compared to her verbal fusillade fired at Mayorkas earlier. "Point of personal inquiry?

"There is no such thing," responded Goldman — which is accurate when it comes to House regulations.

"In consulting the rules of the House, when we strike (words), it does terminate the time of the individual who was speaking," said Green. "So the gentle lady is no longer recognized."

Green then turned over the floor to Rep. Glenn Ivey, D-Md., to question Mayorkas.

DHS CONFIRMS BIDEN OFFICIAL'S WASHINGTON OFFICE SEARCHED BY FEDS, PUT ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE

However, Ivey and Goldman then sought clarification about Green’s decision to suspend Greene from speaking.

The chairman announced that, according to the rules of the House, a member may accuse someone of "lying." But you cannot call them "a liar." That’s because Clause 1 and Clause 4 of House Rule XVII prohibits attacking someone’s character and motive.

But Ivey wasn’t satisfied even though Green bounced the Georgia Republican from the hearing.

"I can’t imagine an allegation worse than the one she just made," argued Ivey.

"It does not fit the rules by the ruling of the chair," said Green. "We have the secretary until about 1:30 and we’re going to move on."

And therein lies the rub about Greene attacking Mayorkas — whether he deserves criticism or not.

MAYORKAS HELD CALLS WITH ACLU NEARLY TWO DOZEN TIMES IN FIVE-MONTH PERIOD IN 2021, DOCUMENTS SHOW

A cadre of House Republicans hope to impeach Mayorkas. Mark Green suggested that the hearing was part of a process to provide a "packet" to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, about Mayorkas’s record. It would then be up to Jordan to launch an impeachment inquiry into Mayorkas. It’s far from clear whether the Judiciary Committee has the votes to prepare articles of impeachment for Mayorkas. It’s even less clear that Republicans would ever try to impeach Mayorkas on the floor because of the narrow GOP majority. Republicans would likely lack the votes.

The chairman said he was going to speak to Greene about her conduct. Other Republicans signaled while they lost no love for Mayorkas, they didn’t appreciate Greene’s lack of civility.

There wasn’t a lot of news coverage about Mayorkas’s testimony or problems at the border. That’s because in the social media age, the loudest voices command the most attention. It’s often volume over substance.

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green and Republicans on that panel wanted to explore Mayorkas’s record about the border last week. There was certainly some of that.

But Greene’s performance sidetracked that conversation.

Mark Green may have eventually silenced Marjorie Taylor Greene in the hearing. But she was far from silent. People may not have heard about Mayorkas. But they certainly heard about Greene.

Green on Greene: Impeach Mayorkas push overshadowed by MTG calling him a liar in Congressional kerfuffle

They called them "green on green" attacks in Afghanistan. That’s when Afghan police fought with local military troops.

On Capitol Hill recently, it was "Green on Greene."

"Green" is Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "Greene" is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

And late last week, "Green" finally had enough of "Greene" during a hearing with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE LEADS NYC RALLY PROTESTING TRUMP INDICTMENT, AFTER RECEIVING WARNING FROM MAYOR ADAMS

You may not have heard much about Mayorkas’s testimony because of a parliamentary kerfuffle.

It started when it was Greene’s time to pose questions to Mayorkas, just seconds after Rep. Eric Swalwell, R-Calif., concluded his questions. Swalwell burned some of his time asking about GOP demands to slash funding for the FBI.

MAYORKAS SPEWS NOTHING BUT ‘POLITICAL RHETORIC,' IGNORING FACTS ABOUT BORDER: BRANDON JUDD

With a smile, Greene looked across the dais at Swalwell.

"That was quite entertaining for someone that had a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy. And everyone knows it," said Greene, flashing her teeth, voice dripping with sarcasm.

That’s long been a right-wing charge against Swalwell, but no one’s ever substantiated the claim.

Several years ago, Chinese intelligence operative Fang Fang targeted American politicians. Fang assisted in fundraising efforts for Swalwell in 2014. Swalwell’s office says he reported information about Fang to the FBI and cut off ties with her. The FBI put Fang under surveillance and presented Swalwell with a "defensive" briefing about Fang.

After Greene’s imputation, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., immediately moved "take her words down."

The "taking down of words" on the House floor or in committee is the equivalent of a parliamentary indictment. A Member might flag the conduct or "words" of a fellow Member of not comporting with the rules of the House, engaging with appropriate decorum, bringing dishonor on the body or impugning the motives or character of a fellow lawmaker.

"Completely inappropriate!" shouted Goldman.

Mark Green halted the hearing immediately.

TOM HOMAN RIPS SEC. MAYORKAS FOR ‘CONSTANTLY LYING’: HE HAS ‘NO INTERGRITY’

The full House or committee then reviews the language in question. If they violated the rules, the offending Member is then given an opportunity to retract them and continue.

But Greene wasn’t having it.

Green asked Greene if she would retract her broadside directed Swalwell.

"No, I will not," replied Greene.

Despite the weight of such a shocking allegation — uttered by one lawmaker and directed toward another at a public hearing — the committee voted that Greene’s conduct was appropriate. That meant Greene could continue to speak. The panel would have silenced Greene for the remainder of the day had they deemed her philippic out of order. It’s kind of like a player getting ejected from a baseball game. They can’t play the rest of the day.

So, Greene remained on the field.

Note that House Democrats who in the majority two years ago voted to remove Greene from her committee assignments because of her conduct.

"I don’t think there’s any question about what the gentle lady has said (is improper)," lamented Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the top Democrat on the panel. "We have never had an accusation made of any member like that and I’m appalled by it. We all ought to be embarrassed by it."

Since the committee didn’t sanction Greene, she appeared emboldened and tore into Mayorkas.

"How many more people do we have to watch die every single day in America?" Greene said to Mayorkas, slapping the dais multiple times with an open palm. "You are a liar!"

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Tex., found himself sitting in for Green, chairing the committee. That’s when Thompson raised issues to McCaul about Greene excoriating Mayorkas.

"You don’t have to call a witness a liar," said Thompson.

He also asked that the committee again "take down" Greene’s words

"We’ve gotten to the point that the language is not the kind of language that this committee would use," said Thompson.

McCaul again offered Greene the option of withdrawing her incendiary accusations.

MAYORKAS APOLOGIZES TO FAMILY MEMBERS GREIVING 7-YEAR-OLD AND GRANDMOTHER KILLED BY FLEEING HUMAN SMUGGLER

"I will not withdraw my remarks because the facts show the proof," said defiant Greene.

"Okay," said a resigned McCaul. By that point, Chairman Mark Green returned to oversee the hearing.

"The rules state that it’s pretty clear that you can’t impugn someone’s character," said the chairman. "Identifying someone or calling someone a liar is unacceptable in this committee. And I make the ruling that we strike those words."

With that, Green rapped the gavel. That censored Greene’s charges directed at Mayorkas and banished her from further questioning for the remainder of the hearing.

Goldman sought clarification from the chairman as to what just unfolded. But Greene interrupted.

"Personal inquiry?" requested Greene, her tone shallow compared to her verbal fusillade fired at Mayorkas earlier. "Point of personal inquiry?

"There is no such thing," responded Goldman — which is accurate when it comes to House regulations.

"In consulting the rules of the House, when we strike (words), it does terminate the time of the individual who was speaking," said Green. "So the gentle lady is no longer recognized."

Green then turned over the floor to Rep. Glenn Ivey, D-Md., to question Mayorkas.

DHS CONFIRMS BIDEN OFFICIAL'S WASHINGTON OFFICE SEARCHED BY FEDS, PUT ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE

However, Ivey and Goldman then sought clarification about Green’s decision to suspend Greene from speaking.

The chairman announced that, according to the rules of the House, a member may accuse someone of "lying." But you cannot call them "a liar." That’s because Clause 1 and Clause 4 of House Rule XVII prohibits attacking someone’s character and motive.

But Ivey wasn’t satisfied even though Green bounced the Georgia Republican from the hearing.

"I can’t imagine an allegation worse than the one she just made," argued Ivey.

"It does not fit the rules by the ruling of the chair," said Green. "We have the secretary until about 1:30 and we’re going to move on."

And therein lies the rub about Greene attacking Mayorkas — whether he deserves criticism or not.

MAYORKAS HELD CALLS WITH ACLU NEARLY TWO DOZEN TIMES IN FIVE-MONTH PERIOD IN 2021, DOCUMENTS SHOW

A cadre of House Republicans hope to impeach Mayorkas. Mark Green suggested that the hearing was part of a process to provide a "packet" to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, about Mayorkas’s record. It would then be up to Jordan to launch an impeachment inquiry into Mayorkas. It’s far from clear whether the Judiciary Committee has the votes to prepare articles of impeachment for Mayorkas. It’s even less clear that Republicans would ever try to impeach Mayorkas on the floor because of the narrow GOP majority. Republicans would likely lack the votes.

The chairman said he was going to speak to Greene about her conduct. Other Republicans signaled while they lost no love for Mayorkas, they didn’t appreciate Greene’s lack of civility.

There wasn’t a lot of news coverage about Mayorkas’s testimony or problems at the border. That’s because in the social media age, the loudest voices command the most attention. It’s often volume over substance.

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green and Republicans on that panel wanted to explore Mayorkas’s record about the border last week. There was certainly some of that.

But Greene’s performance sidetracked that conversation.

Mark Green may have eventually silenced Marjorie Taylor Greene in the hearing. But she was far from silent. People may not have heard about Mayorkas. But they certainly heard about Greene.

Biden-Trump rematch is coming closer to reality

The presidential rematch many Americans say they don't want is coming closer to reality: President Biden vs. former President Trump in 2024.

Biden made his reelection bid official on Tuesday in a video announcement, and he is widely anticipated to be his party's nominee next year. 

Trump faces a tougher road to winning his party's nomination, with a field of primary challengers taking shape and expected to grow. But he so far is the clear front-runner despite a host of legal troubles, leading the pack in some polls by double-digits a few months out from the first scheduled debate.

The rematch would be a replay of one of the most negative and divisive elections in American history, culminating in Trump's refusal to concede and a riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol that forced the evacuation of Congress.

“There aren’t going to be that many people excited about a rematch because there aren’t that many people who want both of these people running for president,” said David Hopkins, an author and political science professor at Boston College.

An NBC News poll published Sunday found 70 percent of Americans and 51 percent of Democrats don’t think Biden should run for reelection in 2024. The same poll found 60 percent of Americans and roughly one-third of Republicans do not think Trump should run again.

An Associated Press poll published Friday found 65 percent of adults said they would probably or definitely not support Trump in a general election, compared to 56 percent who said the same about Biden.

Experts and strategists believe there are several factors contributing to the public’s lack of desire to see Trump and Biden face each other for a second time.

“Often, when you ask people, ‘Would you like someone else,’ it’s easy to conjure a hypothetical alternative candidate,” Hopkins said. “But when you ask people about flesh and blood alternatives, they tend to be less popular.”

For Biden, questions about his age continue to weigh on voters’ minds. Biden, who is 80, was the oldest president ever to be sworn in two years ago, and he would be 86 at the end of a full second term.

The NBC News poll found that of those who said Biden should not run again, 48 percent cited his age as a major reason. 

It is not unusual for an incumbent president to seek another term. What is unusual is a former president seeking to win back the White House while retaining his hold on the party, especially one like Trump who has been at the center of numerous unprecedented controversies for the past eight years, including two impeachments and a recent arrest in New York City.

“Some people aren’t happy with that matchup because anything with Donald Trump’s name attached to it, they’re not happy,” said Jim Kessler, co-founder of the centrist think tank Third Way.

A Trump-Biden rematch would carry echoes of a particularly brutal 2020 presidential campaign that was set against the backdrop of the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide protests sparked by the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. It featured vitriolic personal attacks, particularly from Trump’s team against Hunter Biden, and was marred by Trump's refusal to accept the results and the subsequent attack on the Capitol.

There have been times over the past two years when a Biden-Trump rematch did not seem as inevitable as it may now.

Republican leaders sought to distance themselves from Trump early in the aftermath of the violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, which was fueled by the former president’s repeated claims that the 2020 election was fraudulent and stolen from him.

Biden, meanwhile, faced skepticism throughout 2022 from Democrats about whether he warranted a second term given his age and concerns about rampant inflation.

Democrats have since rallied behind Biden, who is not facing a serious primary challenge, after a stronger-than-expected showing in last November’s midterms, a raft of bipartisan legislation passed last year and the president’s handling of the war in Ukraine.

At the same time, Trump has solidified his grip on the GOP, earning a slew of endorsements from members of Congress in recent weeks. Sunday’s NBC News poll found Trump leading a hypothetical GOP primary with 46 percent support, with his next closest competition Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who polled at 31 percent.

National polls have consistently shown Trump with a double-digit lead on DeSantis and other would-be challengers, though state-level polls show a closer race, and in some cases have the Florida governor narrowly leading the former president.

For Biden and his team, the possibility of a rematch with Trump is “top of mind,” said Jen Psaki, the former White House press secretary, Sunday on her MSNBC show.

“A race against Trump is definitely not a battle of policy ideas … which is why the comparison that the White House is focused on is not entirely on policy differences,” Psaki said. “It’s between a competent president and a chaotic Republican Party. Competence versus chaos. As of now, that contrast is kind of playing out on its own.”

“Biden did beat Trump last time, but he still has an incredibly tough fight ahead of him,” she added.

While polls have underscored the sense of national fatigue at the prospect of a Trump-Biden rematch, recent election cycles have indicated voters are as engaged as ever.

More than 158 million Americans cast ballots in the 2020 presidential election, a record for turnout. 

The 2022 elections saw the second-highest voter turnout for a midterm since 2002, with roughly 107 million votes cast. The highest turnout came in 2018, when Trump was in office.

With Trump a big driver of turnout for Republicans who support him and Democrats who oppose him — and issues like abortion likely to be key for voters in 2024 — it’s expected that even those who’d rather see other candidates atop the ballot will still head to the polls next November.

“Anger is a great motivator in politics, and dissatisfaction can actually stimulate people to be more engaged with politics rather than to be apathetic,” said Hopkins. “That seems to be a big part of the story of why in our polarized age we’re seeing a surge in political activity. A lot of people are very strongly motivated by their dislike of at least one of the parties or at least one of the candidates.”

--Updated at 6:11 a.m.