$1.17M whistleblower settlement raises new questions for embattled DHS inspector general

A $1.17 million settlement with a former Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General employee who flagged issues with embattled Inspector General Joseph Cuffari is raising a fresh set of questions from Congress.

The settlement, signed earlier this month but revealed by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) on Thursday, admits no wrongdoing by Cuffari's office but makes a substantial whistleblower reprisal payment to Jennifer Costello, the employee.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) investigation into the matter surfaces a number of bizarre clashes between the two employees, including a beef over Costello’s refusal to print thousands of pages of documents she asserted Cuffari could read online to his initial plan to try and assign her to a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) dealing with countering weapons of mass destruction.

But lawmakers are also raising questions over whether Cuffari misled Congress about the need for a $1.4 million contract to investigate Costello and others.

The settlement received by Costello is the largest known settlement for an employee of an inspector general office and among the largest ever given to a federal employee.

A joint letter from top Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee and House Oversight and Accountability Committee obtained by The Hill indicates lawmakers plan to probe the deal, as well as why Cuffari’s deputy was able to sign off on the agreement without alerting other officials.

A deposition in front of the board “raises serious concerns about your possibly retaliatory actions and lack of candor, improper use of taxpayer dollars, and lack of truthfulness in your communications with Congress,” Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) write in the letter to Cuffari.

Costello in 2019 made disclosures about Cuffari to both Congress and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), which is now investigating Cuffari. He likewise complained to the organization about her.

Costello’s complaints included that Cuffari delayed a report on DHS’s struggle to track children and parents separated at the border under a Trump administration policy, according to records Costello supplied to the POGO.

Costello was dismissed in June 2020, but Cuffari told the MSPB his plan to assign her to the Office for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction — despite her lack of relevant experience — was made before an investigation into her conduct.

“Your testimony appears to show that at least one of the allegations brought against Ms. Costello as a basis for her proposed removal was frivolous,” the lawmakers wrote.

“Specifically, the deposition transcript reveals that after you requested that Ms. Costello print thousands of pages of DHS OIG policies, she expressed concern to you that it was not a ‘valuable use of the staff resources or appropriated funds.’ You then decided that this suggestion was grounds for removal because she ‘was making a determination on whether or not [the printing] was appropriate.’”

The POGO report indicates Cuffari made other inaccurate claims to justify his firing of Costello, including that she ordered a criminal review of his travel shortly after taking the job — a review that was initiated by another employee.

Cuffari spent $1.4 million on a contract with law firm WilmerHale to investigate Costello and others, one that lawmakers contend “did not substantiate any illegal conduct.”

They say Cuffari also failed to disclose to Congress that other inspectors general he asked to probe the conduct of Costello declined to do so. 

“Your omission of this important information raises questions about your intentions when you informed Congress that you conferred with other Inspectors General and whether or not you accurately reflected the events preceding your decision to hire WilmerHale,” they wrote.

The settlement with Costello was signed by his chief of staff, Kristen Fredricks, something Thompson and Raskin say should have prompted an alert to ethics officials, as federal regulations require that they be consulted when the conduct at issue involves the head of the agency.

“It is unclear whether you raised concerns regarding your subordinate’s approval of the $1.17 million settlement to resolve allegations pertaining to your misconduct. It is also unclear whether or not you sought an opinion from a DHS ethics officer,” they wrote.

“However, it is deeply troubling that the individual who approved the settlement is someone whom you directly oversee and promoted to the position of Chief of Staff. This decision raises a potentially serious and flagrant abuse of your position.”

Cuffari’s office did not respond to request for comment over the POGO report or the letter from Democrats.

An attorney for Costello said she was pleased with the result of the years-long battle.

“My client stood for what she believed was right.  Time has revealed that she was indeed right. And now she has a balm for the sacrifice she made to preserve the integrity of the work of the faithful civil servants of DHS OIG,” Costello attorney Eden Brown Gaines said in a statement. 

The matter adds to the growing complaints about Cuffari, who has earned the ire of lawmakers after failing to notify them that Secret Service text messages from Jan. 6 were lost in software migration. 

He most recently came under fire for saying that he routinely deletes text messages from his own government phone — an action that appears to violate record retention laws.

Lawmakers are also reviewing reports he censored findings of domestic abuse and sexual harassment by DHS employees.

Heated GOP grilling of Mayorkas leads to pledge to ‘dial the rhetoric down’

Republicans gave a preview Wednesday of a still materializing impeachment case against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, zeroing in on a 2006 law that requires a standard of perfection at the border.

But what started as a fiery hearing filled with attacks on Mayorkas ended with promises to tone down the rhetoric and move towards civility in the House Homeland Security Committee — a panel with numerous members who have pledged to remove the secretary from office.

The GOP on Wednesday repeatedly referenced the Secure Fence Act of 2006, a law that defines operational control as achieved when there is not a single unlawful entry of either migrants or drugs at the border. 

Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and other Republicans played numerous clips of Mayorkas previously answering questions about whether he has maintained operational control of the border — a tactic that comes after Green reportedly told donors at a fundraiser to “get the popcorn” ready ahead of the hearing.

Green rattled off a series of policies rolled out under the Biden administration, including the rescission of some Trump-era policies, though the current administration has alienated immigration advocates by retaining others. 

“You have not secured our borders, Mr. Secretary, and I believe you've done so intentionally. There is no other explanation for the systematic dismantling and transformation of our border,” he said. 

Several Republicans on the committee, including Green, leveled a series of accusations against Mayorkas, using their full five minutes for speeches, without asking questions of Mayorkas or allowing him to respond.

“I have no interest in asking the secretary any questions because he obfuscates and lies,” said  Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) after arguing Mayorkas had “failed your country.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the top Democrat on the committee, defended Mayorkas, pointing to reporting from The New York Times about Green’s comments to donors.

“I was dismayed to see that speaking to a group of campaign contributors last week about today's hearing the Chairman said, and I quote, ‘Get the popcorn. It's going to be fun.’ I think that tells Americans all they need to know about the Republican agenda here,” Thompson said.

“They don't want solutions to homeland security challenges. They want to make a headline or photo opp. They want a political wedge issue and something to talk to their deep-pocketed donors about more than they want to work together to get things done.”

Green later said the article misquoted him. He did not specify how but detailed he has no power to impeach Mayorkas, noting such a move would fall to the House Judiciary Committee and that his role is limited to oversight.

Republicans used much of the hearing to dissect Mayorkas’s previous statements on operational control of the border.

Mayorkas has repeatedly maintained he has control of the border, but the GOP has seized on prior comments from Border Patrol Chief Raúl Ortiz who answered “no” when asked if the department was meeting the high standard set under the Secure Fence Act.

It was a line Green said “told the truth” about the situation at the border.

Mayorkas on Wednesday said he was previously cut off by lawmakers from giving nuance to earlier answers, arguing the law leaves much discretion to the secretary in determining how to manage the border while the standard itself has never been met.

“The Secure Fence Act provides that operational control means that not a single individual crosses the border illegally. And it's for that reason that prior secretaries and myself have said that under that definition, no administration has had operational control,” Mayorkas said.

“As I have testified under oath multiple times, we use a lens of reasonableness in defining operational control. Are we maximizing the resources that we have to deliver the most effective results? And under that definition, we are doing so very much to gain operational control.”

Democrats took turns defending Mayorkas.

Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.) accused Republicans of having “such short memories … with respect to the situation at the Southern border.” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) rattled off a list of Trump-era policies, including family separation, prompting Mayorkas to say they not only failed to achieve operational control but “disobeyed our values as a country.”

Thompson turned to the archives, citing comments from GOP lawmakers from when the Secure Fence Act was first passed, citing concerns over the standard it set, including Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), a member of the committee who worked on the legislation.

“When you put this number as a metric in the definition of operational control, you make it impossible to achieve operational control. Perfection shouldn't be the enemy of the good,” McCaul said at the time, according to a portion of the transcript read aloud by Thompson.

Republicans, however, took issue with Mayorakas’s explanation, arguing the secretary has no right to interpret the laws passed by Congress.

“Congress set an objective in law. You haven't pursued it,” said Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.).  “Who are you to displace the legal definition of operational control by this Congress in favor of pursuing one of your own invention?”

Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), who played a central role in the impeachment of then-President Trump, later pounced on Bishop’s phrasing.

“I have a little experience with impeachment and I can tell you, as well as everybody else, that there is no grounds for impeachment based on a policy dispute. And there is absolutely nothing that I've seen here today that amounts to a false statement under oath,” he said.

“In fact, Mr. Bishop, my colleague, in referencing operational control and that standard, stated himself that it is an objective. It is the objective of the Department of Homeland Security to have operational control and, as you pointed out, that is to allow no unlawful entry into this country. That, of course, is an impossible standard.”

Other Republicans sought to hold Mayorkas accountable with other methods.

One lawmaker brought a series of charts with multiple questions. Two others brought guests to the hearing, including parents of children that had died of a fentanyl overdose and the family of victims who died after a man carrying migrants crashed into their car while seeking to evade police in a high-speed chase. 

The committee’s proceedings came to an almost 20-minute standstill following comments from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) accusing Mayorkas of lying.

Green agreed to a motion from Democrats to take down her words, ultimately resulting in the loss of her speaking privileges during the hearing.

It was a complex turn of events given that many Republicans at prior points in the hearing accused Mayorkas of being dishonest before Congress, though none, as Greene did, labeled him a liar.

Still, the hearing ended on a tone much different from how it started, with Thompson and Green both speaking to the need to maintain decorum during proceedings.

Thompson said the two men had "sidebarred" about the language used, noting other nations keep tabs on Congressional proceedings — “our adversaries look at us,” he warned.

“You and I pledge that going forward, we'll make every effort to get back to the civility that this committee has been known for,” Thompson said.

Green echoed that in his own closing remarks.

“I agree with the former chairman, now ranking member, that we disagree on a lot of policies. We really do. And we don't have to despise someone because they disagree with us. We don't have to disparage someone because they disagree with us,” Green said. 

“And we do need to dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee.”

Jan. 6 committee’s referrals may ‘stiffen the spine’ of prosecutors

Plans from the House Jan. 6 committee to imminently release its list of criminal referrals is raising questions over how far the panel will go in implicating former President Trump and his allies in a plot that culminated in last year's deadly attack on the Capitol.

Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) told reporters Tuesday that the committee had come to a “general agreement” to send criminal referrals to the Justice Department.

It’s a move that would allow the panel to put a finer point on its more than yearlong investigation, naming names and detailing specific statutes that were violated in an effort they have repeatedly said was a lawless campaign to block the peaceful transfer of power.

And while it would still be up to the Justice Department to act on the recommendations, it could put pressure on a department that, at least publicly, has trailed the committee in its own review of the Capitol riot.

“They stiffen the spine of state and federal prosecutors by encouraging them to act,” Norm Eisen, counsel for Democrats in Trump’s first impeachment, said of the referrals on a call with reporters.

Legal experts have for some time argued there are a number of statutes that could be used for a possible Trump prosecution, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. 

But a remaining question with respect to the committee is just how broad they will go in outlining possible illegal behavior among allies.

“This is what we're discussing as we go into the last days of our work on this important investigation,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), one of the committee’s members, said in a Wednesday morning interview on NPR.

“And that is, what would the impact of our referrals be if we make referrals, against whom and for what offenses?”

Justice Department subpoenas

The Justice Department previewed the span of its investigation in a November request made public this week, sending subpoenas to local officials in three states — Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin — asking for any communications with just under 20 Trump campaign officials and associates.

That group includes a wide array of lawyers working in different capacities on behalf of the campaign, like Rudy Giuliani as well as John Eastman, who crafted memos encouraging former Vice President Mike Pence to buck his ceremonial duty to certify the election results. All were involved in efforts in seven key states where Trump lost to President Biden igniting a push by the campaign to send false slates of electors from each.

Others listed on the subpoena include campaign manager Bill Stepien, whose testimony critical of Trump’s efforts was shared by the panel, and Bernard Kerik, an aide to Giuliani in investigating the debunked claims of fraud being pushed by Trump.

How far could referrals go?

But a referral from the committee could cast a wider net, particularly in regard to those within government who assisted with Trump’s efforts. That includes then-chief of staff Mark Meadows as well as Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump weighed installing as attorney general to force an investigation into his baseless claims of election fraud.

Some members of the committee have suggested the referrals could go beyond Trump alone.

“We're all very mindful of who is responsible. We have laid out in our hearings the role that the former president played in Jan. 6, and in supporting and pointing to the U.S. Capitol and telling his supporters to come out here. … That's not lost on any of us,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), a member of the panel, said in an interview with CNN.

But getting it right, Aguilar went on to say, means “telling the truth and make sure that within the time that we have that we ask every available question and that we aren't shy about making suggestions and recommendations, both to protect the United States Capitol as well as to hold people accountable.”

There are a bounty of statutes Justice Department lawyers could use to charge those involved in the plot to remain in power.

A federal judge in California has already determined that Trump, in coordination with Eastman, likely committed conspiracy to defraud the U.S. as well as another crime, obstruction of an official proceeding, triggered by the use of violence. 

The ruling from Judge David Carter came in a civil case in which Eastman challenged his obligation to turn documents over to the committee.

Beyond federal crimes, the Trump effort could violate various state statutes — a dynamic already seen in Georgia as Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) conducts her own investigation into a push there to “find” additional votes for Trump and challenge the election results with faulty claims of fraud.

Prosecuting Jan. 6 cases

But top of mind for prosecutors will be whether they can successfully win a guilty verdict in incredibly high-profile cases, a feat that could be more challenging for certain statutes that require demonstrating intent.

The Justice Department also has a mixed track record when it comes to taking the committee’s suggestions.

The panel, and later the full House, voted to censure four individuals subpoenaed by the committee who they say failed to comply with their subpoenas.

The Justice Department brought cases against two of the figures — onetime White House strategist Stephen Bannon and Trump adviser Peter Navarro. But it declined to do so in the case of Meadows — who did provide some requested documents sought by the committee — or Dan Scavino, Trump’s communications guru.

DOJ may want more than referrals

The decision on referrals comes after the panel formed a subcommittee of its four lawyers to evaluate the decision and make specific recommendations.

Eisen said while any referrals would likely include legal analysis and statute-by-statute recommendations, the Justice Department may be more eager to get other intel from the committee.

“The roadmap, the evidence — that's the most critical part. If I'm a prosecutor, I would much rather have the evidence than the legal analysis and conclusion that you should charge,” he said.

The committee has thus far resisted calls from the Justice Department to share its work, even after the panel agreed to share some 20 transcripts with investigators. Thompson said they were never turned over as the committee “just made a decision not to,” advising that the agency would get the final report along with the public.

Schiff said that was a detail weighing on the committee.

“How much should we detail the evidence, knowing that the Justice Department has sources of evidence that we don't, that it was able to enforce certain subpoenas and compel testimony that we have not been able to?” he said. 

“So in some ways, I think the information we provide will exceed that of the department. In other areas, they have more evidence than we do.”

These are the lawmakers on the Jan. 6 committee

The House committee probing the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection will start holding public hearings Thursday, looking to draw national attention to witness testimony and evidence gathered during nearly a year of investigating.

The committee is made up of nine House members — seven Democrats and two Republicans. It formed last summer, about six months after the U.S. Capitol riot, to investigate the attack and events and communications around it.

After an attempt to form a bipartisan commission with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) failed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) moved forward in appointing the entire committee.

Here are the members serving on the House Jan. 6 committee and some of their comments on the panel's work thus far.

Bennie Thompson 

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) serves as chairman of the committee. Thompson has led the committee since its inception. He has said there is “no question” that the Jan. 6 insurrection was a premeditated attack based on the evidence the committee has received.

He has called his role leading the committee “ironic” given his background as a Black man from “one of the most racist states.”

Liz Cheney 

Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) serves as the vice chairwoman and is one of two Republican members on the committee. Thompson said in September that her appointment underscores the “bipartisan nature” of the committee’s work. 

But Cheney has faced sharp criticism as a result of her decision to participate in the committee’s investigation and her rebukes of former President Trump’s claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election. House Republicans voted to remove Cheney as conference chairwoman last May, and she is now facing a Trump-endorsed challenger for her primary in August. 

Cheney said last month hat Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results is a "threat we have never faced before."

Adam Kinzinger 

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), the other Republican serving on the committee, has also faced pushback after he voted to impeach Trump for his role in inciting the Capitol insurrection and joined the Jan. 6 committee. Kinzinger announced in October that he would not seek reelection to his seat, ending a 12-year career in the House. He has remained one of the most vocal GOP critics of Trump. 

Kinzinger was not originally a member of the committee, but Pelosi appointed him after McCarthy pulled his picks from consideration. 

McCarthy denied blaming Trump for the insurrection immediately following the attack, but tapes later revealed that he did, which Kinzinger said showed that Republican leaders think their voters are “dumb.”

Pete Aguilar 

Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, argued in March in favor of the Justice Department bringing contempt charges against witnesses who have refused to cooperate despite subpoenas from the committee. 

The Justice Department has brought charges for contempt of Congress against former Trump strategist Stephen Bannon and former trade adviser Peter Navarro but has not charged his former chief of staff Mark Meadows or Dan Scavino, his former deputy chief of staff for communications, who have also been subpoenaed by the committee.

Zoe Lofgren 

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the House Administration Committee, said in March on PBS’s “NewsHour” that what unfolded during the riot was a more serious threat to American democracy than Watergate. In April, she said the members of the House Jan. 6 committee are “not afraid” to release any information or call any witness to testify. 

The committee has issued subpoenas for a range of witnesses, including Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Kimberly Guilfoyle, the girlfriend of Donald Trump Jr. who spoke at the Jan. 6 rally at the Ellipse near the White House. Multiple family members have voluntarily cooperated, including the former president's daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner. 

The committee has not said who will testify during its upcoming slate of eight hearings.

Elaine Luria 

Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) said in an interview in late March that Kushner’s interview with the committee was “really valuable” to the investigation.

Luria also called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to act on the contempt charges the committee has recommended. 

“Attorney General Garland, do your job so we can do ours,” she said at a meeting where the committee forwarded its recommendation for charges against Scavino and Navarro. 

Stephanie Murphy 

Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) said in February that the committee needs to be aware of the impact its actions could have moving forward.

“The people who were involved were at all levels of government — local, state and federal — and the unprecedented nature of the event has led us to be very careful about how we proceed in the investigation because we are setting precedents,” Murphy told The Hill at the time. 

“But we will be thorough in how we get all the information,” she added. 

Jamie Raskin 

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who led the House impeachment case against Trump in January, has been vocal about the Jan. 6 committee’s findings and what the American people will learn from the public hearings.

He said Monday that the committee members have found evidence on Trump that is “a lot more than incitement.” Trump was impeached following the insurrection for incitement, but the Senate did not reach the requisite two-thirds majority vote needed to convict him.

Raskin told Washington Post Live on Tuesday that the hearing this week will “tell a story of a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election.” 

Adam Schiff 

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) emphasized on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the hearing this week will be the first time there will be a “comprehensive narrative” on the events surrounding the insurrection.

He said “a number of bombshells” have already been released during the committee’s investigation but that there is more to be revealed. Schiff is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which was at the center of the investigation in Trump's first impeachment for allegedly soliciting foreign help in an election.

January 6 Committee To Hold Public Hearings – Chairman Declares ‘The Public Needs to Know What to Think’

The House Select Committee investigating the January 6th riot at the Capitol is reportedly set to hold six public hearings – two in primetime – alleging former President Donald Trump and his associates broke the law in trying to overturn the 2020 election results.

The hearings will be held in June, according to the Guardian, which first reported the news.

Calling it a “pivotal political moment for the country,” the outlet reports that the panel will attempt to “publicly outline the potentially unlawful schemes that tried to keep the former president in office despite his defeat at the hands of Joe Biden.”

Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, gave the game away in his remarks regarding the public hearings about January 6th.

“We want to paint a picture as clear as possible as to what occurred,” Thompson (D-MS) told reporters. “The public needs to know what to think. We just have to show clearly what happened on January 6.”

RELATED: McConnell Agrees With Democrats, Media That January 6 Was A ‘Violent Insurrection,’ Rips RNC For Censuring Cheney, Kinzinger

Public Hearings on Capitol Riot

“The public needs to know what to think.”

Isn’t that the Democrat party Summed up completely in an 8-word sentence?

The biggest question on everyone’s mind is, with 6 public hearings ranging between 1.5 to 2.5 hours in length, will Adam Kinzinger have enough tissues on hand?

Rick Wilson, a one-time GOP strategist turned fervent Never Trumper, was also shedding tears over news that the January 6 committee would be holding 6 public hearings.

In Wilson’s eyes, that’s not enough.

“SIX HEARINGS? SIX? Are. You. F***ing. Kidding. Me?” he wrote.

In a follow-up tweet, Wilson claimed Trump witnesses would “filibuster, bulls***, evade and jerk themselves off on live TV” in an attempt to stonewall the hearings.

RELATED: Former AG Bill Barr Wants Republicans To ‘Move On’ From Trump, Blames Him For Capitol Riot

Setting Up the Narrative

Reports back in April indicated Thompson and the committee were prepared to hold eight public hearings on the January 6th riot at the Capitol.

So, according to the sources involved, this would be a streamlining of the attempts by the committee to influence opinions of what happened that day.

Aside from having the goal of telling the American people what to think, the June hearings will allow time for a full report to be released just in time for the midterm elections.

“The panel … plans to release a full report about the deadly attack on the Capitol in early fall,” CBS News reported at the time. 

Similar to Thompson’s comments, committee member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said the public hearings would be divided into chapters “that will allow for the unfolding of the narrative.”

As any good work of fiction would.

Raskin, of course, never was the subject of a public hearing about trying to overturn election results, despite objecting to counting electoral votes back in 2016.

The Guardian reports that sources have indicated that “committee attorneys will simultaneously flash texts, photos and videos to illustrate the testimony” during these public hearings.

This will be interesting since this same House Select committee admitted to doctoring a text message presented by Representative Adam Schiff as evidence at a hearing back in December.

The Guardian report notes that “the exact content and timings of the hearings are still subject to change.”

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 January 6 Committee To Hold Public Hearings – Chairman Declares ‘The Public Needs to Know What to Think’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Dem Congressman Files Lawsuit Against Trump For His Alleged Role In Capitol Riot

Representative Bennie Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, filed a federal lawsuit against former President Donald Trump for his alleged role in inciting a riot at the Capitol on January 6th.

The Mississippi lawmaker claims Trump conspired with attorney Rudy Giuliani and extremist groups to stop Congress from certifying President Biden’s Electoral College win, which in turn led to violence.

The suit accuses Trump of violating the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act which was passed in an effort to address the KKK and prohibits violence or intimidation meant to prevent members of Congress or other federal officials from carrying out their constitutional duties.

“January 6th was one of the most shameful days in our country’s history, and it was instigated by the president himself,” Thompson said in a statement.

“His gleeful support of violent white supremacists led to a breach of the Capitol that put my life, and that of my colleagues, in grave danger. It is by the slimmest of luck that the outcome was not deadlier.”

RELATED: Pelosi Wants ‘9/11-Type Commission’ To Investigate Capitol Riot

Trump Adviser Denies Allegations in Capitol Riot Lawsuit

The Associated Press reports that Thompson’s lawsuit is the first “of an expected wave of litigation over the Jan. 6 riot.”

A clear indication that, while Donald Trump is no longer in office, the Democrat party has no intention of working to make the lives of the American people better, and will continue to instead focus on the former President.

Jason Miller, a Trump adviser, dismissed the allegations being made in the lawsuit, pointing out that Trump had no role in organizing the rally.

He “did not incite or conspire to incite any violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6th,” Miller succinctly explained.

“President Trump has been acquitted in the Democrats’ latest impeachment witch hunt, and the facts are irrefutable,” Miller added.

RELATED: Lindsey Graham Says Mitch McConnell’s Anti-Trump Speech May Come Back To Bite Republicans

No Basis in Reality

Rep. Bennie Thompson’s lawsuit against Trump regarding the Capitol riot has little basis in reality, as there has been absolutely no proof that the rally and march in early January were inspired or motivated by white supremacy.

The problem is that Democrats link all Trump supporters to white supremacy and thus, in their minds, it must have been the motivating factor.

It simply couldn’t have had anything to do with opposing the electoral votes.

This, incidentally, is something Democrats have done over and over again both in 2017 and 2005.

Where were the lawsuits then against Democrats? Weren’t they, by this standard, clearly trying to prevent members of Congress from carrying out their constitutional duties and disenfranchising black supporters of Donald Trump and George W. Bush?

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing her part to continue harassing Trump, announcing she plans to create an “outside, independent 9/11-type Commission” to investigate the Capitol riot.

These actions were practically inspired by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who in a post-impeachment tirade, suggested the former president “didn’t get away with anything, yet.”

“We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation,” McConnell said.

The post Dem Congressman Files Lawsuit Against Trump For His Alleged Role In Capitol Riot appeared first on The Political Insider.