Dems Took Way More Dark Money Than The GOP – Will They Now Swear It Off?

By Susan Crabtree for RealClearPolitics

Nearly a decade ago, Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold warned that his party would “lose its soul” if it began taking unlimited corporate money with plans to wean itself off the addiction later –  especially if the funds helped Democrats gain control of the White House and Congress.

Fast-forward to 2021 and that warning is facing its first big test.

Anonymous “dark money” donors provided $145 million to pro-Biden groups during the 2020 election, helping pave his way to the White House and dwarfing the $28.4 million spent on behalf of Donald Trump, Bloomberg reported in late January.

When it comes to control of the Senate, Stacey Abrams’ voter-registration groups, Fair Fight and its dark-money arm, Fair Fight Action, also are widely credited with helping Democrats win the Georgia runoffs.

Liberal dark-money groups, which (like conservative ones) don’t disclose the source of their funds, started out-spending their counterparts in 2018, according to a report by Issue One, an advocacy group calling for more restrictions on campaign fundraising.

RELATED: Report: Biden Received Over $145 Million In ‘Dark Money’ Campaign Cash

The Center for Responsive Politics, a group that closely tracks campaign spending, found that liberal dark-money groups outspent conservatives ones in 2020 as well.

Despite benefiting from the anonymous largesse, Democrats have seemed uneasy – at least publicly — cozying up to these big donors whose identities are obscured.

During his presidential primary campaign last spring, Joe Biden said one of his first priorities would be signing a comprehensive campaign-finance reform bill that, among other things, would force dark-money groups to disclose their donors.

But in the first few weeks of the new administration, passing a COVID relief bill to help struggling Americans, along with impeaching Trump, have become the two main priorities set before Congress.

For now at least, the reform bills have been shunted aside despite Democrats giving them top legislative billing – dubbing them HR 1 and S 1 to signify their importance. 

Instead of prominent Democrats, including Biden, aggressively pressing for more campaign-finance disclosure, there’s been a proliferation of news about plans by liberal groups to spend more dark-money to help congressional Democrats keep their majorities and push the party’s agenda to the left.

Just last week, American Bridge, which spent $62 million in 2020 on ads aimed at defeating Trump, announced it would relaunch next month with a nine-figure ad budget to defend Biden’s record and maintain Democrats’ congressional majorities in 2022.

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez will serve as a co-chair of the initiative, along with former Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

RELATED: Biden’s COVID Team Warns There Might Not Be Herd Immunity Until Thanksgiving Or Even Later

Sixty-two liberal groups, including Demand Justice and Fix Our Senate (a trade name for the Sixteen Thirty Fund) — both organizations that hide their donors’ identities — sent a letter Friday to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer calling on him to abolish the Senate filibuster to help break any gridlock and advance a liberal agenda.

Demand Justice and several other dark-money liberal groups are also leading a separate effort called “Unrig Our Courts,” a push to undo Trump’s judicial legacy by pressing Congress to add seats to the Supreme Court, impose term limits on high court justices, and improve judiciary “ethics and transparency requirements.”

The hypocrisy of a group that obscures its donors calling for more disclosure wasn’t lost on conservatives who oppose campaign finance disclosure mandates.

“We now know that many of these dark-money groups are part of a massive operation on the left,” Adam Laxalt, a former Nevada attorney general who serves as an outside counsel for Americans for Public Trust, a conservative watchdog group, said in a statement.

“It’s not surprising that these and other progressive groups have set their sights on our courts, the last obstacle to complete power.”

Even though Democrats insist they are fighting fire with fire and will not “unilaterally disarm,” with their majority in both chambers of Congress they now have the power to advance the reforms they have long advocated, notes Michael Beckel, Issue One’s research director.

RELATED: Texas Sheriff Claims Biden Admin Releasing Illegal Immigrants Into U.S. Without COVID Testing

“The increased dark-money spending by liberal groups in recent years should make it clear to all members of Congress that neither party is immune from being pummeled by attack ads funded by anonymous donors,” Beckel told RealClearPolitics.

“Democrats and Republicans alike should be motivated to end secret spending in our elections. Lawmakers in both parties should be taking dark money seriously and working to bring more transparency to campaigns.”

Yet, as Feingold predicted, ending the addiction to big money is proving difficult for Democrats now that they’re playing the game better than Republicans.

Democrats always opposed Citizens United, the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 decision that allowed virtually unlimited money in politics.

They said opening the floodgates to unlimited donations flew in the face of their commitment to helping average Americans and those struggling to get by.

But Democrats also opposed Citizens United because they thought Republicans and their deep-pocketed corporate allies would benefit the most from the ruling.

“Their mantra of not ‘unliterally disarming’ was really their justification for learning how to master super PACs and dark money and all that, and they’re doing a better job of it right now than the Republicans,” Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the group Public Citizen, which advocates for stricter campaign-finance laws, told NBC News last fall. Holman went a step further, predicting more Democratic complacence on the issue if they were to win the Senate and the White House.

RELATED: Report: Democrats Have A Back-Up Plan That Might Still Bar Trump From Running Again If Impeachment Fails

Under such a scenario — which became political reality — Holman said his group would have to “hold their word over their head.”

Now, Senate Democrats who sponsored S 1 are not pushing for prompt consideration of the bill. Sen. Jeff Merkley (pictured), an Oregon Democrat and the lead sponsor, did not respond to repeated requests for comment from RCP.

A spokesman for Schumer also did not respond to an RCP inquiry. Schumer is up for reelection in 2022 and could face a primary challenge from his left flank, perhaps from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Majority Forward, a nonprofit with ties to Schumer’s Senate Majority Pac, channeled $57.4 million into super PACs that helped Democrats regain the majority in the upper chamber.

The group received $76 million in anonymous donations from mid-2018 to mid-2019, the same year it passed tens of millions of dollars to other left-wing nonprofit groups devoted to funding “voter engagement” efforts.

The Senate Majority PAC sent its largest donation — $14.8 million — to America Votes, a group that Georgia election officials investigated for allegations it sent ballot applications to non-residents.

A spokesperson for America Votes has denied any wrongdoing, arguing that it sent absentee ballot applications to registered voters across Georgia, using an official list from the secretary of state’s office along with postal address data.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a vocal proponent of ending dark-money groups, also did not respond to an RCP request for comment. The Rhode Island Democrat has repeatedly described the impact of these “shadowy” groups as a “rot on our American democracy.”

RELATED: ‘Squad’ Member Rep. Cori Bush Defends Prison Riot After Condemning Capitol Riot

Last fall Whitehouse testified during a House judiciary subcommittee hearing that conservative dark-money organizations unduly influenced the confirmation of conservative judges during Trump’s time in office.

But Whitehouse also has said he would accept campaign donations from dark-money groups and has delivered speeches to liberal groups that accept money from secret donors.

Last summer, the longtime senator trashed the judicial nominating process during Trump’s time in office as “rigged.”

He argued that Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh won confirmation because they were backed by a sophisticated dark-money advertising “scheme” funded by corporations and deep-pocketed GOP donors.

Whitehouse spokesman Rich Davidson told RCP at the time that the donor disclosure his boss is seeking should apply to all groups “regardless of ideological bent.”

Davidson made the comment the same day Whitehouse spoke about the evils of conservative dark-money groups at an event hosted by the American Constitution Society, a liberal dark-money group that doesn’t disclose many of its donors.

Over the last week, RCP reached out to numerous groups (or their political arms) that don’t disclose their donors, including Demand Justice and Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Only one, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which Politico labeled a “dark-money behemoth” after it raised $137 million from anonymous donors in 2019, came forward to say it supports efforts to force it and other groups that amass these “shadowy” funds to disclose their donors. 

“We have lobbied in favor of reform to the current campaign finance system,” Amy Kurtz, the fund’s executive director, told RCP in an emailed statement. “But we remain equally committed to following the current laws to level the playing field for progressives.”

Kurtz referred to that statement when asked whether she supports passage of the disclosure mandates in HR 1 and S 1, considering the success that dark-money groups such as hers had this cycle in helping Biden win the White House and Democrats gain the Senate majority.

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics’ White House/national political correspondent.

The post Dems Took Way More Dark Money Than The GOP – Will They Now Swear It Off? appeared first on The Political Insider.

CNN’s Don Lemon Tells Trump Supporters They Can’t Support Trump And Demand Respect For Police

On Tuesday, anti-Trump CNN host Don Lemon said that those who stand with former President Donald Trump have no right to tell others to respect the police.

Lemon made his comments on his CNN program “Tonight.”

Lemon Attacks Police-Supporting Trump Voters

After showing the video that was presented on Tuesday of the Capitol Hill attack by the House impeachment managers, Lemon said, “Blue Lives Matter, huh?”

The video showed some of the mob action as the protests turned violent. Police officers who tried to hold protesters back were injured as protesters tried to break police lines and access outer doors to the Capitol.

Seeming to talk to Trump supporters, Lemon continued, “Law and order, law and order, respect the flags, respect law enforcement. Why don’t you just comply?”

“Don’t you dare even say that again if you can stand by after that video and give Donald Trump, of all people, Donald Trump… and his mob a pass,” Lemon said.

RELATED: PBS’ Yamiche Alcindor Defends Democrat Double Standard On Impeachment – ‘Wasn’t Storming Of The Capitol’ After Maxine Waters’ Speech

The CNN host then implied anyone who supports Trump has no right to defend “law and order” and the police again.

“If you can do that, I don’t ever want to hear that again,” Lemon said. “I don’t want to hear that from you.”

“I don’t want to hear family values from you,” he went on. “I don’t want to hear respect police officers from you. I don’t want to hear it.”

Lemon: ‘No Moral High Ground To Stand On’

Lemon insisted that Trump backers lacked any moral standing to demand moral behavior of others.

“No moral high ground to stand on,” Lemon said. “Look who is on your side there. There have been a lot of lies.”

“We’ve been warning you about all the lies,” Lemon finished.

The “lies.”

Isn’t Don Lemon a personality on a cable outlet that spent years promoting the Russian collusion hoax?

CNN Spent Years Promoting Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory

Journalist Glenn Greenwald reported in 2017, “Three prominent journalists resigned Monday night after the network was forced to retract and apologize for a story linking Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund under congressional investigation.”

“That article — like so much Russia reporting from the U.S. media — was based on a single anonymous source, and now, the network cannot vouch for the accuracy of its central claims,” Greenwald noted.

RELATED: Lindsey Graham Rips Impeachment – ‘We’re Doing A Lot Of Damage To The Country Because People Hate Trump’

Don Lemon was part of the Trump-Russia conspiracy chorus for a very long time.

Greenwald observed of the 2017 CNN story, “Embarrassments of this sort are literally too numerous to count when it comes to hyped, viral U.S. media stories over the last year about the Russia Threat.”

Additionally, CNN was the subject of a massive lawsuit over their false reporting of Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann.

Sandmann and his fellow students were blasted by the media for wearing MAGA hats at the 2019 March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., where they were confronted by counterprotesters. 

CNN personalities Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo blamed the students.

Lemon stated, “The MAGA hat carries a certain connotation that provokes a conditioned reaction from many people, especially from marginalized people… Their chaperones should be keenly aware of that. Those kids should know that. And let’s say that the kids didn’t because they are kids, their chaperones should be responsible enough to educate them.” 

Sandmann would subsequently sue CNN for $275 million dollars, and the network later settled for an undisclosed amount.

Don Lemon has no right or moral standing to correct other about “lies” or most anything else.

The post CNN’s Don Lemon Tells Trump Supporters They Can’t Support Trump And Demand Respect For Police appeared first on The Political Insider.

Biden’s COVID Team Warns There Might Not Be Herd Immunity Until Thanksgiving Or Even Later

Some members of President Joe Biden’s COVID response team leaders are saying internally that it might be Thanksgiving, or even later, before the U.S. reaches herd immunity, which is months later than was originally predicted.

This news comes from two senior administration officials who spoke to The Daily Beast.

Herd Immunity Is The Goal

Biden told CBS News this week that it would “very difficult” to reach herd immunity – which means enough of the population is resistant to the virus for life to return to some semblance of normalcy – “much before the end of the summer.”

Biden said this based on the approximately 1.3 million vaccine doses that are being  produced and/or administered daily.

The Daily Beast reported on Tuesday, “Other top officials working on the federal government’s COVID-19 response say the are uneasy about vaccine supply long term and the impact on herd immunity, and have begun to explore ways to expand U.S. manufacturing capacity, potentially through new partnerships with outside pharmaceutical firms.”

RELATED: Texas Sheriff Claims Biden Admin Releasing Illegal Immigrants Into U.S. Without COVID Testing

Top officials are also reportedly worried about how new variants of the virus might affect achieving herd immunity:

“Together, the recent data has alarmed health officials in the Biden administration who are now raising questions about what more can be done to not only shorten the herd immunity timeline—not just to return Americans to some sort of normalcy but also to ensure the country does not experience another surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths.”

It continued, “Officials have spent the last several days discussing ways to ramp up genome sequencing to track variants and how to push out the message that Americans need to more closely follow public health guidelines to reduce transmission as B117 variant cases begin to increase.”

Fauci: ‘We’re Going In The Right Direction’

The Daily Beast notes that White House pandemic leader Dr. Anthony Fauci had previously said that about 75 percent of Americans and those in the U.S. would need to receive a vaccine to reach herd immunity, but was “cautiously optimistic” this goal could be reached by the beginning of the fall.

“I still think that is possible,” Fauci said. “As I’ve said before, once we get into mass vaccination when the general public starts getting it by the end of the spring—April, May, June …and we get past any vaccine hesitancy, then we should be able to reach that 70 or 75 percent mark.”

“We’re going in the right direction.” Fauci added.

In December, however, the New York Times reported that Fauci admitted to moving the goal posts upward, to 80 or 85 percent.

Centers for Disease Control Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky addressed the potential dangers of COVID variants on Monday. 

RELATED: PBS’ Yamiche Alcindor Defends Democrat Double Standard On Impeachment – ‘Wasn’t Storming Of The Capitol’ After Maxine Waters’ Speech

‘We’re Still At Over 100,000 Cases A Day’

“The virus is going to continue to mutate no matter what we do,” Walensky said. “The types of mutations we’ll see will change as more people are immunized.”

This news comes as many states and municipalities across the U.S. are loosening their COVID restrictions. 

Walensky warned against this, particularly regarding masks. 

“We’re still at over 100,000 cases a day,” she said. “I think we have yet to control this pandemic. We still have this emerging threat of variants. And I would just simply discourage any of those activities.”

“We really need to keep all of the mitigation measures at play here if we’re really going to get control of this pandemic” she added.

The post Biden’s COVID Team Warns There Might Not Be Herd Immunity Until Thanksgiving Or Even Later appeared first on The Political Insider.

Trump ‘Not Happy’ With His Legal Team’s First Appearance In Impeachment Trial

According to a number of reports on Tuesday, former President Donald Trump was very displeased with his legal team’s performance on the first day of his Senate impeachment trial.

Many members of Congress and pundits also criticized the Trump defense team’s showing, and particularly that of Bruce Castor.

Castor had once briefly served as Pennsylvania’s Attorney General, and was the District Attorney for Montgomery County.

RELATED: PBS’ Yamiche Alcindor Defends Democrat Double Standard On Impeachment – ‘Wasn’t Storming Of The Capitol’ After Maxine Waters’ Speech

Source: ‘President Trump Was Not Happy’

For about 45 minutes, Castor delivered a rambling opening speech and seemed to have a difficult time making many salient points to this case.

Sources close to Trump’s defense team reportedly told both Politico and CNN that Trump was “not happy” with how he was being represented by his lawyers.

One source reportedly told Politico, “President Trump was not happy with the performance of his legal team in action.”

In the weeks leading up to the impeachment trial, Trump’s legal team had a rough few weeks. 

The former president’s previous team quit abruptly just three weeks before the trial reportedly because Trump insisted they make the argument that the election was stolen from him by the Democrats.

Dershowitz On Castor: ‘I Have No Idea What He Is Doing’

After that controversy, Castor and attorney David Schoen came in as Trump’s primary legal representatives.

The two lawyers had little more than two weeks to prepare for the trial.

Neither Schoen nor Castor have reportedly agreed to make the case that the 2020 election was stolen from their client.

Trump’s lawyer for his first impeachment trial, Alan Dershowitz, said Trump’s legal team’s performance on Tuesday was not good. 

Dershowitz said of Castor, “I have no idea what he is doing.”

Perhaps the most surprising comment from Castor, which many on the left were quick to pounce on, was his assertion that Trump lost the election fair and square – a big departure from Trump’s claim that the election was stolen: 

RELATED: Lindsey Graham Rips Impeachment – ‘We’re Doing A Lot Of Damage To The Country Because People Hate Trump’

Republican Sen. John Cornyn Was Not Impressed

“The American people are entitled to an argument,” Dershowitz told Newsmax. “But this, just, after all kinds of very strong presentations on the part of the House managers… it does not appear to me to be effective advocacy.”

Dershowitz wasn’t the only one unimpressed. One prominent member of Trump’s own party was not the least bit impressed with what he saw from Team Trump on Tuesday.

Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn reportedly said, “I’ve seen a lot of lawyers and a lot of arguments and that was, that was not one of the finest I’ve seen.” 

Another Republican, perhaps the biggest surprise among the GOP Senators who voted that the trial for a former president was constitutional, was Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. 

Speaking of the proceedings, Cassidy said, “Trump’s team was disorganized, they did everything they could but to talk about the question at hand. And when they talked about it, they kind of glided over it, almost as if they were embarrassed of their arguments.”

“Now if I’m an impartial juror and one side is doing a great job and the other side is doing a terrible job on the issue at hand, as an impartial juror, I’m going to vote for the side that did the good job,” he said.

The post Trump ‘Not Happy’ With His Legal Team’s First Appearance In Impeachment Trial appeared first on The Political Insider.

Lindsey Graham Rips Impeachment – ‘We’re Doing A Lot Of Damage To The Country Because People Hate Trump’

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke out on Monday night to rip into Democrats for their impeachment effort against former President Donald Trump.

Graham Rips Democrats Over Impeachment

While appearing on “Hannity” on Fox News, Graham complained about having to participate in the impeachment trial at all.

“I got to listen to this crap,” Graham said. “So, I hope by Sunday or Monday, the trial will be over. Here’s what I can tell you — if the House managers want to call one witness, the defense is going to call all the people you named and then some.”

“To my colleagues tomorrow, there are a hundred of us, what we do today is going to make history of the time America exists,” he added. “What Democrats have done is basically declared war on the presidency itself. The impeachment in House took place without a hearing, without one witness being called, and without a lawyer for the president of the United States.”

“You can’t get a traffic ticket based on the producers they used to impeach President Trump,” Graham continued. “And we’re also impeaching a man who’s out of office. When you combine a snap impeachment with an impeachment of a president who’s out of office, you’re going to destroy the presidency itself.”

“I know you hate Trump but please, pull back before we set in motion this destruction of the presidency by never-ending impeachments based on lack of due process and political retribution as the motive,” he said.

Related: Lindsey Graham Teaming With Dick Durbin To Introduce Legislation That Could Grant Citizenship To DREAMers

Graham Doubles Down

Not stopping there, Graham went on to argue that in impeaching a former president, the Democrat-controlled Congress was creating a new precedent.

“I think you’ll see statements by politicians that are more insightful than what President Trump said,” he predicted. “But when the Founders created impeachment for the president, it was different than for judges and anybody else. It requires that the chief justice of the United States to preside over presidential impeachments. Why? Because you don’t want a juror preceding over the impeachment of a presidential officeholder.”

“So the idea that the president is treated differently under the Constitution makes perfect sense,” Graham said. “They never envisioned going after the president once he’s out of office because the purpose for impeachment is to remove the person, not bar them from running in the future.”

“So, the whole point of impeachment is lost when the person is no longer in office,” Graham continued. “They didn’t go after Nixon when he resigned for a reason. So to my colleagues here, you’re about to set in motion a historical precedent that will put at risk every future president.”

“You could be impeached in the future based on hatred, 50 hours no witness, no hearing, no lawyer,” he concluded. “You can be impeached after you leave office. George Washington, under this theory, can be impeached for owning slaves. We’re doing a lot of damage to the country because people hate Trump. Knock it off.”

Related: Lindsey Graham Agrees With Obama That AOC Should Be Given Bigger Role In Democratic Party

This piece was written by James Samson on February 9, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Maxine Waters Confronted By MSNBC About Encouraging Violence Against Republicans
Bill Maher Claims Christianity Is To Blame For Capitol Riot
Liz Cheney Says There’s Major Criminal Probe Into Whether Trump Made ‘Premeditated Effort To Promote Violence’

The post Lindsey Graham Rips Impeachment – ‘We’re Doing A Lot Of Damage To The Country Because People Hate Trump’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Jim Jordan Claims Democrats Are ‘Scared’ Of Trump

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) penned an op-ed for Fox News on Tuesday that accused Democrats of having an “obsession” with impeaching Donald Trump because “they’re scared of him.”

Jordan Attacks Democrats 

Jordan wrote in the op-ed that Democrats are hoping that this impeachment trial will lead to so much disdain for Trump that he will never run for office again.

“It’s been almost a month since he left office, but Democrats still can’t let go of President Donald Trump,” Jordan wrote. “That’s why, as our country faces many urgent challenges, the Senate will set aside its real work this week and instead focus on yet another political impeachment charade.”

Jordan added that while the Capitol riots should not have happened last month, they were not a concern for Democrats because while Republicans have condemned violence in the past, “Democrats have not, and now they are casting political blame for what happened at the Capitol.”

Related: Jim Jordan Calls Out Dems’ ‘Double Standards’ – They ‘Objected To More States In 2017 Than Republicans Did Last Week’

“President Trump did not incite the violence of Jan. 6,” Jordan said. “News reports suggest the FBI knew in advance that violence would occur. The U.S. Capitol Police also reportedly understood that there was a ‘strong potential for violence’ that day.”

“Pipe bombs had been placed before President Trump’s speech,” he continued. “So how can Democrats accuse President Trump of inciting violence when the violent acts had been planned in advance?”

Jordan Blasts House For Impeaching Trump

Jordan lamented the fact that in the House, there was no due process for Trump, “there was no process whatsoever.” He added that the Senate is now preparing to conduct an unconstitutional “impeachment trial” of a man no longer president.

“Last week, Democrats threatened President Trump that if he declined to testify during the Democrats’ impeachment charade, they would use it as proof of his guilt,” he wrote. “That may be how trials work in socialist countries. But that’s not how it works in America.”

“Democrats are going to these lengths because they are obsessed with canceling President Trump,” Jordan continued. “They’re scared of him. They know he works [for] the American people, and not the Washington Swamp. Unlike most politicians, President Trump did what he said he’d do. Hopefully, one day, he’ll get to do it again.”

Read Next: Rep. Jim Jordan Says Trump Should Not Concede: ‘Instinctively Everyone Knows’ The Election Is Flawed

This piece was written by James Samson on February 9, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Maxine Waters Confronted By MSNBC About Encouraging Violence Against Republicans
Bill Maher Claims Christianity Is To Blame For Capitol Riot
Liz Cheney Says There’s Major Criminal Probe Into Whether Trump Made ‘Premeditated Effort To Promote Violence’

The post Jim Jordan Claims Democrats Are ‘Scared’ Of Trump appeared first on The Political Insider.

PBS’ Yamiche Alcindor Defends Democrat Double Standard On Impeachment – ‘Wasn’t Storming Of The Capitol’ After Maxine Waters’ Speech

PBS correspondent and MSNBC political contributor Yamiche Alcindor spoke out on Tuesday to defend the Democratic Party’s double standard when it comes to the impeachment effort against Donald Trump.

Alcindor Defends Democrats

After it was reported that Trump’s legal team is planning to argue that Democrats incited riots with their speeches, Alcindor said that this argument is not valid because speeches by leftists like Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris did not result in deadly riots.

“I’m really watching to see how much this becomes a personal reliving of what happened on January 6,” Alcindor said. “You’re hearing from senior Democratic aides that they want this to feel like a violent crime trial. They want people to be brought into what happened at the Capitol.”

“So that’s why they’re saying this is going to be this new evidence. I suspect some of that will probably be possibly videos that we haven’t seen before, talking to aides on Capitol Hill, they’re really feeling as though they need to remind people exactly what happened.”

Related: PBS Reporter Yamiche Alcindor Slams Paralyzed GOP Candidate Madison Cawthorn After His RNC Speech

Alcindor On Trump Team

“The Trump team, as you reported, also is going to be bringing out this video, trying to say, ‘Hear what Democrats said. Here is why they are just like President Trump,'” she added. ”

“But I think the thing that’s going to be so obvious is going to be that there wasn’t a storming of the Capitol after Maxine Waters or Senator Harris — then-Senator Harris had fiery speeches,” Alcindor said. “So I think that’s all the things that we should be watching, how they juxtapose this at the scene of where this happened.”

Alcindor has long been an outspoken critic of former President Trump, and she went at it with him regularly at various points in his presidency. On Tuesday, she took to Twitter to celebrate the start of Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.

“And we’re off, House impeachment managers and making the walk to the Senate chamber,” she wrote. “Trump Impeachment 2.0 is upon us.”

Related: PBS Reporter Tangles With Trump – Gets Backlash

This piece was written by James Samson on February 9, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Maxine Waters Confronted By MSNBC About Encouraging Violence Against Republicans
Bill Maher Claims Christianity Is To Blame For Capitol Riot
Liz Cheney Says There’s Major Criminal Probe Into Whether Trump Made ‘Premeditated Effort To Promote Violence’

The post PBS’ Yamiche Alcindor Defends Democrat Double Standard On Impeachment – ‘Wasn’t Storming Of The Capitol’ After Maxine Waters’ Speech appeared first on The Political Insider.

Texas Sheriff Claims Biden Admin Releasing Illegal Immigrants Into U.S. Without COVID Testing

A Texas Sheriff claimed on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that the Biden administration is releasing illegal immigrants into the interior of the U.S. without any COVID testing.

Sheriff A.J. Louderback of Jackson County made his comments to Tucker after the host asked him whether or not illegal immigrants who are released into the United States after being detained were getting tested. 

The Sheriff replied in the affirmative:

“It’s absolutely true. It’s even, if I can continue, Tucker, the memo, the memo that I received this last week, it’s essentially a defund the ICE by memo, by a memorandum that was sent out by David Borkowski on Jan. 20 or 21. So this is a particularly devastating document for Texans and Americans here in the United States.

The memo Sheriff Louderback referred to in his reply was sent out by then Acting Homeland Security Secretary David Pekoske on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2021. 

RELATED: Governor Greg Abbott Wants Texas To Be A Second Amendment Sanctuary State

Sheriff Makes Shocking Claim About COVID-19 Testing

Sheriff Louderback, in his interview with Carlson, did not hold back.

He said that the memo, put out to CBP (Customs and Border Patrol), ICE, and USCIS (Citizenship and Immigration Services) essentially ties the hands of these immigration enforcement agencies. 

The Sheriff stated that, “This is a particularly devastating document for Texans and Americans here in the United States. When I read it and looked at it, it’s a message to the world that you can come here illegally, you can commit crimes here against Americans, and remain illegally.”

At a time where the U.S. and the rest of the world are still in the grips of a global pandemic, the Sheriff was particularly bothered, as should all Americans be, by the very vital issue of COVID testing being overlooked. 

 “The COVID issue [is being] during that time. So I struggle for a thought process, like many Americans and Texans, on how an administration can conduct themselves in this manner,” stated Sheriff Louderback.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, there have been many news articles about illegal immigrants who have been afraid to get tested for COVID for fear of being identified and deported. 

RELATED: Biden Administration In ‘Active Conversation’ To Require COVID Test Before Domestic Flights

Back To Obama-Era Lawlessness

Sheriff Louderback also said that this was not the first time that America had gone the way of lax enforcement of immigration law. “We walked this path from 2008 to 2016,” he said.

The Sheriff stated that the policy was very similar to the Priority Enforcement Program in 2014 and 2015 during the Obama administration.

In his interview, Sheriff Louderback painted a very grim view of the safety of Americans, at least for the next four years.

“Every peace officer in the United States should be extremely concerned about the attitude, the lawlessness, the complete abject removal of law.

We have a full nullification of the law going on here. We’re going to allow our ICE officers, USCIS, all affected by this memo, which guts the INA and handcuffs them so that they’re unable to respond. So in law enforcement here, those of us that don’t have the jurisdiction to enforce the federal laws here, we’ve created a situation that is unthinkable for the public.”

RELATED: Constitutional Professor: Why Senate Cannot Bar Trump From Being President Again

Immigration Under Joe Biden

New Biden administration policies include guidelines for Homeland Security that will mean fewer arrests and deportations for drug crimes, DUI’s, and low-level assaulters, fraudsters, and thieves.

Sheriff Chuck Jenkins of Frederick County Maryland says that traditionally in the deportation process, criminal histories are considered.

With fewer arrests for these kinds of crimes, those who may have committed crimes will be free to walk the streets. 

Those coming into the country through the southern border are not just from Mexico and Central America.

Recently, eleven Iranian citizens were apprehended in Arizona, and there is evidence of Chinese drug lords assisting Mexican drug cartels in smuggling fentanyl and other substances across the border.

The new policies are a strong departure from the policies of the Trump adminstration.

To see the entire interview with Tucker Carlson and Sheriff A.J. Louderback, see below.

The post Texas Sheriff Claims Biden Admin Releasing Illegal Immigrants Into U.S. Without COVID Testing appeared first on The Political Insider.

‘Squad’ Member Rep. Cori Bush Defends Prison Riot After Condemning Capitol Riot

Far-left Congresswoman Cori Bush (D-MO), a member of the ‘Squad,’ appeared to defend a prison riot that broke out at the downtown St. Louis Justice Center over the weekend.

In a tweet Bush posted on Saturday, she quoted the late Dr. Martin Luther King saying “A riot is the language of the unheard.”

Bush went on to say that she and her team are working to “ensure that the needs of people who are incarcerated are not ignored.”

The freshman Congresswoman also put a more in-depth statement on her Congressional page where she talked about the positivity rates and testing for COVID-19 among those incarcerated.

But it was her apparent support for the riot that broke out on Saturday that became front and center.

RELATED: Squad’s Ayanna Pressley: Capitol Riots Gave Me ‘Deep And Ancestral’ Terror From ‘White Supremacist Mob’

Trouble At The City Jail

According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, roughly 115 inmates at the Justice Center jimmied already-faulty lock systems and freed themselves from cells.

The fourth floor of the building was taken over as inmates set fires, clogged drains, broke windows, and threw furniture down onto the sidewalk.

While no inmates were reported to have been injured, one corrections officer who was attacked by inmates is recovering from injuries. Mayor Lyda Krewson says damage totals are “way into the thousands of dollars.”

RELATED: AOC Declares She ‘Will Not Apologize’ For Saying Cruz Tried ‘To Get Me Killed’

Bush’s Position On Riots – It’s Complicated

Bush’s comments that seemed to support, or at least justify, the riot drew rebuke and questions.

The National Republican Congressional Committee wondered aloud if any of Bush’s fellow Democrats would also justify the riot at the St. Louis City Jail.

The Daily Caller covered Seattle conservative radio host Jason Rantz, who called Bush a “total failure” and said to Fox News’s Harris Faulkner, “Well, I can look at it and say that Cori Bush is a total fraud unless suddenly she’s decided to change her position on impeachment.”

Rantz was referring to President Trump, who was impeached for allegedly inciting the Capitol riot on January 6th. 

Bush voted to impeach Trump, with the official charge in the article of impeachment reading, “Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States.”

RELATED: Bill Maher Claims Christianity Is To Blame For Capitol Hill Riot

Are Riots Good Or Bad?

Just a little over a month ago however, Congresswoman Bush was singing a very different tune when it came to the subject of riots.

In a report from ‘The Hill”, Bush claimed that, “had the rioters that stormed the Capitol earlier in the day been black, they would have been shot.”

The only person shot on January 6th was a white woman, unarmed Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, who was shot by Capitol Police.

In another report from CNN, Bush called former President Donald Trump the “white supremacist in chief” and described the storming of the Capitol, “a white supremacist insurrection.”

“Madam Speaker, St. Louis and I rise in support of the article of impeachment against Donald J Trump. If we fail to remove a White supremacist President who incited a white supremacist insurrection, it’s communities like Missouri’s First District that suffer the most,”

While Bush was careful to use the term “insurrection” instead of “riot,” Twitter users were quick to wonder where exactly the Squad member stood on riots. 

One user finished Martin Luther King’s quote for Bush, pointing out that the august Reverend opposed wanton violence:

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has come under fire from the media and the left and was recently removed from her Congressional committees, wondered where Bush stood on riots:

Many Bush defenders were quick to differentiate between “riot” and “insurrection.” 

Dictionary.com defines riot as “a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets.”

They define insurrection as “an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.”

A Google search for “Capitol riot” returns 229,000,000 results, with news outlets TIME, NBC, CNN, New York Times, CBS, and USA Today describing the event as such.

When speaking to the local NBC affiliate immediately following the Capitol Hill riot, Bush describe those storming the Capitol as “not protesters, not demonstrators, that was violence happening in our Capitol.”


Based on that, it seems fair to wonder where exactly Bush stands on riots.

Apparently, Congresswoman Bush has learned the art of Washington D.C. Democrat double standards quickly. 

The post ‘Squad’ Member Rep. Cori Bush Defends Prison Riot After Condemning Capitol Riot appeared first on The Political Insider.

Constitutional Professor: Why Senate Cannot Bar Trump From Being President Again

By James Sieja for RealClearPolitics

Perhaps they are thinking about the next election or their political legacies, but Democrats and some Republicans intent on impeaching and convicting former President Donald Trump are not reading the Constitution correctly. 

When the Senate trial begins Monday, there will be lots of grandstanding and lawyerly pettifogging, and we will find out if Democrats can convince 17 Republicans that they need to convict the former president. 

Fortunately, I don’t think they’ll succeed. I say fortunately because impeaching Trump would be wrong, constitutionally speaking. 

RELATED: Trump Lawyer’s Demand Senate Impeachment Trial Be Dismissed, Top Dem Admits ‘Not Crazy To Argue’ It’s Unconstitutional

Forty-five Republicans recently voted that this second Trump impeachment trial is in itself unconstitutional. They are incorrect. 

The bipartisan group of 55 senators who voted to proceed to the trial think that the Senate can apply a sanction after conviction. Constitutionally, they’re wrong, too. 

Republicans are wrong because the plain text of the Constitution, as Michael McConnell, a Stanford professor and former federal judge, points out, makes no exceptions or qualifications to either the House’s “sole power of impeachment” or the Senate’s “sole power to try all impeachments.” 

Therefore, the Senate clearly has the power — what legal scholars call jurisdiction — to try the case. 

But, jurisdiction is not the only consideration enshrined in constitutional law.

Two other concepts, standing and justiciability, are central to any court’s decision-making at the beginning of a case. Along with jurisdiction, courts call them, collectively, “threshold questions.” 

Because senators, especially the ones looking to convict, exercise judicial power when they try any impeachment, they would do well to take seriously the requirements for standing and the Supreme Court’s rules for justiciability. 

Standing refers to someone’s ability to bring a case to court in the first place. In the 1992 case Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the late Justice Antonin Scalia listed three factors that comprise the “irreducible constitutional minimum” basis for standing.

While people probably know Justice Scalia for his acerbic dissents, the Lujan majority today is likely his most widely cited uncontroversial opinion. 

In the second Trump impeachment, the relevant element of the Lujan trio is the last one: The court must be able to give a final, binding judgment to the party that wants a punishment.

RELATED: Rand Paul Roasts Hypocrisy Of Impeaching Trump, Doing Nothing About Chuck Schumer, Waters, And Omar

The House wants to punish Trump for his actions. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution plainly declares the required punishment: “The president … shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of … high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“Shall” means it must happen. The Senate can’t remove Trump from a position he no longer holds, which means it can’t punish him. Thus, the House lacks standing. 

To be clear, the House retained standing while Trump retained the presidency. But, once he left, the case became moot — purely a matter for discussion, like the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

“Wait!” supporters of conviction cry out. “There’s also the bit in Article I about disqualifying a person who’s been impeached from holding office ever again.”

That is true, but the passage doesn’t improve the logic of a post-presidency Senate punishment in the least. No matter how long we “Wait!” the Senate will still not be able to render the required punishment, so the standing problem remains. 

More importantly, the disqualification punishment presents a justiciability question. Justiciability refers to the ability of a court to effectively resolve the case.

Over several cases, the Supreme Court has identified a bunch of factors that lead to justiciability issues, but all of them stem from a single idea: It’s not the court’s job to decide this, but rather it’s somebody else’s job. 

If the Senate tried to disqualify Trump from holding the presidency again, it would arrogate a privilege — determining who will not be president — that the Constitution explicitly reserves to another body: We the People.

Thus, there is a clear justiciability problem with disqualification if it tries to block anyone — Trump, you, me, anyone — from winning the presidency or other elected office. 

RELATED: Hiding Biden: How Democrats Crafted First Impeachment, Helping Defeat Trump With Media Help

Alexander Hamilton declared that the Constitution stood for the idea “that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.”

However imperfectly, this is what we do in districts and states throughout the country. And we choose through the Electoral College, a defense of which the current impeachment ironically springs from.

For the House and Senate, a mere 535 citizens, to absolutely bar nearly 160 million from a completely free electoral choice turns the Constitution upside down. 

Ultimately, the Senate can exercise its clear jurisdiction to hear the case, complete with senatorial bloviations, and lawyerly dodges.

But, if the outcome is anything other than the status quo ante, meaning Trump remains eligible for the presidency in the future, the Senate will deal a grave blow to not just the Constitution but to every member of We the People who thinks they still have a choice.

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

James Sieja, assistant professor of government at St. Lawrence University, studies the federal court system and teaches courses in the U.S. Constitution.

The post Constitutional Professor: Why Senate Cannot Bar Trump From Being President Again appeared first on The Political Insider.