Politics Random, Random

[mmmm8]

She knows better.

Haley's father taught a Historically Black College (doesn't mean one can't be racist, but certainly helps knowledge of slavery).

She knows exactly what she's doing.

[dryrunguy]

Wayne LaPierre has resigned from his leadership position at the NRA. Before anyone celebrates, remember... Someone will replace him. And chances are it will not constitute an improvement.

[ponchi101]

Exactly the same as if the president of the KKK would step down. It is not as if somebody better will take the position.

[ti-amie]

Lauren Boebert’s Ex Called The Cops After Physical Fight in Public on Saturday Night
BREAKING
Police confirmed an “active investigation” into the incident, while a Boebert aide told The Daily Beast that the congresswoman was acting in self-defense.

Roger Sollenberger
Senior Political Reporter
Updated Jan. 07, 2024 2:05PM EST / Published Jan. 07, 2024 11:08AM EST

On Saturday night, three years to the day after supporters of Donald Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol building, election objecting Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) is the subject of an active police investigation into an alleged physical altercation with her ex-husband, Jayson Boebert, at a restaurant in her district Saturday night.

The Silt Police Department confirmed an “active investigation” in a phone call Saturday night, but would not comment further. A Boebert aide told The Daily Beast that no one was arrested.

According to the aide, on Saturday, Jayson Boebert had called the police to the Miner’s Claim restaurant in Silt, claiming that he was a “victim of domestic violence.” The aide emphasized that Lauren Boebert denies any allegation of domestic violence on her part, and that the events as depicted in social media posts on Saturday were not accurate.

An anti-Boebert super PAC called “American Muckrakers” first publicized the rumor of the incident Saturday night, in eye-popping posts on X, formerly Twitter. On Sunday, Jayson Boebert told The Daily Beast that the details of the altercation on American Muckrakers was accurate and that his ex-wife had “punched” him in the face multiple times. Jayson Boebert also purported to have a witness to the events and said that he took back his claim that police were too aggressive with him: “I respect our officers and appreciate what they have to endure. I shouldn’t have said anything negative toward them. I was unhappy.”

Jayson Boebert added that he was going to phone the police and ask them to call off the investigation.

In an official statement to The Daily Beast on Sunday, Lauren Boebert said: “This is a sad situation for all that keeps escalating and another reason I’m moving. I didn’t punch Jayson in the face and no one was arrested. I will be consulting with my lawyer about the false claims he made against me and evaluate all of my legal options.” (Boebert recently announced she would be moving to a new, more conservative district in her bid to win a third term in 2024. She narrowly won reelection in her current district in 2022 by only 500 votes.)

While The Daily Beast has not been able to verify the specific claims about the incident, on Saturday night, the aide to Lauren Boebert provided more detail about the events as Congresswoman Boebert had described them

In the early evening on Saturday, the aide said, it was already getting physical. Lauren Boebert had driven to her ex-husband’s house to pick up one of her sons for dinner at her mother’s house. Jayson Boebert was home, the aide said, and as Lauren Boebert and her son were leaving for the car, he tried to move in close to hug her; she put her hand on his chest to keep him back, the aide said.

When Jayson Boebert called later that evening to apologize, he asked if they could meet in person. Lauren Boebert agreed; however, the aide said, she wanted to go to a public place, anticipating that—especially given the alleged behavior earlier that day—he might be confrontational. The congresswoman “didn’t want it to be he said/she said” situation, the aide said.

They chose to meet at Miner’s Claim, a restaurant in Boebert’s small hometown of Silt. (Miner’s Claim is, apparently, the only game left in town, now that the Boeberts have closed their old restaurant, Shooter’s.)

Inside, at the table, Jayson Boebert apparently started “being disrespectful,” “being an asshole,” and getting “lewd,” the aide relayed. The alleged behavior revolted Lauren Boebert, but that seemed to make her ex more aggressive, the aide said. There was then apparently a physical altercation of indeterminate severity.

Jayson Boebert “made a motion” towards his ex-wife, “to grab her.” It was “an aggressive move, not romantic,” the aide relayed.

As Lauren Boebert described it, the aide said, she tried again to keep him back and in the process “put her hand in his face, put her hand on his nose.” (The Muckrackers’ post describes a violent confrontation, with the congresswoman landing two punches on her ex’s nose. The aide said that Boebert maintains she didn’t punch him.)

Jayson Boebert, apparently outraged, called the police, claiming that he was “a victim of domestic violence,” the Boebert aide said. Lauren Boebert then called the non-emergency number and told the police there was no domestic violence, and that she’d be happy to speak with an officer at the restaurant.

The police did come, but they arrested no one, the aide said, adding that a friend drove Boebert home, and that she and her former husband were both safe.

Contacted Saturday night, Silt police would not comment other than to confirm an “active investigation” into the alleged events, along with the existence of a police report.

Jayson Boebert told The Daily Beast on Sunday, “I made a mistake. We both overreacted. I only want what’s best for [the] boys and I still love her very much. We both share some hurt deep down inside ... It seems we just keep pushing each other further apart.”

“I want the best for her,” he added. “It’s probably just best that I remain silent.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with comment from Jayson Boebert after he initially declined to comment on Saturday night.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lauren-bo ... -in-public


Look it was a Saturday night...

[ashkor87]

I hate to say this but my experience is many Indians are racist when it comes to blacks and Muslims and even Chinese..Haley is, of course, born of Indian parents.

[ashkor87]

Re Presidential immunity, someone should ask Trump if he would be ok if Biden, who is the actual President, orders the army to shoot Trump as he leaves the courtroom...would he be ok with that?

[ponchi101]

No, because Tiny has no concept of equality or the Golden rule. You know that.
His whole life has been about the rules not applying to him.

[ti-amie]

I mean this has to be a joke right?

[ashkor87]

Haley is obviously relying on the same calculation I am - that Trump is going to jail, not the Presidential election. So there is value to being in the race - she would be the default now if Trump is removed...

[ti-amie]

Laffy
@GottaLaff@mastodon.social
Via Aaron Rupar:

Rep. Michael McCaul says on Fox that House Republicans want to impeach #Mayorkas to "send a message to the administration."

No high crimes. Not even a misdemeanor! Just naked politics -- and they aren't even trying to hide it.

[ti-amie]

Cotton is a graduate of Harvard but still functions on the all Asians are Chinese level.

Katie Phang @KatiePhang
Hey
@SenTomCotton
:
• Singapore is not China
• Singapore has been self-governed since 1959
• Singapore is not a communist state

And, here’s the real kicker for you:

• Not all Asians are Chinese and we aren’t all secretly members of the “Chinese Communist Party”

[ti-amie]

In stunning vote, House Republicans fail to impeach Secretary Mayorkas
By Jacqueline Alemany, Amy B Wang, Marianna Sotomayor and Paul Kane
Updated February 6, 2024 at 8:05 p.m. EST|Published February 6, 2024 at 6:24 a.m. EST

A measure to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas narrowly failed in the House on Tuesday, after three Republicans voted with Democrats against what would have been the first impeachment of a Cabinet member in nearly 150 years. The failed vote was a stunning rebuke of a months-long investigation into Mayorkas that legal experts and even some Republicans had raised concerns about.

Reps. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) bucked the party line to vote against the measure, joining with Democrats who have decried the process as a sham with only two hearings last month that featured no fact witnesses or testimony from the secretary. Even if the measure had passed, Mayorkas was unlikely to have been convicted in a trial in the Democratic-led Senate.

When the vote unexpectedly came to a tie after Gallagher’s vote against the measure, he was swarmed by his colleagues on the House floor in a last-ditch attempt to change his mind. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) were among the members who approached Gallagher and animatedly tried to persuade him to flip his vote. Gallagher stood listening with his arms folded across his chest as he intermittently gesticulated and shook his head. As Democrats shouted “order” in unison to bring the tied vote to a close, Rep. Blake D. Moore (R-Utah) eventually approached the lectern and changed his vote against the measure, allowing Republican leadership to possibly bring the measure up for a vote again at a later date.

Johnson told reporters after the embarrassing defeat that he planned to bring up the vote to impeach Mayorkas again.

In a statement after the vote failed, a spokesperson for DHS said, “If House Republicans are serious about border security, they should abandon these political games, and instead support the bipartisan national security agreement in the Senate to get DHS the enforcement resources we need.”

During the first scheduled vote on the floor Tuesday evening, both Democrats and Republicans had one member absence — meaning that Republicans could afford to lose three votes in the vote to impeach Mayorkas. But Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.) suddenly appeared for the impeachment vote, which was second.

One of Green’s closest friends, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), told The Washington Post in an interview that he realized Green had missed the previous vote and might be the difference in the margin. He called the Texan — twice — at 6:13 p.m., according to his phone’s call logs. But Green showed up at the last minute, tying the vote at 215. “I panicked,” Cleaver said.

The remarkable scene on the House floor was preceded by a suspenseful day of vote counting as several members voiced concerns in a closed-door GOP conference meeting on Tuesday morning about supporting the impeachment of Mayorkas in the absence of compelling evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. Reps. David Joyce (R-Ohio) and Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.) were among those who were on the fence about the measure in the lead up to the vote but ultimately voted to advance the two articles of impeachment.

“A lot of people trying to make someone change their opinion,” Joyce, who considered voting no, told reporters of the gaggle around Gallagher after the vote. Gallagher and Joyce spoke at length earlier Tuesday, which Joyce found reassuring.

“It’s very thoughtful, well-reasoned,” he said of Gallagher’s vote.

In a statement released on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, Gallagher said that he was against “creating a new, lower standard for impeachment, one without any clear limiting principle” that wouldn’t “secure the border or hold Mr. Biden accountable and will set a dangerous new precedent that will be weaponized against future Republican administrations.”

When Johnson was asked by reporters about how he planned to convince colleagues to advance the measure in a future vote, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) responded that they needed to “pray.”

“I don’t understand why they don’t count the votes,” Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) told reporters, referring to Republican leadership.

“If we can’t convince the Gallaghers, the Bucks, the McClintocks, know it before you go and make the call before we get on the floor,” Norman added, referring to the three Republicans who voted against impeaching Mayorkas.

As House GOP lawmakers worked to lock up the votes for Mayorkas’s impeachment throughout the day, they simultaneously worked to kill the potential for a legislative remedy to secure the border. Despite their opposition to policy changes that would address some of their shared concerns, Republicans in the House railed against Mayorkas for willfully failing to enforce existing immigration law and for breaching public trust.

Democrats countered that Republicans failed to make a constitutionally viable case and that Mayorkas, in his capacity as a Cabinet secretary, has broad discretionary authority to implement the Biden administration’s immigration policy. They also argued that Mayorkas, like other DHS secretaries who served before him, has lacked adequate funding and personnel to detain every migrant as outlined under the law.

Last week, the House Homeland Security Committee advanced two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, accusing him of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and breach of the public trust. Democrats repeatedly asserted during the hearing that Republicans have no constitutional basis to impeach Mayorkas, and they said that GOP lawmakers have struggled in two recent hearings to detail clear evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) opened debate Tuesday by claiming Mayorkas’s negligent handling of the southern border had left House Republicans with no other option than to proceed with articles of impeachment. By the end of the two-hour debate period, Green had raised his voice to a shout, and accused Mayorkas of throwing the Constitution “in the garbage.”

Democrats have criticized the impeachment proceedings as politically motivated, pointing out that Republicans are trying to oust Mayorkas for supposedly neglecting to secure the southern border while at the same time opposing a bipartisan package in the Senate that would seek to improve border security, echoing former president Donald Trump’s opposition.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said it was a miracle that senators had reached a bipartisan immigration agreement that was acceptable to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and dozens of GOP senators. And yet, he said, House Republicans would not consider it.

“Why? Because Donald Trump doesn’t want a border solution,” Raskin said. “He wants a border problem. Nothing else to run on.”

Standing next to a sign that read “STUNTS OVER SOLUTIONS” during floor debate Tuesday, House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) said House Republicans were focused on impeaching Mayorkas “without any evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors” rather than the Senate’s bipartisan border security bill.

“That is the breach of public trust here,” Clark said.

In a statement Monday, the White House said it strongly opposed the anticipated impeachment in the House.

“Impeaching Secretary Mayorkas would trivialize this solemn constitutional power and invite more partisan abuse of this authority in the future,” the White House said in a statement. “It would do nothing to solve the challenges we face in securing our Nation’s borders.”

Niha Masih contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... peachment/

[ti-amie]

It should be noted that Rep. Al Green came from the hospital in a wheel chair after undergoing surgery to break the tie.

[ti-amie]

McDaniel is expected to leave as RNC chair amid pressure from Trump
Ronna McDaniel, who is in her fourth term, was expected to serve until 2025 but has considered leaving for months

By Josh Dawsey
February 6, 2024 at 8:48 p.m. EST

Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel is expected to leave her job this spring after former president Donald Trump had increasingly grown critical of her leadership, according to people familiar with the matter.

The decision came as she visited Mar-a-Lago and met with Trump on Monday, but the situation remained fluid, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal private discussions.

The news of her departure was first reported by the New York Times, which reported it was likely to occur after the South Carolina primary on Feb. 24. McDaniel, who is in her fourth term as chair of the RNC, was expected to serve until 2025 but has considered leaving for months. Her relationship with Trump soured over the Republican primary debates featuring his challengers this past fall, according to the people familiar with the discussions. Trump wanted her to cancel them and she declined.

Trump then received a drumbeat of criticism from conservative activists and donors — along with his own advisers — about McDaniel.

Trump’s campaign has increasingly grown frustrated with McDaniel’s leadership. They have worried over what they view as the RNC’s lackluster fundraising, as well as the more muscular role they hoped the committee could play in a general election matchup with President Biden. The party had about half as much money as the DNC at the end of December.

Trump also has repeatedly told advisers that McDaniel was not doing enough on “election integrity,” according to people who heard his comments, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal internal discussions.

But in private, he has been nice to her, the people familiar with the meetings say, and has not forcefully pushed for her ouster even as some of her critics have called for it. The pair met for over two hours on Monday.

About two weeks ago, Trump began telling people he wanted to make a change at the RNC, these people said. “Is it time for Ronna McDaniel to step aside?” a Newsmax reporter asked Trump in a televised interview Monday.

“I think she knows that, I think she understands that,” Trump responded.

Trump is weighing other candidates for the job and has focused on Michael Whatley, the North Carolina GOP chairman who has supported Trump’s false claims of election fraud, as a favorite, two people familiar with his comments said. McDaniel has promised a lengthy and smooth transition, they said.

“Nothing has changed,” RNC spokesman Keith Schipper said Tuesday night. “This will be decided after South Carolina.”

Mike Reed, the RNC’s chief of staff, announced Tuesday that he planned to step down from his role at the committee as well. Reed had privately long told confidants that he planned to leave after the RNC’s winter meeting this past weekend in Las Vegas, and had a job lined up since the fall.

McDaniel ran for a fourth term as RNC chair against the advice of some leading Republicans and advisers.

“Many people were concerned about the RNC’s ability to fundraise heading into the chair election last year and unfortunately we’re seeing a fruition of those concerns. I hope that we can come to the determination of a nominee sooner than later to help resolve the financial disparity that is necessary to win the presidency,” Tyler Bowyer, an RNC member from Arizona who has been a frequent McDaniel critic, said last week.

Her defenders say McDaniel held the party together during seven difficult years and that Trump was to blame for much of the party’s struggles, not McDaniel.

McDaniel — the niece of Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) who stopped using the Romney name after the 2016 election — comes from a storied family in Republican politics and was viewed as a bridge between Trump and the party’s more establishment, corporate class. She was well liked by some of the party’s top donors, including hotelier Steve Wynn.

Ashley Parker and Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... nc-spring/

[Suliso]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/0 ... s-00140503

I think this is likely true and not at all surprising for an 81 year old man. The point is not that Trump is mentally fitter (I doubt that very much), but that USA should really be able to do better than a race between two guys more than a decade past the normal retirement age.