Connect with us


Exclusive: Eighth hearing focuses on Trump's active failure to stop Jan. 6 assault on Capitol –



A video of a photograph of former US President Donald Trump (L) and aide Nick Luna is shown on a screen during a hearing by the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the US Capitol in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2022. - The select House committee conducting the investigation of the Capitol riot is holding its eighth and final hearing, providing a detailed examination of former president Donald Trump's actions on January 6th. More than 850 people have been arrested in connection with the 2021 attack on Congress, which came after Trump delivered a fiery speech to his supporters near the White House falsely claiming that the election was "stolen." (Photo by Alex Brandon / POOL / AFP) (Photo by ALEX BRANDON/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

#Eighth #hearing #focuses #Trump039s #active #failure #stop #Jan #assault #Capitol

Testifying in person were former deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger and former deputy White House press secretary Sarah Matthews, both of whom found Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 so disturbing that they resigned in the hours following the storming of the Capitol. However, their disgust at Trump’s actions were echoed by other Trump staffers up and down the line and underscored by recorded testimony from former White House attorney Pat Cipollini who said that everybody wanted the rioters to leave the Capitol building … everybody except for one man.

In particular, it was in the tweet that Trump delivered at 2:24PM, placing even more of a target on Mike Pence even after the mob had smashed their way into the Capitol and surrounded the chambers of Congress, that some of Trump’s staffers found their breaking point.


Just before a brief break, those watching the hearing got an unexpected bonus when the camera turned momentarily to Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, pointing out that when Hawley raised his fist to spur on a crowd that was at that moment attacking police lines, he did so from a position safely behind those police lines. And later, when the crowd actually broke into the Capitol, Hawley sprinted for safety behind the same police he had endangered.

The heart of the hearing was the long line of phone calls and texts, directed at Trump and at chief of staff Mark Meadows, begging for the rioters to be called off. But even though Trump was approached over and over by staffers and members of his own family, he refused to make that call. As Rep. Elaine Luria made clear, Trump’s failure to stop the people he had sent to the Capitol from threatening the lives of lawmakers and the process of the nation wasn’t inaction. It was a deliberate and calculated action.

When Trump finally agreed to make a video telling the insurrectionists to leave the building, he did so both reluctantly and in a way that focused more on his lies about a stolen election than on protecting the nation. He praised their actions, called them “patriots,” and extended his “love” for their assault on America.

In a series of clumsy outtakes from that night and another video made a day later, Trump could be seen refusing to read a line stating that the election was over, adding his own self-praise into the story, and rambling on as if he and the people who had attacked the Capitol were the real victims. Previously heard comments from both Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy drove home how even the Republican leaders thought Trump should resign or be removed … until they got down on their knees and surrendered any pretense of honesty.


At the close, Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger delivered a stinging summation of Trump’s actions. “Whatever your politics, whatever you think about the outcome of the election, we as Americans must all agree on this: Donald Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 was a supreme violation of this oath of office and a complete dereliction of his duty to our nation,” said Kinzinger. “It is a stain on our history, it is a dishonor to all those who have sacrificed and died in service to our democracy.”

Rep. Liz Cheney, filling in for COVID-positive chair Rep. Bennie Thompson, said of Trump’s involvement on Jan. 6, “You saw an American president faced with a stark, unmistakable choice between right and wrong. To ignore ongoing violence against law enforcement. To threaten our constitutional order. There is no way to excuse that behavior. It was indefensible.”

Rep. Luria again drove home that even though, “virtually everyone told President Trump to condemn the violence in clear and unmistakable terms,” Trump refused to do so, and while, “those on Capitol Hill, and across the nation, begged President Trump to help” he stood back until it was certain that his mob had lost the fight. Then Trump staged a tactical withdrawal, rather than admitting defeat.

How the nearly three hour hearing landed with the public remains to be seen, but there were moments that will certainly stick—Trump bumbling through his lines as his staff tries to get him to say something even halfway reasonable, Kevin McCarthy on the phone demanding that Trump had to go, the horrific realization of so many in the White House that Trump intended to do nothing, because violence was exactly what he wanted.

The House select committee will continue it’s work over the next month before returning in September for at least three more public hearings. Those hearings signal that the committee certainly has enough additional material to put hours of more testimony before the public. Republicans have to wonder how much of it has to do with the unknown senators and congressmen who Trump was chatting with during those long three hours.

If you weren’t able to watch the hearing, you can still feel like you did by reading through the live coverage provided by Brandi Buchman. 


Exclusive: Today in Supreme Court History: January 26, 1832 –




Today in Supreme Court History: January 26, 1832

#Today #Supreme #Court #History #January

1/26/1832: Justice George Shiras Jr.’s birthday.

Justice George Shiras Jr.

The post Today in Supreme Court History: January 26, 1832 appeared first on

Continue Reading


Exclusive: Liberals Are Mad That McCarthy Named MAGA Republicans to Subcommittees on COVID and Government Weaponization – Good –




Liberals Are Mad That McCarthy Named MAGA Republicans to Subcommittees on COVID and Government Weaponization – Good

#Liberals #Mad #McCarthy #Named #MAGA #Republicans #Subcommittees #COVID #Government #Weaponization #Good

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced members named to two select subcommittees – one investigating the origins of COVID and another looking into the weaponization of the federal government – and Democrats are livid over the addition of certain MAGA lawmakers.

“The government has a responsibility to serve the American people, not go after them,” McCarthy said in a statement.

“The Members selected to serve on these subcommittees will work to stop the weaponization of the federal government and will also finally get answers to the Covid origins and the federal government’s gain of function research that contributed to the pandemic,” he added.

McCarthy notes that the weaponization subcommittee is necessary because congressional Democrats and the Biden administration engaged in a “dangerous pattern of the government being used to target political opponents while they neglected their most basic responsibilities.”

RELATED: Conservative Victory: Dan Crenshaw Loses Race To Chair Homeland Security Committee to Freedom Caucus Member Green

MAGA Members Named to House Select Subcommittees

A couple of names that showed up on the House select subcommittees raised the ire of Democrats, particularly those associated with the MAGA movement.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) continued reaping the fruits of a kinship with McCarthy that would make Frank Luntz blush, being named to the COVID-19 subcommittee.

Greene celebrated the appointment, stating her intention to investigate the role of gain-of-function research, the Democrat “authoritarian” lockdowns, the ineffective vaccines forced on the American people, and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s role.

Greene will also be sitting on the House Homeland Security and Oversight Committees.

Also named to the COVID subcommittee is former White House physician Ronny Jackson (R-TX), who has consistently challenged President Biden to undergo a mental fitness evaluation.

Jim Jordan (R-OH) will chair the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government after being rejected by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve on the January 6th panel.

RELATED: White House Terrified of MAGA Republicans Being Named to Committees Investigating Biden Administration

Liberals Aren’t Happy

Liberals on social media responded with outrage over MAGA Republicans representing their constituents on the select subcommittees.

Because see, it would be better to have completely partisan sham committees like the January 6th debacle.


Democratic Congressman Don Beyer dismissed both panels as “devoted to conspiracy theories.”

This is fine by us, since these days “conspiracy theories” mostly just means “the media hasn’t admitted it yet.”

House Judiciary Democrats lambasted McCarthy for having “sold out our democracy to empower MAGA extremists.”

Richard Stengel, a former Obama administration official, also took the dismissive ‘conspiracy theory’ path.

The ‘Weaponization’ subcommittee, Stengel claims, is “a body that creates rather than investigates conspiracy theories and which will eventually undermine itself.”

We literally just watched the January 6th sham create highly directed and produced filmography rather than evidence, doctored actual evidence, created conspiracy theories, and admitted they wanted to tell people what they should believe.

If Democrats are mad about MAGA Republicans serving on committees to provide a counterpoint to Democrat and media lies, then McCarthy is most definitely doing the right thing.


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

Continue Reading


Exclusive: Why older mass shooters like the California gunmen are so rare –




Why older mass shooters like the California gunmen are so rare

#older #mass #shooters #California #gunmen #rare

The gunmen in both of the recent shootings in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay, California, had an unusual profile compared to most perpetrators of violent crime: They were both senior citizens.

The Monterey Park gunman, who killed 11 and injured nine before fatally shooting himself, was 72. The Half Moon Bay gunman, who killed seven people before he was arrested in what police have characterized as an act of workplace violence, is 66.

Mass shooters of that age are rare, especially those with no prior criminal record, as was the case with the Half Moon Bay gunman. (The Monterey Park gunman had one arrest in 1990 for illegal possession of a firearm.) According to data from the National Institute of Justice, mass shooters between 1966 and 2021 were on average 34 years old, and those over the age of 60 accounted for a little over 3 percent of all mass shootings, which are defined as shootings in which four or more people are killed.

The notion that people “age out of crime” is one of the most well-documented phenomena in the field of criminology. The California shootings should be seen as exceptions to that principle, not as nullifying examples, according to Ashley Nellis, co-director of research for the Sentencing Project, which advocates for criminal justice reform.

“The predictability of age is probably the most reliable point of data that we have about people who commit violent crime. Young people are just substantially more likely, and by extension, older people are substantially unlikely, to commit crime,” Nellis said. “It’s certainly a cautionary note to anybody who would be jumping to make policy based on these two events.”

Research has repeatedly shown that criminal activity increases throughout teen years, reaches its highest point at age 17, the oldest that someone can be charged with a juvenile crime, and subsides thereafter throughout life. Property crime peaks at a slightly younger age than violent crime. But even chronic offenders would be statistically likely to stop committing crime by around the age of 40, Nellis said.

There are a lot of theories as to why that might be. Typical milestones associated with getting older, like graduating or getting married, may put people on a trajectory that veers away from criminality. Brain development isn’t complete until the mid-20s, hindering decision-making that might lead to crime and risky behavior. Young people have less financial security, and people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. Some crimes might be physically demanding, and older people just might not have the strength to carry them out.

But both gunmen in the California shootings buck the archetype of a violent criminal, and their motives still aren’t entirely clear. Investigators have said that the Monterey Park shooter frequented the dance studio where he killed his victims and that the Half Moon Bay gunman, who lived and worked as a forklift driver at a mushroom farm, was angry at the coworkers he shot. Previously, there have been mass shooters as old as 70, including a gunman who opened fire at a church in Vestavia Hills, Alabama, and killed three people last June.

Though age can sometimes factor into the decision to impose a less harsh sentence on young offenders, the Half Moon Bay shooter’s advanced age won’t have any bearing on the length of his sentence, as is standard practice in the US.


He will be charged with seven counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, with a special circumstance allegation of multiple murder and sentencing enhancements for each count because of his use of a firearm, the San Mateo County district attorney announced Wednesday. If convicted on those charges, he could be facing up to life in prison without the possibility of parole. (He won’t face the death penalty, given that California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, placed a moratorium on executions in the state in 2019.)

Life sentences without parole have become increasingly common in the US over the last few decades. But Nellis argues the age of older offenders like the Half Moon Bay shooter should be considered a mitigating factor when making sentencing decisions — especially given that the use of executive clemency to release them early has become nonexistent, as she writes in a 2022 report.

“Regardless of age, somebody who does commit an act of violence like this is likely to be rehabilitated, be reformed, be ready to return to society within 10 years,” she said.

Recidivism is unlikely among older people, according to data from the US Sentencing Commission, and keeping them in prison comes at a high taxpayer cost, which includes health care bills that balloon at the end of life. It’s difficult to say how much those who’ll decide the fate of the Half Moon Bay suspect will take that data into account; his initial arraignment is Wednesday.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.