grassley Sen 2

819

===

SEE THREE PARTISAN WARRIOR BIG LIE BENGHAZI DOGE BIDEN LAPTOP IMPEACH?

recall 50 plus sec ppl said laptop BS // disinfo

4 24 ~ CTC to hurt biden mofo

see biden noms sleazy hits AAF

---

an 7 26

Republican demands details on FBI’s personal use of government resources

kash? jet?

---

AN 2 25

One of the longest tenured members of the U.S. Senate is now suggesting Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is more powerful than all of Congress.

According to a Tuesday report in Politico, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Musk and his "Department of Government Efficiency," or DOGE (which Congress has not yet made an official federal agency) is free to make sweeping changes to how federal money is spent and that the legislative branch has no ability to interfere.

"Congress can’t do anything except complain about it," Grassley told RadioIowa, arguing that DOGE's actions fall under the umbrella of the executive branch.

"This is an executive branch decision that, who works for the executive branch is determined by the president of the United States,” the Iowa Republican continued. “The Constitution says all executive power of the federal government shall be vested, and that’s the word that’s used, vested in the office of the presidency.”

While Grassley is correct in that Article II of the U.S. Constitution designates certain powers to the executive branch, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly grants the power of the purse to Congress. Specifically, the nation's founding documents grants the legislative branch the "Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

Despite arguing that he couldn't stop DOGE's budget cuts and the administration's mass firings of federal workers, the Judiciary Committee chairman offered his sympathies for longtime federal employees who lost their jobs. He called it "a tragedy for people that are getting laid off."

"Going out looking for a job after having a job for 10 years is not an easy thing to do," Grassley told RadioIowa.

Click here to read Politico's full report,, and click here to read Grassley's comments to RadioIowa.

===

AN 2 25 SAD WILL GOP FIND SPINE ON THEIR PRINCIPLES GAME

One of many controversial executive orders that President Donald Trump issued after returning to the White House was his decision to fire more than a dozen inspectors general (IG). And he has also fired Paul Martin, who served as IG for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Longtime Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has a history of defending IGs, but he is also defending the firing of Martin — and drawing some strong criticism for it.

Politico's Josh Gerstein, in a February 12 post on X, reported that Grassley is "temper[ing] his longtime defense of inspectors general, saying USAID IG Paul Martin 'should have been fired' over fraud there. Urged Trump to use admin leave to work around law mandating 30-day notice. G: 'I'm just trying to make the president's job easier.'"

The Washington Post's Aaron Blake, in response to Gerstein's tweet, posted, "As telling a moment as any."

On X, HuffPost's Igor Bobic described his interview with Grassley.

Bobic also posted, "Are you going to alert the president he's not following the law by firing IGs without notice? 'I just did, by talking to you,' Grassley tells me."

Bobic reported, "Grassley tells me the USAID IG Trump fired yesterday 'wasn’t doing his job.' 'I'd like to alert the president to the fact that he can abide by the law and still get rid of the people he wants to get rid of. He can put them on administrative leave for thirty days and send us a letter.'"

Democratic activist Cynthia Busch, who formerly chaired the Broward County Democratic Party in Florida, is among Grassley's critics.

Busch tweeted, "Another disappointing moment for congressional oversight. Sen. Grassley's job is not to make the President's job easier by helping him 'work around the law.'"

X user Barbara Ann Stein called Grassley out as well on X, writing, " Grassley isn't up until 2029, and he's currently 91. He's given up his big issue because he's afraid of being primaried?

===

there is an IG caucus

an 1 25

One of President Donald Trump's biggest supporters in the U.S. Senate has now co-signed a letter with his Democratic counterpart demanding the president comply with a federal law he recently ignored.

On Friday night, Trump announced he was firing 18 inspectors general throughout various federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Labor, State and Health and Human Services. This was done in violation of the Inspector General Act, which requires that a president give Congress 30 days advance that he plans to fire an inspector general — which is an independent watchdog that calls out waste, fraud and abuse — and give a specific reason for their firing.

And on Tuesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) both signed a letter to Trump, pointing out that the firings were illegal. Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney posted the full text of the letter to Bluesky.

"Congress was not provided the legally required 30-day notice and case-specific reasons for removal, as required by law," Grassley and Durbin wrote. "Accordingly, we request that you provide that information immediately."

"While IGs aren't immune from committing acts that require their removal, and they can be removed by the president, the law must be followed," they continued. "The communication to Congress must contain more than broad and vague statements, rather it must include sufficient facts and details to assure Congress and the public that the termination is due to real concerns about the inspector General's ability to carry out their mission."

In addition to providing rationale for their firing, both senators insisted that Trump reinstate the fired inspectors general on an "acting" basis during the 30-day period and "work quickly to nominate qualified and non-partisan individuals to serve in those open positions." Trump has not yet responded to the letter.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Grassley is perhaps the most critical in implementing Trump's policies pertaining to immigration, which is under his purview. Grassley's committee will also have to vet all of Trump's nominees to the federal courts, including anyone he nominates to succeed retiring Supreme Court justices. And as a 91 year-old senator who isn't up for re-election until 2028, Grassley is virtually untouchable in the Hawkeye State, which he has represented for more than 40 years.

===

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/the-ftc-is-investigating-intuit-over-turbotax-practices/

===

4 24 judd

Yesterday was the last day for Americans to file their 2023 taxes on time. What is the biggest difference between Tax Day this year and Tax Day in 1980? Millionaires pay a lot less.

Between 1945 and 1980, American households that made $1 million or more paid an average of 50.1% of their income in federal taxes, according to a new report from Americans for Tax Fairness. This period following World War II was characterized by "substantial economic growth and broadly shared prosperity" with rapid income growth "at roughly the same rate up and down the income ladder." Higher taxes for the wealthy funded "public investments that helped build a thriving economy for all: constructing the interstate highway system, improving public education, facilitating mass home ownership, expanding healthcare coverage."

According to the most recent IRS data, American households with more than $1 million in income now pay an effective tax rate of just 26%. Yes, because of inflation, $1 million has less purchasing power today than it did 44 years ago. But $1 million still exceeds the income of 99.5% of American households.

While millionaires have seen their tax rates halved, the tax rate for non-millionaires has been fairly consistent. Between 1945 and 1980, the average effective tax rate for non-millionaires was 12.6%. Today, it is 11.5%.

In 2001, the IRS started tracking the effective tax rate of American households that make $10 million or more. They have a slightly lower effective tax rate than other millionaires.

The gap in effective tax rates between those American households that make $10 million or more and those that make seven figures likely reflects how the tax code imposes higher taxes on work than wealth. Seven-figure earners typically earn much of their revenue through income from high-paying jobs, and the top marginal income tax rate has ranged between 35% and 39.6% over the last two decades. Those who earn $10 million or more commonly derive some or all of their income through investments, which have been taxed between a 15% and 23.8% rate over the same time period. That's why the top 0.0001% — the 1500 richest households in America that make $118 million or more — pay an effective rate of just 23%. That's less than the regular millionaires.

The reality is that today, the American tax code barely qualifies as progressive. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) produced a study this month that looked at taxes paid at all levels (federal, state, and local) by income. ITEP found that the wealthiest 1% of American households collected 20.1% of total income and paid 23.9% of total taxes. The poorest 20% of American households collected just 2.6% of total income but paid 1.5% of total taxes.

grph

While the federal tax code, despite the dramatic reduction in rates for millionaires over the last several decades, remains progressive, "state and local taxes in most states are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of income from the poor than from the rich." Many states and localities impose sales taxes and "low-income families have little choice but to spend all their income to cover basic needs." High-income families "can save and invest most of their income, avoiding sales taxes."

Using impoverished children as political pawns

In 2021, as the pandemic still raged, Congress instituted a historic expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC). The CTC was increased from $2,000 per child to $3,600 for each child aged five or younger and $3,000 for each child aged 6 through 17. (The credit phased out for couples making $150,000 or more and individuals making $75,000 or more.) The credit was also made fully refundable, which means even families with little or no income could benefit. It was paid out monthly so that families did not have to wait until Tax Day to see the benefit.

The policy was a smashing success. Child poverty plunged to 5.2%, a record low. But due to the opposition from corporate lobbyists, Republicans in Congress, and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), the CTC expansion expired at the end of 2022. Child poverty quickly increased, spiking to 12.4% in 2022 — that meant 5.28 million additional children living in poverty.

Since then, there has been bipartisan interest in reviving at least some of the CTC expansion. Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR) and House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-MO) struck a deal to make the credit refundable for more families. It is a modest and technical change, but it would help about 16 million low-income families with children, with an average benefit of about $630. To attract Republican support, the deal included some business tax cuts, passed in 2017, that had expired or were close to expiring.

The Wyden-Smith package cleared the House at the end of January by a vote of 357-70. But for months, the Senate has done nothing.

Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, claims to be "negotiating" the package, which was already the product of a bipartisan negotiation. Crapo reportedly wants more generous corporate tax cuts and fewer benefits for impoverished children. But efforts to tweak the proposal have not changed Crapo's opposition or the other Senate Republicans following his lead. Wyden's impression is that the proposal is not "something that Senate Republicans wanted to do."

Why? Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said he opposed the package because "passing a tax bill that makes the president look good… [and] means he could be re-elected." In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) said that expanding the CTC now means "all Republican leverage will be lost" on tax issues regardless of who wins the election. Defeating the Wyden-Smith package would "extend the bulk, if not all, of the Trump tax cuts" in the future. At the end of 2025, Trump's tax cuts for individuals would expire, raising the top income tax rate from 37% to 39.6%.

Crapo and other Senate Republicans, however, have not simply cut off negotiations because harming impoverished children for a chance to help corporations and the wealthy is not a good look politically. But the route they are taking has the same effect. They are killing a modest expansion of the CTC by running out the clock.

The lobbyists who want you to keep paying to file your taxes

Earlier this year, the IRS launched its first-ever free tax filing program, Direct File, in 12 different states. The program, which is funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, is still in its pilot stage.

At least 100,000 taxpayers used the program to file their federal income taxes this tax season, and so far, the results are fairly encouraging. It’s estimated that in five years, “Direct File would save the average user $160 in filing fees and hours of their time each year, which saves Americans a total of $11 billion annually between filing fees and time costs,” according to a study by the Economic Security Project.

Direct File also makes it easier to claim credits like the CTC. According to the Economic Security Project, the program would “deliver up to $12 billion each year in additional tax credits to low-income families currently missing out.” The group also calculated that the program would generate at least $300 million in savings for the IRS.

Despite its immense potential and early success, tax preparation companies “are continuing to blast Direct File as unpopular and unnecessary.” A lawyer for the American Coalition for Taxpayer Rights – a trade group that represents tax prep giants like TurboTax and H&R Block – told the Washington Post that there is “not a real demand” for the program. But this is misleading. More than70% of taxpayers said they would be interested in filing their taxes through a free, IRS-provided online tool, according to the IRS’ 2022 Taxpayer Experience Survey. Polls across different states also show that a “massive majority” of Americans, including both Democrats and Republicans, support a free IRS tax return system.

For years, tax prep companies have spent millions of dollars blocking efforts to make tax filing free and easy. In 2019, ProPublica reported that Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, spent 20 years blocking an IRS-provided e-file service – all while tricking low-income taxpayers into paying for services the company was federally obligated to provide to them for free. Last year, the company spent a record $3.8 million lobbying the federal government. “[M]any of Intuit’s disclosures say it lobbied on the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act,” Sludge and More Perfect Union reported.

So far, there has been some accountability. In 2022, Intuit agreed to pay a $141 million settlement to roughly 4.4 million Americans, most of whom were low-income. Most recently, in January, federal regulators ordered the company to “stop marketing its services as free, unless they are free to everyone or exceptions are clearly disclosed.”

Still, problems persist. This month, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, urging the agency to continue investigating the tax prep software. “Despite lawsuits and settlements stemming from Intuit’s deceptive ‘free’ advertising practices, the company continues to relentlessly upsell TurboTax users,” Warren wrote. “The TurboTax website attempts to divert taxpayers away from free filing options early in the process – and continues to do so throughout their federal and state tax filings.”

===

hypoc

an 12 23 no lnx

Busted: Jim Jordan and James Comer have a new judicial plan

Matt Laslo

andRaw Story

December 25, 2023

WASHINGTON – Republicans in Congress aren’t just doing all they can to impeach the Biden name – and possibly President Joe Biden himself – they’re also going to extraordinary lengths to protect two billionaire GOP megadonors who helped the party remake the Supreme Court in recent years.

For one, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) are trying to stymie Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s investigation into Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo.

Schwalb is looking into allegations that Leo is illegally profiting off non-profits. Jordan and Comer have responded by threatening to subpoena Schwalb.

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

Meanwhile on the other side of the U.S. Capitol, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee walked out en masse, boycotting Democrats’ effort to subpoena Leo and Republican jurisprudence sugar daddy Harlan Crow over the hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts he’s given to Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni over the decades, according to a ProPublica investigation.

The GOP offensive to protect two billionaire donors is blatant hypocrisy, according to ethics watchdogs.

“There are many senators who will say anything. I mean, as long as it's their guy, they'll defend anything, and they have no consistency whatsoever and they're completely hypocritical,” Melanie Sloan, a senior adviser for nonpartisan watchdog American Oversight, told Raw Story.

ALSO READ: Florida judge’s son is a neo-Nazi patron: data leak

In today’s tribal and perpetually warring Congress, it seems even pay-to-play politics are now partisan. While Senate Republicans are vowing to use all procedural tools at their disposal to block Leo and Crow from being subpoenaed, most in the party are also backing the Biden impeachment inquiry because they say Hunter Biden was selling access to his father — an accusation for which they’ve provided no evidence to date.

On paper – paper stamped with GOP letterhead, mind you – the impeachment inquiry is focused on buying access.

“It better be, because, quite honestly, Hunter Biden's personal problems aren't the issue. The issue is whether he was selling access to a vice president willing to provide that access, and whether the vice president at the time – the current president – was enriched by it,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) told Raw Story.

As for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in private jet travel, stays at his private retreat and luxurious free vacations aboard his 162-foot yacht that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni admitted to receiving from Harlan Crow?

“That's not enriching yourself, because you went on a boat ride for God's sake. That's not the same as cash in your checking account,” Cramer said of ProPublica’s revelations.

Cramer argues, if the trips weren’t free “maybe he wouldn't have gone on it.”

“The difference is … he’s a friend. Friends are allowed to provide hospitality for you in their home or on their boat. That's very different than a foreign adversary providing cash to a sitting vice president of the United States through his son. That's barely, barely even in the same ballpark, if at all,” Cramer said. “It’s a stretch, to say the least. It's just, it's not the same thing.”

That’s not even mentioning the free private school tuition Thomas’ nephew – who he raised like a son – received from Crow, which ProPublica estimates could have totaled upward of $150,000.

ALSO READ: Busted: These healthcare nonprofits are accepting millions from Big Tobacco

Senate Democrats, some of whom argue Thomas was in a prime position to rule on cases that effect Crow’s fortune, are particularly interested in whether Crow declared the lavish free vacations and travel as business expenses on his federal taxes.

For Leo – co-chairman of the Federalist Society, including the $1.6 billion fortune it now controls – Campaign for Accountability filed an IRS complaint alleging he’s funneling money from seven nonprofit entities he controls to his for-profit businesses, thus illegally profiting off campaign donations. The apparent interference from Jordan and Comer is appalling to watchdogs.

“Then, at the same time, they're screaming about the politicization of justice when they talk about Donald Trump, but they want to tell a sitting U.S. attorney – you know, the state's attorney for D.C. – who he can and can't look at because they don't want him looking at Leonard Leo,” Sloan said. “They just are bowing down at the altar of Leonard Leo and his $1.6 billion.”

House Republicans deny they’re interfering with an ongoing investigation.

“I’m confused. So it’s OK for Democrats to subpoena Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow, but not OK for us to look into AG Schwalb? Isn’t that literally the definition of a double standard — a.k.a Democrats can do something, but we can’t?” Russell M. Dye, communications director and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, emailed Raw Story.

ALSO READ: ‘Too preposterous to be real’: College hires ‘pink slime’ publisher as journalism prof

Republicans say there’s no reason for an investigation, because the megadonors aren’t accused of trying to change the outcomes of specific cases before the Supreme Court.

“I really think there's like a fundamental difference here between trading favors and not, right? The difference here is the consideration. I've seen no evidence that any of the Supreme Court justices, least of all Clarence Thomas, offered to give anything back. To me, that’s the big difference,” Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) told Raw Story.

“Now look, if Harlan Crow or anybody else wrote $100 million to a Supreme Court Justice, and say, ‘Hey, please do this thing in my benefit’ — well, that raises some serious problems. But is it the standard that a Supreme Court justice can't have a rich friend?” Vance continued. “If they want to set that standard, it’s up to them, but I don't think that that raises nearly the same pay-to-play concerns as Joe Biden’s situation.”

Gifts are different than business appears to be the current GOP ethical standard for such matters.

“We're not talking about gifts. This is business. So with Hunter [Biden], this is, you know, he's on the Burisma board. He's doing these foreign business deals in Ukraine and China and lots of offices, and he is openly out there selling his dad,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Raw Story. “At the very least, he's clearly making money off his father. The question is, did the president benefit from that? That's what they need to answer. So that's why we have the inquiry.”

When pressed on the impeachment inquiry into Biden, former Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wasn’t up to date on the specifics, even as he proudly remembers getting the investigative ball rolling for House Republicans.

“You’re talking about the substance of it. I’m not sure I can talk about the substance of it,” Grassley told Raw Story. “Except, the process is necessary to complete what [Sen. Ron] Johnson (R-WI) and I started four years ago, and that is to get all the information that Congress is entitled to in our oversight capacity and that's what it's all about, as far as I know.”

The Supreme Court adopted a new code of ethics since the lavish gifts were first reported, so Democrats’ complaints are outdated, Grassley argues.

ALSO READ: You blew it in New Hampshire, Joe Biden. Pray it doesn’t hurt you — and then some

“Because the judicial branch put out their … new regulation, and if that doesn’t take care of it – and we won't know that for a little while, maybe a year or two – then maybe that'd be a legitimate question,” Grassley said. “But right now it’s not a legitimate question considering the initiative of the Supreme Court.”

After all, 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee walked out of the vote to subpoena Leo and Crow on November 30 – allowing Democrats to pass the measure 11-0 – Senate Republicans argue the vote broke committee rules.

“They’re not legal,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Raw Story. “Anybody who knows a lawbook from a J. Crew catalog knows they can get those subpoenas quashed in one hearing.”

Because of wholesale GOP opposition, there doesn’t seem to be the votes to formalize the subpoenas on the Senate floor where Republicans are threatening to require a 60-vote threshold.

“You’ll never see this come to the floor,” Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Politico. “We’ll attack it legally, we’ll vote against it. It’d be a s—show.”

Even as the party hasn’t decided how it will proceed in the Senate, many Democrats expected this.

“We're going after the icons of the Republican Party, Leonard Leo, of course, and, to some, Justice Thomas. They’re very sensitive to that,” Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) told Raw Story. “Public sentiment is overwhelmingly in our favor, so they have got to be strident in opposition.”

The two different standards for Biden and GOP donors is remarkable to Democrats.

“Republicans want to protect the court that they have packed, and they protect the court by maintaining its status as an unaccountable highest court of the land,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) told Raw Story. “It looks like they're doing everything they can to keep hidden the secret relationships that are going on at the court with powerful interests that bring cases before the court.”

To the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), this made-for-Fox-and-Newsmax drama shows how completely former President Donald Trump has remade the GOP in his own image.

“It is just sad the way that Donald Trump has completed his stranglehold over the Republican Party,” Raskin told Raw Story. “Donald Trump has taught them – from the Charlottesville riot forward – that there should be no enemies on the right. And they have no enemies on the right, and they will take no principled stance against anybody on the right, no matter how fascistic they are.”

===

---

an 11 23

an ABC News bombshell report revealing then-Vice President Mike Pence had, at one point, decided to not preside over the January 6 joint congressional session to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election is once again bringing up questions about remarks U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) had made one day before the event, which some interpreted as him announcing he, and not the Vice President, would be presiding over the proceedings. Grassley later denied the claim.

The ABC News report includes conversations Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team had in closed-door sessions with Pence, including the former vice president’s notes they obtained from the National Archives.

“According to sources, one of Pence’s notes obtained by Smith’s team shows that, days before Pence was set to preside over Congress certifying the election results on Jan. 6, 2021, he momentarily decided that he would skip the proceedings altogether, writing in the note that there were ‘too many questions’ and it would otherwise be ‘too hurtful to my friend.’ But he ultimately concluded he had a duty to show up,” ABC News reported.

The report added that their “sources said, with the pressure on Pence mounting, he concluded on Christmas Eve — just for a moment — that he would follow Trump’s suggestion and let someone else preside over the proceedings on Jan. 6.”

“Speaking with Smith’s team, Pence insisted his loyalty to President Trump at the time never faltered — ‘My only higher loyalty was to God and the Constitution,’ sources described Pence as telling them.”

“‘Not feeling like I should attend electoral count,’ Pence wrote in his notes in late December. ‘Too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. Therefore I’m not going to participate in certification of election.'”

ABC’s report is prompting questions about U.S. Senator Grassley’s remarks on January 5, 2021, when he said he would be presiding over the Senate the following, fateful day.

Back in September, the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake revisited that event, which in 2021 sparked rumors and speculation.

“Asked whether former president Donald Trump’s legal team had any discussions about Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) presiding over the certification of the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021, rather than Vice President Mike Pence, [Trump coup memo author John] Eastman declined to answer, citing attorney-client privilege with Trump,” The Post reported, referring to Eastman’s legal testimony in a disbarment proceeding. “The moment drew renewed attention to one of the bigger unanswered questions about Jan. 6: How extensive was the effort to get Pence to step aside?”

“While Grassley has denied any outreach about whether he would preside on Jan. 6, an email obtained by the [U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack] shows that one of his staff members asked Pence’s office on Dec. 23, 2020, about such a scenario.”

“‘ … Is there any reason to believe that your boss will not preside over the electoral college vote count,’ Grassley aide James Rice wrote, as recounted in Jan. 6 committee transcripts, ‘leaving my boss in the spot as [president pro tem]?'”

“Pence aide Paul Teller responded that ‘it’s not a zero percent chance of that happening.'”

But The Post concluded, “the suggestion that this was a concerted effort to get rid of Pence remains unsubstantiated.”

In October of 2022, the Des Moines Register also looked that that event from January 5.

“As the counting of electoral votes neared, reporters asked Grassley how he planned to vote on election certification, the Iowa newspaper reported.

“’If the vice president isn’t there, and we don’t expect him to be there, I will be presiding over the Senate and obviously listening to the debate without saying anything,’ [Grassley] said on a call with agriculture reporters Jan. 5, 2021. ‘You’re asking me how I’m going to vote. I’m going to listen to that debate on what my colleagues have to say during that debate and decide how to cast my vote after considering the information before me.'”

The Register added, “Taylor Foy, a spokesperson for Grassley, quickly issued a clarification to the media the same day, saying Grassley was talking about possibly presiding over the Senate debate if Pence happened to step out. The House and Senate needed to meet separately to consider objections to the electoral count in individual states before convening a joint session of Congress.”

Regardless of the Grassley issue, many have served up sharp criticism of Pence after learning he at one point had decided to not execute his constitutional responsibilities, even if he ultimately did perform his duty.

“A regular Profile in Courage,” presidential historian Michael Beschloss sarcastically declared.

“I myself would never want to upset a good friend who wishes to see me hung by an angry armed mob,” conservative attorney George Conway said mockingly.

“The most important takeaway from the ABC News story re: Pence hedging on whether he should preside over the counting of the Electoral College votes on January 6, is that the pressure campaign on Pence to unlawfully and unilaterally upend the election was not entirely ineffective,” observed professor of law Anthony Michael Kreis.

“Remember that Mike Pence, who didn’t want to carry out the Constitutional oath he took that ended with the words ‘So Help Me God’ shamelessly titled his book about the events ‘So Help Me God.’ The man’s always been a shameless fraud,” declared political scientist David Darmofal.

---

whistleblower gone so want raw intel fbi form

https://www.alternet.org/grassley-gop/

claim biden took bribe

an 2 23

its first hearing isn’t until Thursday but already Chairman Jim Jordan‘s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is being mocked after the list of witnesses was released.

NBC News’ Garrett Haake reports testifying before the committee on Thursday will be ex-Democratic Congresswoman **Tulsi Gabbard**, **U.S. Senator Ron Johnson** (R-WI), **U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley** (R-IA), and former FBI special agent Nicole Parker.

Gabbard left the Democratic Party and is now an independent and a Fox News contributor. In 2019, Hillary Clinton suggested she was a Russian asset being groomed for a third-party presidential run. She sued the former Democratic presidential nominee and former U.S. Secretary of State but later dropped the defamation lawsuit.

Also, Gabbard “shared false information,” Forbes reported last year, “about U.S. involvement in Ukraine biological laboratories … giving credence to an unfounded Russian-backed conspiracy theory the U.S. has warned could serve as justification for Russia to use biological and chemical weapons against Ukraine.”

Sen. Johnson, who narrowly won re-election after being among the top promoters of Donald Trump’s “Big Lie,” is a conspiracy theorist who uses his Senate seat to spread false information about COVID and a host of other crises.

CNN’s Chris Cillizza branded Johnson the “Senate’s leading conspiracy theorist” just one year ago. The Washington Post reported last May that Sen. Johnson “expressed openness” to “a fervent anti-vaccination” commentator’s “idea that maybe the coronavirus vaccines are a conduit for deliberately giving people AIDS.”

Sen. Grassley has come under fire for his racist remarks about COVID-19, dangerously false claims about the IRS, and apparent falsehoods about the January 6 insurrection and its participants.

Last year The American Independent reported Grassley told a constituent “what you said is accurate.” According to The Independent, the constituent said during a town hall: “Knowing that the FBI and Capitol Police were complicit in Jan. 6, what have you done to get the political prisoners being held in gulag conditions out on bail?”

Some were quick to mock Chairman Jordan’s choice of witnesses to testify before his subcommittee’s first hearing.

“Johnson actively pushed the WI legislature & the VP to overturn the election. Tulsi used her perch in Congress to secretly meet with Assad & whitewash his war crimes. so in a sense, they are indeed experts on weaponizing gov’t.,” mocked former Hillary Clinton foreign policy spokesperson Jesse Lehrich.

Jim Manley, a top aide to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, described the panel as “low energy.”

NBC News Justice reporter Ryan J. Reilly pre-deflated Parker’s possible contributions, citing her as saying: “’I was never asked to participate in anything that was political,’ Nicole Parker said in one of her Fox News hits (Hannity, specifically).”

Even CNN did not hide its skepticism, beginning its reporting with this line: “The GOP-led House select subcommittee on so-called weaponization of the federal government will draw upon a prominent ex-Democrat, two of their Republican Senate colleagues, and a former FBI agent in their first public hearing to discuss how they believe the government has been weaponized against conservatives, multiple sources familiar with the plans tell CNN.”

====

https://www.newsweek.com/key-points-chuck-grassley-letter-accusing-fbi-hunter-biden-cover-1728034

no lnx

u.S.

Key Points From Chuck Grassley Letter Accusing FBI of Hunter Biden Cover-Up

BY KATHERINE FUNG ON 7/26/22

U.S.

FBI

DOJ

CHUCK GRASSLEY

HUNTER BIDEN

Senator Chuck Grassley is accusing the FBI of covering up Hunter Biden's alleged criminal financial activity by purposely launching a campaign to discredit any negative information about the president's son.

On Monday, Grassley wrote a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland saying that "highly credible whistleblowers" have come forward, alleging widespread misconduct by both federal agencies over the handling of derogatory information about Biden in the months leading up to the 2020 election.

"The volume and consistency of these allegations substantiate their credibility and necessitate this letter," the Iowa Republican wrote. He demanded that Wray and Garland turn over a series of documents and records so Congress can perform an independent review of the alleged misconduct.

The letter is the latest development in the senator's efforts to bring attention to the probe into Biden's business dealings. The president's son has been the subject of a federal investigation run by the U.S. attorney's office in Delaware since 2018 over concerns that his financial and business practices potentially involved money laundering and violated U.S. tax laws during his father's time as vice president.

Grassley Hunter Biden FBI

GOP Senator Chuck Grassley is demanding that the FBI's director and the U.S. attorney general turn over documents and records so Congress can perform an independent review of alleged misconduct by Hunter Biden. Above, Grassley speaks to the media on April 4.

In his letter, Grassley also said, "If these allegations are true and accurate, the Justice Department and FBI are—and have been—institutionally corrupted to their very core to the point in which the United States Congress and the American people will have no confidence in the equal application of the law."

Grassley, who serves as the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, named two FBI agents in the letter: FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault.

The senator alleged that Austen opened an assessment in August 2020, which was used by an FBI team to "improperly discredit negative Hunter Biden information as disinformation and caused investigative activity to cease."

Grassley said it was during that same month that he and GOP Senator Ron Johnson received an "unnecessary" briefing from the FBI that gave their Democratic counterparts ammo to accuse the senators of "advancing foreign disinformation."

DOJ Will Take Action Against Hunter Biden Within 2 Months: Representative

What Is Hunter Biden Being Investigated For? Details of Federal Probe

Hunter Biden, China and BHR—What We Do Know, What We Don't]

Grassley alleged that in October 2020, a month before the presidential election that was won by Biden's father, Thibault ordered the matter closed "without providing a valid reason as required by FBI guidelines."

The senator added that while the Biden matter was closed in a way that would allow for the investigation to be reopened at a later date, the senator has received "credible" allegations that FBI officials tried to mark the matter in agency systems to prevent it from being opened in the future.

In addition to the probe into Biden's financial and business practices, investigators are analyzing whether he acted as an unregistered foreign lobbying agent while working as a consultant and investor for businesses and tycoons in China, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

The FBI told Newsweek it received Grassley's letter but had no additional comment. The Justice Department declined Newsweek's request for comment.

wonder about motive/target

an 10 22

In June, John R. Allen resigned from his position as president of the Brookings Institution following allegations that he had secretly lobbied on behalf of the government of Qatar. Journalist Michael Schaffer, in an article published by Politico on October 14, reports that there has been a considerable “uproar” following that controversy — including “a new wave of congressional scrutiny and proposed legislation” that has been “driven largely but not exclusively by conservatives” and “could ultimately complicate life at” think tanks.

But Schaffer stresses that right-wing think tanks could be among the ones that such legislation would affect. Schaffer cites Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa on the right and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts on the left as two senators who have proposed bills that could affect how think tanks function. Warren’s bill, according to Schaffer, “would require think tanks to disclose donors — not just foreign ones — that pay for lobbying materials, among other things.”

“For all the joy that conservative pols have taken at Brookings’ latest turn in the barrel, conversations with people around the industry reveal an irony: Any potential new wave of government-mandated disclosure rules, especially those that go beyond foreign money, would actually represent a bigger cultural change at right-wing organizations, some of which historically have tended to see donations as a form of free speech,” Schaffer reports. “Establishmentarian center-left outfits like Brookings already share significant pieces of that information — thanks in part, it should be noted, to previous funding imbroglios, and their reliance on corporate dollars. The Heritage Foundation, by contrast, says less than two percent of its income comes from corporate sources.”

Heritage is one of the most famous right-wing think tanks in the United States. Another is the Cato Institute, which has much more of a libertarian outlook than the socially conservative Heritage. Meanwhile, the Claremont Institute is a right-wing think tank that has taken a very MAGA turn in recent years.

“It’s also notable that none of the proposals that have been publicized since the tumult at Brookings would have done much about Allen, whose allegedly fishy work for Qatar was done before he took over Brookings and would theoretically be covered by the Foreign Agent Registration Act,” Schaffer writes. “He’s denied improper behavior and hasn’t been charged with any wrongdoing. What the scrutiny of Allen did do, though, was re-focus attention on the organization’s broader history with the emirate.”

Schaffer points out that different think tanks have different policies when it comes to who they will or won’t accept money from.

“Under the status quo,” Schaffer observes, “there are few rules about who a think tank may accept money from and who it has to tell. And there are probably as many internal policies as there are think tanks: The Heritage Foundation doesn’t take any money from governments of any sort, foreign or domestic. Brookings does take money from governments, but only democratic ones. The Center for American Progress also takes foreign money, but not for any specific project. It also discloses donors, unless those donors choose to remain anonymous, something deep-pocketed types occasionally do to avoid being hit up by others.”

presumably media intern?

town hall

8 22 bs

fBI Responds to Zuckerberg's Claims About Hunter Biden's Laptop

Sarah ArnoldSarah Arnold|Posted: Aug 28, 2022

FBI Responds to Zuckerberg's Claims About Hunter Biden's Laptop

The FBI responded to claims made by Meta CEO and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, saying that it “routinely notifies” social media companies of potential threats.

During a podcast interview with Joe Rogan, Zuckerberg told the host that Facebook’s restrictions surrounding the New York Post’s 2020 article on Hunter Biden were based on FBI misinformation warnings.

The Post’s article reported that data recovered from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden included emails which indicated that President Joe Biden used his position and power as then- vice president to help his son, Hunter, in business dealings with Ukraine.

Zuckerberg claimed that Facebook suppressed stories on the platform related to the article on Hunter Biden and his laptop after the FBI warned the social media company to be aware of potentially polarizing content.

“The FBI has provided companies with foreign threat indicators to help them protect their platforms and customers from abuse by foreign malign influence actors,” the agency said in a statement.

In response to Zuckerberg’s comments, many speculate that Facebook censored information that may make Biden look bad ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

“[The FBI] routinely notifies U.S. private sector entities, including social media providers, of potential threat information, so that they can decide how to better defend against threats,” according to the agency.

twt

chuck g

We now know Facebook censored spread of Hunter Biden laptop story after FBI approached them. FBI & Facebook/Big Tech interfered in 2020 election Facebook acted as an arm of govt Both Facebook & FBI should b ashamed of interfering in our electoral process

Recommended

Judge Might Grant Something ‘Special’ for Trump Following FBI Raid

Matt Vespa

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that big tech interfered with the election so that results came out favorable for Democrats.

“FBI & Facebook/Big Tech interfered in 2020 election Facebook acted as an arm of govt.,” Grassley said in a tweet.

cantwell dem wa PBM drug bill co-spon

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]*	05/24/2022
Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]	06/08/2022
Sen. Braun, Mike [R-IN]	06/14/2022
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]	06/22/2022

big iowa rally? 10 21

Trump was the first president in United States history who lost his bid for reelection only to falsely claim that the election was stolen from him because of widespread voter fraud, and many Republicans in Congress have been willing to go along with the Big Lie. CNN's John Berman called out two of them, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, during an October 11 broadcast of the morning show "New Day."

Berman, who hosts "New Day" with his CNN colleague Brianna Keilar, told viewers, "(Trump's) rewritten history is now practically the official dogma of his party — and his lies, the accepted reality of his party."

To illustrate his point, Berman showed interviews with Scalise and Grassley — who appeared with Trump at a MAGA rally in Iowa on Saturday, October 9. The following day, Scalise was interviewed by Fox News' Chris Wallace.

Wallace, one of the few people at Fox News who asks MAGA Republicans tough questions, bluntly asked Scalise, "So, you think the election was stolen?" — and Scalise jumped through hoops to dodge the question. Berman slammed that interview as "Minority Whip Scalise perpetuating a lie about 2020." And he went on to show a clip of the88-year-old Grassley being interviewed by Newsmax TV and defending Trump's refusal to accept the 2020 election results.

Berman told viewers, "On the Senate side, 88-year-old Chuck Grassley is the Republican establishment. On his decades-long career, no one would have called him a radical — until now…. Grassley is trying to paint Trump as a victim of the attempted coup when in fact, it was Trump himself driving it."

Berman noted, "Trump asked the Justice Department nine times to undermine the election results. He successfully got his White House staff to help pressure — he tried to pressure secretaries of state to not certify the election. He then attacked them, including Republicans…. Trump also tried to pressure state legislatures in key battleground states. Then he tried to get the courts to overturn the election results based on bogus conspiracies."

The "New Day" host continued, "A Trump lawyer wrote a blueprint. He wrote it down, outlining how Mike Pence could overturn the election. And speaking of Pence, Trump publicly and loudly tried to get his vice president to decertify the election on January 6. And then, the mob showed up. It is worth noting Trump is still spouting these conspiracies, including at the rally that Grassley attended and participated in."

Watch the video below...

h:{ttps://www.breitbart.com:(style="text-decoration-line:none;font-weight:inherit;outline:none;margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;display:inline"):}::{/tag/hunter-biden/:(style="text-decoration-line:none;font-weight:inherit;outline:none;margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;opacity:1;visibility:visible"):}:

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Tuesday ripped into Big Tech, describing them as "superspreaders" of disinformation in the wake of Facebook and Twitter censoring on their platforms the link to the New York Post report alleging Hunter Biden, the son of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, had email correspondence uncovered showing him getting help from his father to obtain a ...

new

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/obamas-office-slams-two-gop-senators-for-promoting-russian-disinformation-in-letter-to-national-archives/

no lnx doc

Alex Henderson May 6, 2020

Former President Barack Obama generally kept a low profile during the Ukraine scandal and the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, preferring to let other prominent Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff do the talking. But according to BuzzFeed News reporter Emma Loop, Obama’s office — in a March 13 letter — slammed Republican senators for trying to link Ukraine and former Vice President Joe Biden to interference in the United States’ 2016 presidential election.

A far-right conspiracy theory claims that it was the Ukrainian government, not the Russian government and President Vladimir Putin, that interfered in the 2016 election — and that Ukraine interfered on behalf of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. That debunked claim, according to former special counsel Robert Mueller, has no validity. But many Trump supporters have promoted that conspiracy theory anyway, as have Putin allies in the Russian media. And in November 2019, two Republican senators (Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson) tried to link the Obama Administration, including Biden, to the Ukrainian government.

Emma Loop

@LoopEmma

Scoop: In a letter to the National Archives, former president Barack Obama blasted the Senate GOP investigation into Joe Biden and alleged Ukrainian election interference, calling it an effort to "to give credence to a Russian disinformation campaign."https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emmaloop/obama-records-biden-ukraine-russian-disinformation …

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

370

2:32 PM - May 5, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

189 people are talking about this

Loop reports that Grassley and Johnson “have been investigating matters related to Democrats and Ukraine since the fall, when Trump was impeached for his interactions with Ukraine. Grassley and Johnson…. asked the National Archives for records on meetings between the Obama Administration and Ukrainian officials, as well meetings between Obama officials and Alexandra Chalupa, the Democratic operative at the heart of the debunked Ukrainian election interference narrative.”

In a March 13 letter — which was addressed to David S. Ferreiro of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in Washington, D.C. — the office of Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama asserted that a November 19, 2019 records request from Grassley and Johnson was “not a proper use of” NARA’s resources.

Anita Decker Breckenridge, a records specialist in the Obamas’ office, told Ferreiro, “The request for early release of presidential records in order to give credence to a Russian disinformation campaign — one that has already been thoroughly investigated by a bipartisan congressional committee — is without precedent…. This use of the special access process serves no legitimate purpose.”

Breckinridge, who sent copies of the letter to Johnson and Grassley, went on to say that “in the interest of countering the misinformation campaign underlying this request,” the Obamas’ office was “prepared” to give “access to the records” that were requested — and added, “In doing so, we emphasize that abuse of the special access process strikes at the heart of presidential confidentiality interests and undermines the statutory framework and norms that govern access to presidential records.”

lcv: 2012 14, 23% 2013, lifetime 21% ok on water green mil http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/chuck-e-grassley

content lost? very little here 11/17

Farm-state Republican senator blasts Trump administration: ‘They screwed us’

Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa’s Republican senior senator, blasted the Trump administration Friday…

GreenTech Automotive investigation

The Franklin Center published a series of articles that raised questions about GreenTech Automotive and its presumed chairman, Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe. The investigation exposed the company’s reliance on a controversial fundraising program, EB-5, that has been criticized for its lax oversight and subject to abuse.^[36] The investigation also revealed that McAuliffe’s public projections, starting back in 2010, of how many cars would be built and jobs created had not come to fruition.^[37] In April 2013, it was revealed that McAuliffe had left the green energy car-maker in December of the previous year.^[38]

GreenTech Automotive filed an $85 million libel lawsuit against Franklin Center on April 8, 2013 in a Mississippi court.^[39] Franklin Center described the suit as “intimidation” and pledged to continue investigating GTA and McAuliffe.^[40][41] In July 2014, a federal judge in Mississippi dismissed GreenTech's case. GreenTech filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2018, stating that articles from Watchdog.org “negatively affected governmental, investor and public perception of GreenTech” and led to investigations by the SEC and the Department of Homeland Security. GreenTech also blamed U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, who had raised concerns about the company's use of a visa program, among others.^[42]

c street

terry g js

... Museveni in Uganda. Before him, their key man for Africa was a guy named Siad Barre of Somalia, for whom Chuck Grassley became a kind of defacto lobbyist as the United States pumped up his military, which he then used to absolutely destroy his country to such an effect that Somalia has never recovered and today is a haven for al-Qaida, for terrorism, for piracy. It's a lawless nation. The Family says that's part of God's plan.

see distraction

https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/trio-of-republican-senators-demand-doj-hand-over-information-on-clinton-email-probe-as-ag-barr-prepares-for-release-of-redacted-mueller-report/

As Attorney General William Barr prepares the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation report, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is reportedly recruiting other Republican senators help with a separate endeavor. As MSNBC reports, “a trio of top Republican senators” are demanding the Justice Department “hand over information on the handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.”

Graham, along with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent a letter to Barr on Tuesday requesting documents pertaining to the department’s investigation of the former secretary of state.

The document request comes despite federal investigators clearing Clinton of criminal wrongdoing, and a separate Justice Department inspector general examination that reviewed the department’s probe. According to Politico, the trio of senators have requested a “classified briefing on steps the Justice Department plans to take in light of its inspector general’s 2018 report,” according to Politico.

“Now that the Special Counsel’s investigation has concluded, we are unaware of any legitimate basis upon which the Department can refuse to answer the Judiciary Committee’s inquiries,” Graham, Johnson and Grassley — who chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and Senate Finance Committee, respectively — wrote in their letter to Barr.

The lawmakers also claimed a portion of the inspector general’s report “raises significant issues associated with the FBI’s failure to review certain highly classified information in support of its Midyear investigation.”

As Politico notes, Graham has likewise pledged to investigate whether the DOJ and FBI attempted to influence the 2016 to stop Donald Trump from becoming president.

According to a report at Politico, Sen, Chuck Grassley (R-IUA) is conducting a war with President Donald Trump’s White House over their refusal to turn over information related to Russia.

The report states that Grassley “is accusing the Trump administration of stonewalling him over a request for documents related to the Russia investigation,” so he is holding up the nomination of a key Trump appointee.

According to Politico, “The Iowa Republican’s demand for Justice Department documents on its probe of possible links between the Trump campaign and Moscow has left William Evanina’s nomination to head the National Counterintelligence and Security Center in limbo for the past year, frustrating the nation’s top intelligence leaders and even some fellow Senate Republicans.”

The report notes that Grassley is specifically seeking documents related to DOJ official Bruce Ohr, “who became a conduit between former British spy Christopher Steele and the FBI.”

In a statement submitted to the Congressional Record, Grassley wrote, “The administration’s continued, ongoing, and blatant lack of cooperation has forced my hand.”

Grassley has placed the blame for the lack of cooperation on Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and was highly critical of how he is being treated.

...

Senate Judiciary Chairman Begs Constituents To Stop Asking Him About Brett Kavanaugh at Town Hall

By Matthew Chapman, AlterNet

Sen. Chuck Grassley really does not want to talk about the right-wing takeover of the Supreme Court

bizzare/unprecendented:

https://www.alternet.org/brett-kavanaugh-may-have-committed-perjury-gop-suppressing-evidence

One of the top concerns of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding President Donald Trump's Supreme Court Nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, is whether he knew anything about, authorized, or advised the Bush administration on their torture program for detainees in the War on Terror while he served as White House staff secretary.

In 2006, during his confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh told senators, under oath, that he was "not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants," and had no knowledge of issues about "the legal justifications or the policies relating to the treatment of detainees," according to NBC News. However,Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) assert that multiple documents and email chains show Kavanaugh was briefed on the issue, implying he was not honest with the Senate.

Some of the documents Judiciary Democrats say prove Kavanaugh's knowledge of the torture program, and potentially even suggest that he perjured himself in his earlier confirmation, have been marked "Committee Confidential" by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — meaning that even most senators are not allowed to review them.

Also of concern is whether the White House is playing any role in steering document requests. On Friday, Leahy submitted a letter to White House Counsel Don McGahn, demanding to know what was discussed at a meeting between him and Judiciary Republicans regarding Kavanaugh.

According to a press release from Leahy, prior to the meeting on July 24, Republicans were prepared to ask the National Archives to release documents produced during Kavanaugh's time as White House Staff Secretary for former President George W. Bush. But after the meeting, Republicans refused to do so, allowing a limited release of documents curated by "a lawyer representing the former president."

"In the 44 years I have served in the United States Senate, I have seen 19 nominations to the Supreme Court, including the nomination of every current member of the Court," said Leahy. "I have never before seen the White House, under either a Republican or Democratic president, usurp or direct the parameters of the Judiciary Committee’s document request regarding a Supreme Court nominee. I find it troubling that the White House and Judiciary Committee Republicans are stifling transparency rather than working together to provide the necessary documents for the Senate to do its work. The American people deserve the unvarnished truth about Judge Kavanaugh."

McGahn has played a critical role in getting Trump's parade of far-right judicial nominees waved through the Senate, and has expressed his avowal to put two Supreme Court justices on the bench before leaving his role in the White House.

In addition to pressuring Judiciary Republicans to release the full set of documents,Senate Democrats have also filed a Freedom of Information Act request, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has threatened to sue the National Archives to make them public.

promised to release secet collus testmony then 180?

Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes is actively blocking his own committee’s investigation, refusing to subpoena Trump’s financial records or compel new testimony from key witnesses like Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump Jr, despite new information emerging.

Republican Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham are doing the White House’s bidding by calling for a criminal investigation -- not against those who worked with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election, but against a whistleblower who compiled a research document exposing that interference.

seems to be popping up end of 2017?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Grassley

Charles Ernest Grassley (born September 17, 1933) is an American politician serving as the senior United States Senator from Iowa since 1981. A member of the Republican Party, he previously was elected to the United States House of Representatives (1975–1981) and to the Iowa House of Representatives (1959–1975). He was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee from January to June 2001, as well as from January 2003 to December 2006, and is now the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the 115th Congress.

Early life and career

Grassley was born in New Hartford, Iowa, the son of Ruth (née Corwin) and Louis Arthur Grassley,^[1] and graduated from the town high school. At Iowa State Teachers College (now the University of Northern Iowa), he earned a B.A. in 1955 and an M.A. in 1956. During his time as a student, Grassley joined the social-professional Alpha Gamma Rho Fraternity.^[2] Also during the 1950s, Grassley farmed and worked in factories in Iowa, first as a sheet metal shearer and then as an assembly line worker. He pursued a Ph.D. in political science at the University of Iowa, but ultimately did not complete the degree. From 1967–1968, Grassley taught at Charles City College.^[3]

Grassley represented parts of Butler County in the Iowa House of Representatives from 1959 until 1975.^[3] He then served in the United States House of Representativesfrom 1975 to 1981.^[4]

United States Senate

Committee assignments

As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, Grassley has spearheaded many probes into alleged misuse and lack of accountability of federal money. In July 2007, a Grassley-commissioned report was released claiming that more than US$1 billion in farm subsidies were sent to deceased individuals.^[5] Grassley was called a "Taxpayer Super Hero" in 2014 by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, for his efforts to protect taxpayers. He received a 100 percent rating from the group that year and has a lifetime rating of 78 percent.^[6] Grassley was ranked as the 5th most bipartisan member of the U.S. Senate during the 114th United States Congress(and the third most bipartisan member of the U.S. Senate from the American Midwest after Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly and Ohio Senator Rob Portman) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy that ranks members of the United States Congress by their degree of bipartisanship (by measuring the frequency each member's bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and each member's co-sponsorship of bills by members of the opposite party).^[7]

Tenure

On June 28, 2006, Grassley proposed legislation^[8][9] intended to curb sex trafficking and sex slavery in the United States by means of strict enforcement of tax laws, for example by requiring a W-2 form be filed for each prostitute managed by a pimp or other employer.

In March 2009, amid a scandal that involved AIG executives receiving large salary bonuses from the taxpayer-funded bailout of AIG, Grassley suggested that those AIG employees receiving large bonuses should follow the so-called 'Japanese example', resign immediately or commit suicide. After some criticism, he dismissed the comments as rhetoric.^[13][14][15]Since 1976, Grassley has repeatedly introduced measures that increase the level of taxation on American citizens living abroad, including retroactive tax hikes. Grassley was eventually able to attach an amendment to a piece of legislation that went into effect in 2006, which increased taxes on Americans abroad by targeting housing and living incentives paid by foreign employers and held them accountable for federal taxes, even though they did not currently reside in the United States. Critics of the amendment felt that the move hurt Americans competing for jobs abroad by putting an unnecessary tax burden on foreign employers. Others felt that the move was only to offset the revenue deficit caused by domestic tax cuts of the Bush Administration.^[10][11][12]

In May 2009, Grassley cosponsored a resolution to amend the US Constitution to prohibit flag-burning.^[16]

When President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party proposed a health reform bill featuring mandated health insurance, Grassley opposed the health insurance mandate, saying that it was a deal breaker.^[17] In response to an audience question at an August 12, 2009, meeting in Iowa, about the end-of-life counseling provisions in the House health care bill, H.R. 3200, Grassley said people were right to fear that the government would "pull the plug on grandma."^{[18][19][20][21]} Grassley had previously supported covering end-of-life counseling, having voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, which stated: "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning."^[22] In December 2009, he voted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly called ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act).

Grassley opposed the Manchin-Toomey gun control amendment, and instead proposed alternative legislation to increase prosecutions of gun violence and increase reporting of mental health data in background checks.^[23]

As of December 2013, Grassley has cast 6,806 consecutive roll call votes,^[24] placing him second behind the all-time consecutive vote record holder, Senator William Proxmire (D-Wis). Grassley has not missed a roll call vote since 1993, when he was touring Iowa with President Bill Clinton to survey flood damage. He has, as of July 2012, cast almost 11,000 votes and had at that time only missed 35 votes in his Senate career.^[25]

In June 2015, Grassley introduced legislation to help protect taxpayers from alleged abuses by the Internal Revenue Service. The legislation was proposed in response to recent events involving alleged inappropriate conduct by employees at the IRS but was opposed by Democrats.^[26]

Since first taking office in 1981, Grassley has held public meetings in all of Iowa's 99 counties each year, even after losing honorarium payments for them in 1994.^[27] This has led to the coinage of the term "full Grassley," to describe when a United States presidential candidate visits all 99 counties of Iowa before the Iowa caucuses.^[28]

Political positions

Abortion

Grassley has stated that he considers himself to be pro-life and has expressed concern regarding the potential for abortions to be paid for with federal funds.^[29]

Energy and environment

Grassley has expressed concern about the impact of regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency on farming.^[30]

In September 2015, Grassley received the Dr. Harold D. Prior "Friend of Iowa Wind Energy" award from the Iowa Wind Energy Association for his commitment to supporting wind energy development in Iowa. Also in 1992, Grassley authored the federal wind energy tax credit.^[31] Grassley supports federal ethanol subsidies.^[32]

Estate taxes

“	I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.	”
— Chuck Grassley, The Hill^[33]	— Chuck Grassley, The Hill^[33]	— Chuck Grassley, The Hill^[33]

Grassley is in favor of repealing the estate tax, which is a tax on inherited assets above $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for couples.^[34] Grassley has argued that the estate is potentially ruinous for farmers and small business owners.^[35] According to the Des Moines Register, Grassley's argument does not "match the reality found in federal tax data – particularly for Iowa. The estate tax applies to around 5,000 taxpayers across the entire country each year, and very few of them come from Iowa. Of the Iowans subject to the tax, only a fraction are actually farmers, and a vanishingly small number of them face a tax bill requiring them to sell off farmland or other assets... The number of small businesses impacted by the estate tax is similarly small... about 94 estates annually that hold half or more of their assets in a small business that heirs will continue to operate after the owners die. And fewer than half of these don’t have the cash on hand to pay the tax."^[35]

Gun law

Grassley has an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) for his consistent support of NRA-supported gun-related laws and ongoing sponsoring and authoring of legislature.^[36]

Grassley is a staunch believer that gun laws will not prevent gun deaths or gun-related violence without improved mental health care.^[37]

In 2016, one month after the Orlando nightclub shooting, Grassley proposed legislature to state-to-state expand access to background check data and to make it illegal for government officials to sell criminals guns as part of sting operations. Both proposals were rejected by the Senate.^[38] Additionally, he voted against the Democrat's Feinstein Amendment, which would make it illegal to sell guns to individuals on the terror watchlist and a Republican sponsored bill that expanded funding for background checks.^[39]

In early 2017, Grassley sponsored legislation that expanded access to mentally disabled individuals, claiming that the previous ban against mentally ill individuals purchasing guns "mistreats disabled Americans."^[40]

In response to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Grassley stated that it was unlikely that gun laws would change in the wake of the shooting due to Congress being Republican dominated.^[41]

Health care

Grassley has been critical of the Affordable Care Act but does not believe the law can be completely repealed. He believes some degree of bipartisanship will be necessary to make changes to the law. He believes a solution will likely involve removing unpopular aspects of the law, like the individual mandate, while keeping popular aspects of it that deal with pre-existing conditions and the ability for children to remain on their parents' plans longer.^[42] Grassley believes that the Senate's version of the AHCA (the repeal of the ACA passed by the House), will provide health insurers certainty. Asked if not passing legislation would also provide certainty, he replied that it would, but at higher premiums. He said that with the proposed legislation premiums "maybe wouldn't go up or would go up a heck of a lot less than they would without a bill."^[43]

Marijuana

In 2015, Grassley voiced his opposition to a bipartisan senate bill, The Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act, that would move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II. This bill would allow states with medical cannabis laws to legally prescribe it and allow for much easier research into its medical efficacy.^[44]

Other

Grassley was given the American Legion's distinguished public service award for his support of a "strong national defense, service members, veterans and the American flag", primarily due to his support for a flag protection amendment.^[45]

Russian interference in 2016 presidential election

Main article: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

In February 2017, Grassley said that while Russian interference in U.S. elections was "bothersome", the United States did not have clean hands and had, for instance, interfered with the 1948 Italian election.^[46]

After President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, Grassley advised people suspicious of the Trump administration to "Suck it up and move on."^[47] On October 31, 2017, while facing questions from reporters concerning recent indictments, Grassley refused to answer and instead fled the area.^[48]

Whistleblowers

The author of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Grassley has campaigned to increase protection and provide support for "whistleblowers". He has supported a number of FBI whistleblowers, including Coleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds, and Jane Turner, although not supporting Department of Defense whistleblower Noel Koch.^[49]

Grassley received a lifetime achievement award on May 17, 2007 from the National Whistleblower Center. In April 2014, Grassley announced plans to create a caucus in the Senate dedicated to strengthening whistleblower protections.^[50]

Investigations

Religious organizations

On November 5, 2007, Grassley announced an investigation into the tax-exempt status of six ministries under the leadership of Benny Hinn, Paula White, Eddie L. Long, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, and Kenneth Copeland by the United States Senate Committee on Finance.^[51] In letters to each ministry, Grassley asked for the ministries to divulge specific financial information to the committee to determine whether or not funds collected by each organization were inappropriately utilized by ministry heads.^[52] By the December 6, 2007 deadline, only three of the ministries had shown compliance with the Finance Committee's request. On March 11, 2008, Grassley and Finance Chairman Max Baucus sent follow-up letters to Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar and Eddie Long, explaining that the Senate reserved the right to investigate the finances of their organizations under federal tax laws.^[53]

Medical research

Grassley also began an investigation about unreported payments to physicians by pharmaceutical companies. Grassley led a 2008 Congressional Investigation which found that well-known university psychiatrists, who had promoted psychoactive drugs, had violated federal and university regulations by secretly receiving large sums of money from the pharmaceutical companies which made the drugs.^[54] The New York Times reported that Dr. Joseph Biederman of Harvard University had failed to report over a million dollars of income that he had received from pharmaceutical companies.^[55] Weeks later, Business Week reported that Grassley alleged that Alan Schatzberg, chair of psychiatry at Stanford University, had underreported his investments in Corcept Therapeutics, a company he founded.^[56] Dr. Schatzberg had reported only $100,000 investments in Corcept, but Grassley stated that his investments actually totalled over $6 million. Dr. Schaztberg later stepped down from his grant which is funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).^[57]

Similarly, Dr. Charles Nemeroff resigned as chair of the psychiatry department at Emory University after failing to report a third of the $2.8 million in consulting fees he received from GlaxoSmithKline. At the time he received these fees, Nemeroff had been principal investigator of a $3.9 million NIH grant evaluating five medications for depression manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.^[58]

In 2008, for the first time, Grassley asked the American Psychiatric Association to disclose how much of its annual budget came from drug industry funds. The APA said that industry contributed 28% of its budget ($14 million at that time), mainly through paid advertising in APA journals and funds for continuing medical education.^[59]

Political campaigns...

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in 2010, the industries that have been the largest contributors to Grassley during his political career are health professionals ($1 million in contributions), insurance industry ($997,674), lawyers/law firms ($625,543) and pharmaceuticals/health products ($538,680). His largest corporate donors have been Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance, Amgen biotech company and Wells Fargo bank.^[64]

hillary bs deflection

Senators are getting in on the act as well. Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wants Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe fired because his wife is a Democrat and he's suspected of having been hostile to Trump during the election (which apparently translates into him covering up Hillary Clinton's crimes). Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has become downright hysterical:

Senator Rand Paul

@RandPaul

Time to investigate high ranking Obama government officials who might have colluded to prevent the election of @realDonaldTrump! This could be WORSE than Watergate!

https://www.alternet.org/economy/3-noxious-myths-about-poor-republicans-are-using-slash-social-safety-net

Republicans continue to use long-debunked myths about the poor as they defend lower taxes for the richand deep cuts to the social safety netto pay for them. In so doing, they are essentially expressing scorn for working class and low-income Americans.

Sen. Chuck Grassley,for example, recently justified reducing the number of wealthy families exposed to the estate tax as a way to recognize “the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

Similarly, Sen. Orrin Hatchraised concerns about funding certain entitlement programs. “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything,” he said.

These statements, the likes of which I expect we’ll all hear more of in coming months, reinforce three harmful narratives about low-income Americans: People who receive benefits don’t work, they don’t deserve help and the money spent on the social safety net is a waste of money.

Based on my research and 20 years of experience as a clinical law professor representing low-income clients, I know that these statements are false and only serve to reinforce misconceptions about working class and poor Americans.

Food participants get an average of $125 a month, hardly enough to feed a family without earning money as well.

Most welfare recipients are makers not takers

The first myth, that people who receive public benefits are “takers” rather than “makers,” is flatly untrue for the vast majority of working-age recipients.

Consider Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, formerly known as food stamps, which currently serve about 42 million Americans. At least one adult in more than half of SNAP-recipient households are working. And the average SNAP subsidy is $125 per month, or $1.40 per meal – hardly enough to justify quitting a job.

As for Medicaid, nearly 80 percent of adults receiving Medicaid live in families where someone works, and more than half are working themselves.

In early December, House Speaker Paul Ryan said, “We have a welfare system that’s trapping people in poverty and effectively paying people not to work.”

Not true. Welfare – officially called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families – has required work as a condition of eligibility since then-President Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996. And the earned income tax credit, a tax credit for low- and moderate-income workers, by definition, supports only people who work.

Workers apply for public benefits because they need assistance to make ends meet. American workers are among the most productive in the world, but over the last 40 years the bottom half of income earners have seen no income growth. As a result, since 1973, worker productivity has grown almost six times faster than wages.

In addition to wage stagnation, most Americans are spending more than one-third of their income on housing, which is increasingly unaffordable. There are 11 million renter households paying more than half their income on housing. And there is no county in America where a minimum wage worker can afford a two-bedroom home. Still, only 1 in 4 eligible households receive any form of government housing assistance.

To be sure, there are recipients of public benefits who do not work. They are primarily children, the disabled and the elderly – in other words, people who cannot or should not work. These groups constitute the majority of public benefits recipients.

Society should support these people out of basic decency, but there are self-interested reasons as well. To begin with, all working adults have been children, will someday be old and, at any time, might face calamities that take them out of the workforce. The safety net exists to rescue people during these vulnerable periods. Indeed, most people who receive public benefits leave the programs within three years.

Moreover, many public benefits pay for themselves over time, as healthier and financially secure people are more productive and contribute to the overall economy. For example, every dollar in SNAP spending is estimated to generate more than $1.70 in economic activity.

Similarly, Medicaid benefits are associated with enhancing work opportunities. The earned income tax credit contributes to work rates, improves the health of recipient families and has long-term educational and earnings benefits for children.

The current federal minimum wage is hardly enough to feed a family. AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato

What the needy deserve

10/23

https://www.thedailybeast.com/three-weeks-after-las-vegas-legislation-to-ban-bump-stocks-has-stalled-out-in-congress

Three weeks after the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history, efforts to pass even scaled-down gun-control legislation have effectively stalled on Capitol Hill.

Congressional aides and issue advocates say they see no viable path for passing even the most promising bill: an effort to ban the manufacturing and sale of bump stocks, which were used by the Las Vegas shooter to essentially turn his semi-automatic weapons into fully automatics ones.

“Depressing but not surprising,” is how one senior House Democratic aide put it.

“It’s pathetic,” said another.

The failure of lawmakers to move bump stock legislation comes despite the willingness of several House Republicans to sign on to the measure. A bill introduced by Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Seth Moulton (D-MA) has 20 co-sponsors in total—ten Democratic and ten Republican. But aides say that there is no indication that the House Judiciary Committee is going to consider that bill, or a similar one signed by 173 Democrats. Democrats are expected to ask the Committee’s chairman, Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), to address the matter in the week ahead.

Prospects look bleak in the Senate too. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) bill banning bump stocks has 39 Democratic co-sponsors but not one Republican, though an aide said that she is still hopeful that she can convince one to sign on to the measure. Even were she to find a GOP co-sponsor there is no guarantee that the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), would bring the bill up for consideration.

A committee spokesman for Grassley told The Daily Beast that the committee has been briefed about “regulatory and technical issues involving bump stocks” and that they are “evaluating potential regulatory and legislative proposals.”

omg 180

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/opinion/congress-says-let-the-mentally-ill-buy-guns.html For all their dysfunction, the Republican Senate and House have managed to act with lightning speed in striking down a sensible Obama administration rule designed to stop people with severe mental problems from buying guns.President Trump, who championed the National Rifle Association agenda as a candidate, is expected to sign the regressive measure. This, despite the Republican mantra that tighter control of mentally troubled individuals — not stronger gun control — is the better way to deal with the mass shootings and gun carnage that regularly afflict the nation.The Senate voted Wednesday to join the House in revoking the rule. It would have required the Social Security Administration to add about 75,000 people, currently on disability support, to the national background check database and deny them gun purchases. These individuals suffer schizophrenia, psychotic disorders and other problems to such an extent that they are unable to manage their financial affairs and other basic tasks without help.allowing them to buy guns poses an inordinate and needless risk to public safety. An existing law bars gun purchases to people “adjudicated as a mental defective” or involuntarily committed to a mental institution. But enforcement of that law has been spotty, because medical records often aren’t added to the federal databases — thus prompting the Obama administration to create the Social Security rule. Congress struck down the rule with Republican majorities — and some Democrats notably up for re-election next year — contending that the Second Amendment rights of these troubled, disabled individuals have to be the prime concern.Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, envisioned people with “an eating disorder” being barred from buying a gun. To the contrary, the rule was focused narrowly on disabled individuals who require a trustee for personal management. They would have had the right to appeal. Senator Grassley himself noted last year the flaws in the background check database when he proposed greater cooperation among federal agencies with relevant information.“The Republicans are so hypocritical on this issue,” said Senator Christopher Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut. He has fought for both stronger gun controls and better mental health care in the aftermath of the 2012 school massacre in Newtown, Conn. A mentally troubled individual used a legally purchased assault weapon and shot to death 20 children and six school workers. The disability rule was a response to that tragedy after Congress refused to tighten gun safety laws.“I hope something truly awful doesn’t happen because of this,” Senator Murphy said of Congress’s repeal of the new rule. Americans can only join in that hope while Congress continues to bend to the will of the gun industry. =Similarly, Ole Anthony wrote very critically of televangelists in 1994.[12]A proportion of their methods and theology are held by some to be conflicting with Christian doctrine taught in long existing traditionalist congregations. Many televangelists are featured by "discernment ministries" run by other Christians that are concerned about what they perceive as departures from sound Christian doctrine