Friday Reads: Massive Respect to Congressman Jamie RaskinPosted: April 29, 2022
Good Day Sky Dancers!
The tone of speeches in the House of Representatives–pretty much from its inception–has always had outliers that prefer to rage against the other side rather than behave in a strict parliamentarian manner. The brilliant prosecutor and representative Jamie Raskin was called-out for using unparliamentary language against, of all people, Majorie Taylor Greene. The pearl-clutching is pretty amazing given the antics of Ms. Green have been so shameful she no longer holds any seats on any committee. But, sure, let’s call out Mr. Raskin for speaking the truth to crazy.
The controversial words were calling her “cheerleader for the insurrection.” That sounds like a pretty accurate description to me. Frankly, I wish more congress critters would stand up to these people on the floor and elsewhere. They deserve to be maligned for their actions and words. But then, watch Raskin’s speech to see what you think before I start going to the Beltway pundits and pearl-clutchers. Also, ask yourself wtf is that woman wearing on the floor of the House of the People? Is that outfit professional or do they have Pajama Thursdays now? The speeches were about setting up rules of the debate on a program of lend/lease for Ukraine similar to the one used for the United Kingdom of Great Britain prior to U.S. entry into World War 2. It wasn’t a PJ party.
So, I don’t see what all the fuss is about do you? However, some old white Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania complained. This is from The Hill which notes Raskin’s apology.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Thursday withdrew words he made on the floor after he called Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) a “cheerleader for the insurrection,” admitting that he had used “unparliamentary language” on the House floor.
Raskin, the lead manager during former President Trump’s second impeachment trial in 2021, did so after Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.) asked for Raskin’s words to be taken down, a request that is made if lawmakers use offensive language or make remarks that could be considered unparliamentary.
The dispute took place during a debate on the rule for the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, legislation that would essentially speed up the delivery of military aid to Ukraine as it fights off an invasion by Russia.
Raskin criticized Greene immediately after her own two-minute speech on the bill. Greene had not mentioned Ukraine in her own remarks, but had focused on what she said was an “invasion” at the southern border. Greene has been critical of the Biden administration’s immigration policies.
“Gentlelady talked about a massive invasion. We had a massive invasion of our own chamber. And she continued to be a cheerleader for the insurrection, and deny what happened here,” an animated Raskin said.
Reschenthaler at that point asked for Raskin’s words to be taken down.
There was then a pause of about 15 minutes in proceedings before Raskin asked for unanimous consent to withdraw his words, which was agreed to without objection. He admitted to using “unparliamentary language.”
Check him out on Twitter. He appears to be another big fat liar for the right.
The real news that concerns Congressman Raskin is his role on the January 6 committee and what we know about the upcoming Public Hearings. This is the best news I’ve heard in some time. This is breaking news from NBC: “Jan. 6 committee to hold series of hearings starting in June The hearings will start June 9, with some taking place in prime time and others during the day.”
There will be as many as eight hearings, the first on June 9, with some scheduled for prime time and others during the day, he said.
Thompson told reporters as he left the Capitol on Thursday that the public will hear from outside witnesses, people “we’ve not heard from before,” adding that “their testimony will be on point as to why this investigation was so important.”
“We’ll tell the story about what happened,” he said. “We will use a combination of witnesses, exhibits, things that we have through the tens of thousands of exhibits we’ve interviewed and looked at, as well as the, you know, hundreds of witnesses we’ve deposed or just talked to in general.”
Jamie Raskin gave us a bit of hope with his press interview yesterday. Here’s a bit of what he said via MSNBC and Steve Benen: ‘Raskin: Jan. 6 probe to expose previously unreported crimes. Jamie Raskin said we’ll soon learn about crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack “that have not yet been alleged.”‘
There’s been ample speculation of late about whether the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack will make criminal referrals to the Justice Department, most notably against Donald Trump. In fact, The New York Times reported this past weekend that the question of whether the former president crossed legal lines has effectively already been answered.
The evidence suggests the former president obstructed a congressional proceeding and conspired to defraud the American people, which could serve as the basis for a criminal referral to federal prosecutors. The report came two weeks after a federal judge released a ruling in a civil case that concluded Trump “likely attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress” on Jan. 6, which would be a crime.
Judge David Carter added, “The illegality of the plan was obvious…. Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”
But as striking as these revelations are, there’s no reason to assume that we know the full scope of the possible criminal misconduct. Rep. Jamie Raskin spoke yesterday to The Washington Post and suggested new revelations are on the way.
“We have not been shy about criminal evidence we encounter, and our report will be profuse in setting forth crimes that have not yet been alleged. But, having said that, we are not a prosecutorial entity. Our job is to make a report to Congress and the American people about what happened on Jan. 6 and what needs to be done to prevent coups and insurrections going forward.”
When the Post asked whether there will be consequences for those behind the insurrectionist violence, the Maryland Democrat added, “As in most mob-style investigations, the Department of Justice seems to be working its way up from the bottom to the top. They have charged a lot of people with violent assault, destruction of federal property, interference with a federal proceeding and now, increasingly, seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to overthrow the government.”
I will never forget this nor should any other present or future citizen of the U.S.
Well, that’s interesting too. And, I imagine he has some dirt on MTG which is sure to raise eyebrows and justify his words on the floor. There are a few interesting ‘guests’ that will be questioned next month by the Committee.
Rudy Giuliani is expected to appear next month before the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The expected appearance comes after months of negotiations between lawmakers and the former mayor of New York, who served as former President Donald Trump’s personal attorney for much of his presidency.
Giuliani, a central figure in Trump’s failed bid to overturn the 2020 election, was subpoenaed by the committee in January and has been engaging with lawmakers, through his lawyer, about the scope of the subpoena and whether he may be able to comply with some requests.
In its subpoena, the committee alleges Giuliani “actively promoted claims of election fraud on behalf of the former President and sought to convince state legislators to take steps to overturn the election results.” The subpoena also states Giuliani was in contact with Trump and members of Congress “regarding strategies for delaying or overturning the results of the 2020 election.”
CNN has previously reported that Giuliani oversaw efforts in December 2020 to put forward illegitimate electors from seven states that Trump lost, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the scheme.
CNN also has previously reported that Giuliani may be willing to testify about claims of election fraud but that he did not intend to waive executive or attorney-client privilege.It is unclear whether the committee has agreed to honor Giuliani’s concerns about privilege, but he can invoke privilege protections in response to individual questions if he so chooses.
As with other witnesses under subpoena, the committee has previously said it expected Giuliani to “cooperate fully.” The committee declined to comment Wednesday on Giuliani’s expected appearance.
So, that’s it from me today! It’s Friday so there’s got to be more things coming! BTW, all the artists’ gardens paintings in today’s post were suggested in this article from The Guardian written by Sarah Crompton in 2016. “Flower power: the gardens that caused modern art to bloom.” There are stories about each of these artists.