Podcasts about executive branch

Billy and Adam audition for the red, white and blue. In this episode they take the American Citizenship test. What is the constitution? Who runs the Executive Branch? And what is Adam's state capital? Plus, a recap of their recent trip to the red carpet, a stars and stripes scoring system, off the menu American trivia, multiple pledges of allegiance and more! Theme: Send Medicine - Way to the Sea Follow Billy Scafuri:Twitter: @BillyScafuri // Instagram: @BillyScafuri Follow Adam Lustick:Instagram: @AdamLustickSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Gubernatorial candidate, Jamie Reitenour, sits down with the boys in the JSP studio to discuss her heart for Hoosiers and what motivated her to get into the hot 2024 race for Indiana's Executive Branch. 

Dr. Ben Carson of the American Cornerstone Institute joins to discuss the organization's new project called  the Executive Branch for America series.  It's an educational course that teaches civic minded conservatives (mostly college students and younger DC types) how to navigate the executive branch and the dos and don'ts of the federal government, so they are more impactful when they start at the White House or an agency. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: On Monday, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that removed Disney's “special status” in Florida. Caroline Downey, of National Review, writes: “The bill gives the governor the authority to appoint all five governing board members for the Reedy Creek Improvement District, a departure from the previous arrangement in which Disney was able to appoint all board members, allowing the storied entertainment company control over services and development within the special district.” You can read Downey's recap at: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/desantis-signs-bill-to-take-control-of-disneys-special-district/ While speaking with Brian Kilmeade, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush endorsed Ron DeSantis for president in 2024. Does DeSantis really want Bush's endorsement? Can President Joe Biden unilaterally cancel $400 billion in student loan debt? In 2021, even former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated, “it would take an act of Congress, not an executive order, to cancel student loan debt.” On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Biden v. Nebraska and will ultimately decide if the Executive Branch possesses this authority—or if it's exceeding its power. REPLAY: Congressman Guy Reschenthaler—Representative for Pennsylvania's 14th District and Serves on the House Appropriations Committee & the House Committee on Rules—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Pennsylvania resident Marc Fogel's continued detainment in a Russian prison. Why hasn't the Biden Administration prioritized Fogel's safe return? Rep. Reschenthaler also discusses the U.S. Energy Department's conclusion that COVID-19 likely originated via a laboratory leak in Wuhan, China.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (02/27/2023): 3:05pm- According to a Wall Street Journal report, the United States Energy Department “has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak, according to a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and key members of Congress.” Michael R. Gordon and Warren P. Strobel note, “[t]he Energy Department's conclusion is the result of new intelligence and is significant because the agency has considerable scientific expertise and oversees a network of U.S. national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research.” You can read the full report at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a?mod=hp_lead_pos2 3:20pm- Congressman Guy Reschenthaler—Representative for Pennsylvania's 14th District and Serves on the House Appropriations Committee & the House Committee on Rules—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Pennsylvania resident Marc Fogel's continued detainment in a Russian prison. Why hasn't the Biden Administration prioritized Fogel's safe return? Rep. Reschenthaler also discusses the U.S. Energy Department's conclusion that COVID-19 likely originated via a laboratory leak in Wuhan, China. 3:45pm- In a new opinion editorial in The New York Post, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathon Turley argues that one of the most important stories associated with the COVID-19 laboratory leak theory is the media's desperate attempt to censor it. 4:00pm- Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) remains voluntarily hospitalized and is receiving treatment for clinical depression. What is the status of his health? His aides say he is doing well and “on a path to recovery.” 4:10pm- Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs & White House Spokesperson John Kirby addressed the press on Monday—defending the Biden Administration's decision to continue to support gain-of-function research despite revelations from the Department of Energy that COVID-19 likely spread via a laboratory leak. 4:15pm- FLASHBACK: On February 8th, National Institutes of Health Acting Director Dr. Lawrence A. Tabak told a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing that the viruses being studied at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, bore no resemblance to the one that is responsible for the worldwide pandemic. 4:20pm- FLASHBACK: The Daily Caller put together a montage of notable personalities and government officials dismissing the “lab leak theory” as a Donald Trump-initiated conspiracy theory. The montage includes Joy Reid, Joe Scarborough, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the New York Times' Maggie Haberman, and several experts from CNN and MSNBC. Will anyone admit they were wrong? 4:30pm- While speaking with Martha Raddatz on ABC, journalist Terry Moran stated that he believes President Joe Biden should visit East Palestine, Ohio as the community continues to deal with a toxic chemical spill resulting from a February 3rd train derailment. 4:40pm- When asked by White House press if he plans to visit East Palestine, Ohio, President Joe Biden said he already did a “Zoom” with the community and expressed no interest in visiting in-person. He also hilariously said the video conferencing application “Zoom” reminded him of the Aretha Franklin song, “Who's Zoomin' Who?” 5:00pm- “The Drive at 5” is BACK: Why did the media completely dismiss the possibility of a laboratory leak being responsible for COVID-19? FLASHBACK: In April of 2020, NPR claimed that science had “debunked” the theory. For months, media members claimed that anyone suggesting there was a possibility that COVID-19 originated via a laboratory leak was conspiratorial and xenophobic. Those lines of attack were initially iterated by a Chinese Ambassador attempting to shield Chinese leadership from criticism during an interview with Face the Nation in February of 2020. Why did American media do exactly what China wanted? 5:40pm- According to a report from Fox News Digital, the House Oversight Committee has learned that Hunter Biden considered one of his business partners a “close confidant and counsel” to then-Vice President Joe Biden in 2014. 5:50pm- Actor Woody Harrelson hosted this past weekend's episode of Saturday Night Live—joking about a film script he was given where drug cartels forced citizens into lockdowns until they take certain drugs. Unsurprisingly, the monologue ruffled feathers. 6:05pm- On Monday, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that removed Disney's “special status” in Florida. Caroline Downey, of National Review, writes: “The bill gives the governor the authority to appoint all five governing board members for the Reedy Creek Improvement District, a departure from the previous arrangement in which Disney was able to appoint all board members, allowing the storied entertainment company control over services and development within the special district.” You can read Downey's recap at: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/desantis-signs-bill-to-take-control-of-disneys-special-district/ 6:10pm- While speaking with Brian Kilmeade, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush endorsed Ron DeSantis for president in 2024. Does DeSantis really want Bush's endorsement? 6:20pm- Can President Joe Biden unilaterally cancel $400 billion in student loan debt? In 2021, even former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated, “it would take an act of Congress, not an executive order, to cancel student loan debt.” On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Biden v. Nebraska and will ultimately decide if the Executive Branch possesses this authority—or if it's exceeding its power. 6:40pm- REPLAY: Congressman Guy Reschenthaler—Representative for Pennsylvania's 14th District and Serves on the House Appropriations Committee & the House Committee on Rules—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Pennsylvania resident Marc Fogel's continued detainment in a Russian prison. Why hasn't the Biden Administration prioritized Fogel's safe return? Rep. Reschenthaler also discusses the U.S. Energy Department's conclusion that COVID-19 likely originated via a laboratory leak in Wuhan, China.

We've talked about the Legislative and Judicial Branches. Now, it's time to learn what the Executive Branch does!

This week, Fordham Law School professor and Author of The People's Courts, Jed Shugerman, Ph.D. joins Abby in the classroom to explain the role of the Department of Justice. Jed shares why the DOJ was established and the role it plays within the United States government. He also answers a question on the appointing of a special counsel and the role of the U.S. Attorney General. Later, Abby and Jed unpack how the DOJ holds the Executive Branch accountable for any evidence of corruption and the misuse of their authority. Keep up with Abby after class on Twitter: @AbbyHornacek Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (02/23/2023): 3:05pm- According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, the United States will expand its troop presence in Taiwan—specifically to train Taiwanese forces with weapon systems to prevent Chinese invasion of the island. What is the Biden Doctrine? Chinese leader Xi Jinping is planning to meet with Russian leader Vladmir Putin in Moscow in the coming months—alarmingly, China is considering providing the Russian military with lethal military aid. Are we moving closer to direct conflict with China? 3:30pm- As the Biden Administration sends troops to Taiwan and continues to send military equipment and financial assistance to Ukraine, is the executive branch exceeding its constitutional authority? While appearing on Fox News, Senator Mike Lee implored European allies to “pony up” money to support Ukraine's defense against Russian predations, explaining that the United States shouldn't be forced to unilaterally foot the bill. 3:45pm- On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Gonzalez v. Google LLC. According to Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal writes, “Supreme Court justices reacted skeptically…to claims that YouTube parent Google LLC could be sued for algorithms that automatically recommended extremist recruiting videos” in a legal case that tests “the liability of internet providers for material posted online.” Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shield social media companies from liability for “content uploaded to their platforms”? During arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas compared YouTube's platform to a telephone company—explaining: “If you call information and ask for al-Baghdadi's number and they give it to you, I don't see how that's aiding and abetting.” 4:00pm- During Thursday's episode of The View, host Joy Behar suggested that, because East Palestine, Ohio voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election, the community got what it deserved when a train derailed on February 3rd, 2023 and released toxic chemicals throughout the area. 4:10pm- Even MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski has now called out Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for waiting several weeks to visit East Palestine, Ohio following a train derailment that released toxic chemicals throughout the community. On Thursday afternoon, Sec. Buttigieg finally visited East Palestine. 4:20pm- While visiting East Palestine, Ohio on Wednesday, former President Donald Trump stopped by a local McDonald's—treating firemen, police, first responders, and community members in attendance to lunch. 4:30pm- While appearing at a CNN town hall with Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw, lifelong East Palestine resident Jim Stewart heartbreakingly explained how the train derailment, and subsequent chemical spill, has taken his hometown and happy life away from him. 4:45pm- Mary Louise Kelly and Jaclyn Jeffrey-Wilensky of NPR produced a report stating that it is “misinformation” to say whales washing-up on New Jersey beaches are the result of offshore wind development's usage of sonar. So, who do you believe—NPR or Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore? 5:00pm- Vitor Milo— Postdoctoral Research Fellow with the Open Health Project at George Mason University's Mercatus Center—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his research study, “Indoor Vaccine Mandates in US Cities, Vaccination Behavior, and COVID-19 Outcomes” which concludes that there is no evidence indicating that citywide vaccine mandates did anything to stop the spread of COVID-19. You can read the research study at: https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/indoor-vaccine-mandates-and-covid-19 5:25pm- Did NATO just post the worst tweet ever? 5:35pm- While speaking at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa on Wednesday, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) explained that “fentanyl isn't the only poison” harming America—warning that the victim mentality being pushed by politicians is also incredibly dangerous. 5:50pm- Vice President Kamala Harris is talking about Venn diagrams…again. How does she manage to weave Venn diagrams into every conversation she has?

Matt returns for an episode to help break Ryan from a news cycle that will not die not matter how many Executive Branch officials have to get raided by the thugs of Joe Biden's crooked FBI (that's a joke, but seriously, you're great FBI, no notes this time.) Matt opens up the show by spinning a tale of deceit, lust, intemperance, and a lovely Delta Airlines customer service representative named after a snack icon Little Debbie (I assume). Then they go on to discuss a final, yes FINAL Groundhog's Day themed question shared by listener Diana, followed by a second topic  from Diana about a snow plow naming contest. Finally, Matt and Ryan offer some commentary on the discourse surrounding recently lost Chinese spy balloons. Find Don't Wreck Yourself on Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and gmail @wreckyourpod Find us online at www.wreckyourpod.com Find Matt high as fuck on his couch most days, or you can... Find Matt on TikTok and Instagram @mattsaintcool Find Matt on Twitter @mattbsaintsing   Chat with Don't Wreck Yourself and dozens of other podcasters on the PodCast Nexus Discord server... https://discord.gg/z5GMvpmyTZ

Over the weekend, it seemed every news cycle was talking about the number of times the Biden Administration scrambled jets to shoot down some invading UFOs. There have been at least three additional incidents following the downing of the Chinese surveillance balloon that was allowed to traverse the whole of the United States of America. Besides the coast of South Carolina, we can now add Alaska, Canada (or as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre calls it, Canadia) and over Lake Huron in Michigan. With all of this coverage on the bright shiny bauble, I am reminded to start paying attention to what the Legacy/mainstream media is NOT reporting. A train derailment in Ohio, within miles of the Pennsylvania border, is at the center of what might be one of the biggest ecological disasters to ever hit that region. As a means of "clearing" up the spill, Norfolk Southern Railway decided to ignite the leaking chemicals rather than risk an explosion. As Silverado Caggiano, a hazardous materials specialist, put it, "We basically nuked a town with chemicals so we could get a railroad open." And while Karine Jean-Pierre was touting the hiring of an openly gay White House Comms person, where was our other demographic hire, Pete Buttigieg? He has still said nothing about it after 10 days. The Biden Administration continues to show us how using demographics alone is the worst possible way to find qualified people to work. It's a joke, but we aren't really laughing. On top of the hearings taking place, revealing the collusion between the Executive Branch and Big Tech, the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, and the ongoing search for classified documents, it's no wonder the regime needs all the help they can get from the Legacy/mainstream media to divert your attention. And, there is yet the issue of vaccine injuries and damage that can no longer be silenced. Dr. Ryan Cole now shows the spike protein may be responsible for causing lymphocytes to chew a hole in the aorta. This is the biggest blood vessel in your body. When that ruptures, you're gone in minutes. Once again, nothing this regime wants talked about on the nightly news. To end on what may be a more humourous note, we need to bring you another episode of Deep Thoughts with VP Kamala Harris. She once again shows us she thinks every audience is comprised of 8 year old's and she's the Romper Room teacher. Hopefully, it provides a little bit of laughter, though the reality of just how pathetic and ill-qualified so many are in the White House, it can be equally depressing. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. You can also support the show by visiting my Patreon page!

The Executive Branch was never meant to control millions of employees in multiple unconstitutional agencies. It's time to cap the number of Federal employees in our government,

Today's I continue to look at some of the work being done by the House Oversight Subcommittee, looking into the weaponization of the agencies under the Executive Branch to go after political opponents and silence Americans. While Democrats scoff and think the Committee is a waste of time, the good work being done should be listened to by all Americans. After listening to today's show, if you honestly believe there is not a culture of rot in our government, then you are unreachable and part of the problem. We open with a back and forth between Representative Kat Cammack (R-FL) and the current head of the National Institute of Health, Dr. Tabak. This one instance is a perfect microcosm to illustrate why this Committee is critical in restoring a fair and non-oppressive government. Next we hit other topic discussed including the FBI labeling parents “domestic terrorists” and the sheer number of whistle-blowers from within the Bureau who cannot believe the corruption that has taken root within. Just hearing a “sample” of the many issue brought to the Committee is overwhelming. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Elise Stefanik (R-NY) layout cases for just how deep and wide the cultural rot is inside the FBI. I close on the hearing with a short sound bite from Representative Jim Jordan who appeared on a radio show discussing the First Amendment. In that bite, he explains that in the last few years, the Left, who used to revere speech, have change to no longer respecting it whatsoever. Their “cancel culture” is all about controlling everyone, silencing dissenters and those who oppose their agenda. Finally, I wanted to end with a topic I hold dearly. For the last few years, the Left and the woke ideologues have been waging a war against men and masculinity. To try to win, they do what they always have done, redefine the meaning of the word. So, to help, I need everyone to understand what true masculinity is. What we are currently seeing in our society is an example of what happens when men are NOT taught what is means to be masculine. It's not about physical strength or intimidation. In fact, it is the polar opposite. It takes two halves of humanity to make a whole. Children need both the masculine and the feminine in their lives and to deny one is to ruin the whole. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. You can also support the show by visiting my Patreon page!

[Encore Episode -- originally recorded 1/17/2017] Bio Tiffany Cross (@tifcrossmyheart) is brings 20 years of relationships, outreach, and storytelling to The Beat, Washington's inclusive political pulse.  Having spent significant time working in newsrooms, covering Capitol Hill, managing in-house corporate public affairs, working on campaigns, and navigating communities of color, she brings a unique set of skills that casts a wide net of influence. Understanding the intersection of press, partnerships, politics, and policy, Tiffany has a proven record of excellent relationships in the private and public sectors, media, the entertainment industry, and civic and social justice organizations.  Most recently, Tiffany served as a Senior Advisor for the National Education Association (NEA)  and its three million members. In this capacity, she liaised with the public sector, traditional and niche media markets, constituency groups, and civic and social justice organizations. She worked with NEA leadership on branding and positioning and was responsible for forging strategic partnerships, internal and external messaging, conducting scans on grassroots and grasstop organizations, and engaging communities in bilateral conversations on education, labor, and civic and social justice issues.  Before joining the NEA, Tiffany served as the Manager of News & Public Affairs and the Liaison to the Executive Branch for Black Entertainment Television (BET) Networks. Her work at BET included coordinating with the Democratic National Convention and Republican National Convention in 2008, executing the network's participation in the 2008 Presidential election, brand enhancement for the network, and advising on BET's political and social agenda.  Tiffany's broad experience includes guest booking for CNN's Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz, covering Capitol Hill for Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, and working as an Associate Producer for Capital Gang. She was also a former Producer at America's Most Wanted and Director of Communications for Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies where she worked on the Obama for America Presidential Campaign and secured high-level visibility for company president Cornell Belcher. In this episode, we discussed: how Tiffany's personal journey has informed her approach to creating value for her network. Tiffany's key strategies and mindset hacks for building powerful professional relationships in Washington.  how 'The Beat' is helping policy professionals in Washington stay on top of what's happening and find relevant networking opportunities.     Resources: The Beat (send news leads to: info@thebeatdc.com) The Raben Group Task Rabbit The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver   NEWS ROUNDUP Donald Trump named former New York City Mayor and early Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani as an informal cybersecurity advisor. He'll head the President-elect's cybersecurity working group. Abby Phillip in the Washington Post writes that, since leaving the New York City Mayorship, Giuliani has started his own cybersecurity consulting firm-Giuliani Partners. Now a bunch of people are saying, "What the hell does Guiliani know about cybsecurity?" Well, Motherboard's Jason Koebler and Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai looked into it and found some folks familiar with Giuliani and Partners' work ... It turns out their expertise is more along the lines of telling companies how to legally cover their asses if they're the victim of  cyberbreach, as opposed to advising on actual cybersecurity solutions. So it's looking like this job is more of a thank you for to Giuliani for his help during the campaign. It also turns out, as Rob Price at Business Insider found, that Giuliani's company website--giulianisecurity.com--is replete with vulnerabilities. -- You've heard all about Trump's dossier--people calling him PEEOTUS and things like that on Twitter, so we won't go into all the details on that--especially since the dossier is still largely unsubstantiated. But Scott Shane put together a nice summary just in case you don't want to sit there all day trying to figure out what's going on with this. Basically, this all started when the Republicans retained a company called Fusion GPS to look into Trump to figure out how to hurt him politically. Then, when it turned out he was going to be the Republican nominee, the Clinton campaign took over and retained Fusion to continue the investigation. The dossier has been floating around Washington for quite sometime, but the President and President-elect were briefed on it, and  that's when it made its way to the public via BuzzFeed and other sites. Mr. Trump says the entire dossier is a total fabrication. But if it's a total fabrication--it's pretty detailed, so someone must have had a lot of time on their hands. In any case, the FBI is investigating the claims ... although no one knows if Trump will authorize that investigation to continue. Some are also wondering why FBI Director James Comey was so interested in Hillary Clinton's email but not this. So this issue isn't going away anytime soon, basically, is the takeaway here. -- Matt Hamilton at the LA Times reports that BackPage--the classified ad website -- shut down its adult section last week after the U.S. Senate released a scathing report accusing the company of hiding targeted search terms related to prostitution and child abuse. BackPage Founders Michael Lacey and and James Larkin were scheduled to testify before the Senate Committee on Homeland and Governmental Affairs' subcommittee on investigations. The committee's report alleges that its review of some 1.1 million documents revealed evidence that the company facilitated sex trafficking and child abuse. Testimony from a BackPage site moderator seems to show the company actively removed search terms so they wouldn't lose ad revenue, but still keep the ads posted without actively promoting crimes. But BackPage says it adheres to the the Communications Decency Act which provides immunity to websites that host content by third parties. The company also claimed the government investigation was an violation of its First Amendment Rights One children's advocate--Lois Lee--founder of Children of the Night--even said the site has actually helped law enforcement identify predators and locate missing children. But Senators Bob Portman--the Republican from Ohio and as Democratic Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill--both of who led the bi-partisan investigation-- say BackPages's decision to shut down the adult section shows how damning the evidence they uncovered was.   -- Congress has selected its leadership for its communications and tech-related committees. Senate Commerce Committee Chair John Tune announced that Mississippi Republican Senator Roger Wicker will lead the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Greg Walden announced Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn, who opposes net neutrality and prevented efforts to build municipal broadband networks, will lead the House Communications and Technology subcommittee. Jon Brodkin reports in Ars Technica. -- Aaron Smith at Pew reports that a record number of Americans have smartphones and access to broadband at home. Seventy-seven percent of Americans have smartphones, with explosive growth among adults over age 50. Americans with access to broadband at home increased 6 points to 73%. Also, Seventy percent of Americans use social media and half own a tablet. -- iPhone app purchasers may sue Apple for not allowing them to purchase apps outside of the Apple store, according to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, overturning the lower court's ruling. The decision doesn't affect the merits of the case brought against Apple, but if the plaintiff's win, it could open the door for more competition in the app market. Stephen Nells and Dan Levine have the story in Reuters. -- The independent prosecutor in South Korea investigating the corruption scandal that has led to the suspension of the country's first female president -- Park Geun-hye -- has asked a local court to issue an arrest warrant for Lee Jae--yong--the head of Samsung. The prosecutors allege Lee used corporate money to bribe Park for favors. The court is expected to review the request on Wednesday. Anna Fifield has more at the Washington Post.  -- Finally, The Email Privacy Act is alive again, after passing unanimously in the House and dying in the Senate last year. The bill would require authorities to get warrants for emails as well as social media data, including data older than 180 days. It would also allow providers to notify their customers that their information was requested. The bill was introduced by Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kan.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.). John Eggerton has the story in Multichannel News. 

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: 3:05pm- According to a report from NJ.com, the New Jersey state government spent $522,000 in COVID-19 relief money on the purchase of eight SUVs used to transport Governor Phil Murphy and other state officials. Murphy's administration also spent an estimated $15 million to improve the state's prospects of hosting the 2026 World Cup. 3:10pm- Republican Dave McCormick is exploring the idea of running against U.S. Senator Bob Casey Jr. in 2024. In 2022, McCormick lost the Republican nomination for Pat Toomey's vacated Senate seat.  3:20pm- According to a report from CNN's Senior Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid, the Justice Department was fully prepared to seek a warrant to search President Joe Biden's Wilmington, Delaware home had Biden's team not consented to a search. Reid emphasized that “there could be more searches.”  3:35pm- Speaking with the press on Wednesday, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) explained that Congress should have access to the classified documents discovered at President Biden's home and UPenn office. Cotton argued that it's necessary to review the documents in order to properly assess whether they could have impacted national security. Cotton also said he would like to review the classified documents discovered at Mike Pence's Indiana home. The Executive branch has not yet granted bipartisan requests for access to the aforementioned documents.  3:45pm- Remember that time when Joe Biden plagiarized a speech initially delivered by former leader of Britain's Labour Party Neil Kinnock?  4:05pm- New York Times journalist & “1619 Project” author Nikole Hannah Jones will be paid an astounding $33,350 to deliver a one-hour lecture at Fairfax County Public Library—Northern Virginia taxpayers will pay the exorbitant speaker fee.  4:30pm- While appearing on Fox News, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo applauded Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy's decision to remove Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) from the House Intelligence Committee. Pompeo accused Schiff of routinely leaking classified information while serving on the committee.  4:40pm- Zeoli complains about “having” to go to a black-tie event. What a burden! 4:45pm- While speaking with Charlie Kirk, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis endorsed Harmeet Dhillon over Ronna McDaniel for Republican National Committee Chairwoman. McDaniel has been RNC Chairwoman since 2017. 4:50pm- Meta has restored former President Donald Trump's Facebook page. The Washington Post writes, “[b]eing reinstated to Facebook means Trump will be able to resume fundraising to his presidential campaign.”  5:00pm- Dr. EJ Antoni—Research Fellow for Regional Economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his most recent opinion editorial for Fox Business, “GDP Report Reveals Ominous Great Depression Warning Sign Not Seen Since 1932.” Read the article at: https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/gdp-report-reveals-ominous-great-depression-warning-sign-1932 5:20pm- In a Philadelphia Inquirer opinion editorial, Adam Sanchez, a teacher at Central High School in Philadelphia, denounced the Union League's decision to honor Florida Governor Ron DeSantis earlier this week. Sanchez baselessly accused DeSantis of forbidding the teaching of racism and slavery in public schools—critiquing the Governor's comprehension of American history. Ironically, Sanchez concludes his editorial by espousing the beliefs of historian Howard Zinn, a Marxist with a history of making unsubstantiated claims, and the Zinn Education Project—even revealing that he uses material from the Zinn Education Project in his lesson plans. Daniel J. Flynn of George Washington University documents Zinn's most outlandish history rewrites. For example, in “A People's History of the United States,” Zinn writes of America's founding: “certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power.” Flynn notes Zinn completely rejects the idea America was founded on liberty and equality. Why is this being taught to kids in Philadelphia's public schools?  5:45pm- While delivering a speech on Thursday, President Joe Biden made a joke about people thinking he's “stupid” mere moments before forgetting the name of a Congressperson in attendance.  6:05pm- On Twitter, the Associated Press Stylebook recommended not using dehumanizing “the” labeling. The examples they provided: “the poor, the mentally ill, the French.” What? 6:10pm- Appearing on “The Midnight Miracle” podcast, comedian Dave Chappelle stated that his jokes don't incite violence—but people protesting his jokes frequently justify violence in order to get their way. 6:20pm- On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate held a hearing to determine if Live Nation Entertainment has become a monopoly. Musical artist Clyde Lawrence told Senators that Live Nation Entertainment controls the “promoter, venue, and ticketing company.”  6:30pm- President Biden's U.S. District Judge nominee Charnelle Marie Bjelkengren was unable to tell Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) what is discussed in Article II or V of the United States Constitution.  6:45pm- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly says she's in New York…while standing in front of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington D.C.

In today's episode I speak with Jenni Katzman who is a government & policy lawyer with experience in all three branches of government, several political campaigns, and non-profit advocacy organizations. Currently, she is the General Counsel and Chief of Domestic Policy for Senator Ron Wyden (D-Or). Before working on Capitol Hill, Jenni worked as a Director of Policy Development and Programming at the American Constitution Society and before that in the Executive Branch at the White House, DOJ, and the Department of Education, and as a Voter Protection Counsel for the Obama for America Campaign. Prior to her career in policy, she worked in private practice at two different law firms and served as a law clerk to a federal judge. She is a graduate of Duke and Cornell Law. In our conversation we discuss her path to the law, her experience clerking after several years in private practice, the transition from litigation to policy work, the roles that lawyers play on Capitol Hill and in the Executive Branch, what its like to be a lawyer in a fast-paced presidential campaign, the power of not just saying no but also trying to come up with creative solutions to get to yes, why diversity is so important on Capitol Hill and throughout the government, what distinguishes policy work from other areas of legal practice, and the importance of speaking up as a junior lawyer. This episode is sponsored, edited, and engineered by LawPods, a professional podcast production company for busy attorneys. Want to Support the Podcast in 2 minutes or less? Leave a Review (this helps the algorithm connect me to new listeners) Subscribe on iTunes or Spotify Purchase How I Lawyer Merchandise Share on LinkedIn or Twitter

Dina Ellis Rochkind is a Counsel, Government Affairs and Strategy in the Paul Hastings Government Affairs practice and is based in the firm's Washington, D.C. office. Her practice focuses on representing clients before Members of Congress on Capitol Hill and the Executive Branch. Ms. Rochkind represents clients in matters involving regulatory initiatives, policymaking and legislation, and enforcement actions. Ms. Rochkind's legislative experience allows her to advise clients on the latest client initiatives, from starting a business, to Bitcoin and blockchain technologies. What will be discussed? -How has the FTX collapse changed regulatory outlooks for the crypto markets?-SEC, CFTC, or a joint effort? Who is leading the way in the regulatory scope for digital assets today? -When can we expect regulatory clarity on digital assets in the United States?

The January 6th Committee investigation is over and four criminal charges against former President Donald Trump have been referred to the Justice Department by the Committee. In this episode, hear a summary of 23 hours of testimony and evidence presented by the Committee which prove that former President Trump went to extraordinary and illegal lengths to remain President, despite losing the 2020 Election. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the shownotes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd266-contriving-january-6th Executive Producer Recommended Sources “PREPARED REMARKS: Sanders Files Amendment on Microchip Legislation to Restrict Blank Check Corporate Welfare.” Jul 19, 2022. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot CD228: The Second Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump The Final Committee Report “Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the Capitol,” [House Report 117-663] 117th Congress Second Session. Dec 22, 2022. U.S. Government Publishing Office. The January 6th Committee “Inside the Jan. 6 Committee.” Robert Draper and Luke Broadwater. Dec 23, 2022. The New York Times Magazine. 2020 Election Litigation “Litigation in the 2020 Election.” Oct 27, 2022. The American Bar Association. “‘Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered.'” Daniel Funke. Feb 9, 2021. PolitiFact. January 6th Security Failures “Capitol Attack: The Capitol Police Need Clearer Emergency Procedures and a Comprehensive Security Risk Assessment Process,” [GAO-22-105001] February 2022. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Electors and Vote Certification Process “Who Are Electors And How Do They Get Picked?” Domenico Montanaro. Dec 14, 2020. NPR. “About the Electors.” May 11, 2021. U.S. National Archives. John Eastman “Who is John Eastman, the Trump lawyer at the center of the Jan. 6 investigation?” Deepa Shivaram. Jun 17, 2022. NPR. “About Us.” The Federalist Society. “The Eastman Memo.” Trump and Georgia “The Georgia criminal investigation into Trump and his allies, explained.” Matthew Brown. Nov 22, 2022. The Washington Post. “Here's the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger.” Amy Gardner and Paulina Firozi. Jan 5, 2021. The Washington Post. AG Bill Barr Interview “In exclusive AP interview, AG Barr says no evidence of widespread election fraud, undermining Trump.” Mike Balsamo. Dec 11, 2020. “Barr tells AP that Justice Dept. hasn't uncovered widespread voting fraud that could have changed 2020 election outcome.” Dec 1, 2020. The Associated Press. Past Electoral Vote Challenges “Post Misleadingly Equates 2016 Democratic Effort to Trump's 2020 ‘Alternate Electors.'” Joseph A. Gambardello. Jun 29, 2022. FactCheck.org. “Democrats challenge Ohio electoral votes.” Ted Barrett. Jan 6, 2005. CNN. Fake Electors “What you need to know about the fake Trump electors.” Amy Sherman. Jan 28, 2022. PolitiFact. “Exclusive: Federal prosecutors looking at 2020 fake elector certifications, deputy attorney general tells CNN.” Evan Perez and Tierney Sneed. Jan 26, 2022. CNN. “American Oversight Obtains Seven Phony Certificates of Pro-Trump Electors.” Mar 2, 2021. American Oversight. Censure of Cheney & Kinzinger “Read the Republican Censure of Cheney and Kinzinger.” Feb 4 2022. The New York Times. Audio Sources 12/19/22 Business Meeting December 19, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol 10/13/22 Business Meeting October 13, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Featured speakers: Kayleigh McEnany, Former White House Press Secretary Molly Michael, Former Executive Assistant to the President Pat Cipollone, Former White House Counsel Clips Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Why would Americans assume that our Constitution, and our institutions, and our Republic are invulnerable to another attack? Why would we assume that those institutions will not falter next time? A key lesson of this investigation is this: Our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold, regardless of the political cost. We have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time. Any future president inclined to attempt what Donald Trump did in 2020 has now learned not to install people who could stand in the way. And also please consider this: The rulings of our courts are respected and obeyed, because we as citizens pledged to accept and honor them. Most importantly, our President, who has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws, swears to accept them. What happens when the President disregards the court's rulings is illegitimate. When he disregards the rule of law, that my fellow citizens, breaks our Republic. January 6 Committee Lawyer: To your knowledge, was the president in that private dining room the whole time that the attack on the Capitol was going on? Or did he ever go to, again only to your knowledge, to the Oval Office, to the White House Situation Room, anywhere else? Kayleigh McEnany: The the best of my recollection, he was always in the dining room. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did they say, Mr. Meadows or the President, at all during that brief encounter that you were in the dining room? What do you recall? Gen. Keith Kellogg: I think they were really watching the TV. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Do you know whether he was watching TV in the dining room when you talked to him on January sixth? Molly Michael: It's my understanding he was watching television. January 6 Committee Lawyer: When you were in the dining room in these discussions, was the violence of capital visible on the screen on the television? Pat Cipollone: Yes. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): A federal appeals court in Pennsylvania wrote, quote, "charges require specific allegations and proof. We have neither here." A federal judge in Wisconsin wrote, quote, "the court has allowed the former President the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits." Another judge in Michigan, called the claims quote, "nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were either destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden." A federal judge in Michigan sanctioned nine attorneys, including Sidney Powell, for making frivolous allegations in an election fraud case, describing the case as a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process. Recently, a group of distinguished Republican election lawyers, former judges and elected officials issued a report confirming the findings of the courts. In their report entitled "Lost, Not Stolen," these prominent Republicans analyzed each election challenge and concluded this: Donald Trump and his supporters failed to present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. On December 11, Trump's allies lost a lawsuit in the US Supreme Court that he regarded as his last chance of success in the courts. Alyssa Farah: I remember maybe a week after the election was called, I popped into the Oval just to like, give the President the headlines and see how he was doing and he was looking at the TV and he said, "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?" Cassidy Hutchinson: Mark raised it with me on the 18th and so following that conversation we were in the motorcade ride driving back to the White House, and I said, like, "Does the President really think that he lost?" And he said, "A lot of times he'll tell me that he lost, but he wants to keep fighting it and he thinks that there might be enough to overturn the election, but, you know, he pretty much has acknowledged that he, that he's lost. 07/12/22 Select Committee Hearing July 12, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jason Van Tatenhove, Former Oath Keepers Spokesperson Stephen Ayres, January 6th Defendant Clips Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): According to White House visitor logs obtained by the Committee, members of Congress present at the White House on December 21 included Congressmen Brian Babin (TX), Andy Biggs (AZ), Matt Gaetz (FL), Louie Gohmert (TX), Paul Gosar (AZ), Andy Harris (MD), Jody Hice (R-GA), Jim Jordan (OD), and Scott Perry (PA). Then Congresswoman-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA) was also there. Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): We've asked witnesses what happened during the December 21 meeting and we've learned that part of the discussion centered on the role of the Vice President during the counting of the electoral votes. These members of Congress were discussing what would later be known as the "Eastman Theory," which was being pushed by Attorney John Eastman. 06/28/2022 Select Committee Hearing June 28, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Cassidy Hutchinson, Former Special Assistant to the President and Aide to the Chief of Staff Clips 9:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Today's witness, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, is another Republican and another former member of President Trump's White House staff. Certain of us in the House of Representatives recall that Ms. Hutchinson once worked for House Republican whip Steve Scalise, but she is also a familiar face on Capitol Hill because she held a prominent role in the White House Legislative Affairs Office, and later was the principal aide to President Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. 10:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): In her role working for the White House Chief of Staff, Miss Hutchinson handled a vast number of sensitive issues. She worked in the West Wing, several steps down the hall from the Oval Office. Miss Hutchinson spoke daily with members of Congress, with high ranking officials in the administration, with senior White House staff, including Mr. Meadows, with White House Counsel lawyers, and with Mr. Tony Ornato, who served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff. She also worked on a daily basis with members of the Secret Service who were posted in the White House. In short, Miss Hutchinson was in a position to know a great deal about the happenings in the Trump White House. 24:20 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On January 3, the Capitol Police issued a special event assessment. In that document, the Capitol Police noted that the Proud Boys and other groups planned to be in Washington DC on January 6, and indicated that quote, "unlike previous post election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter protesters, as they were previously, but rather, Congress itself is the target on the Sixth. 27:45 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Of course the world now knows that the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6 had many different types of weapons. When a President speaks, the Secret Service typically requires those attending to pass through metal detectors known as magnetometers, or mags for short. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): The Select Committee has learned about reports from outside the magnetometers and has obtained police radio transmissions identifying individuals with firearms, including AR-15s near the Ellipse on the morning of January 6. Let's listen. Police Officer #1: Blue jeans and a blue jean jacket and underneath the blue jacket complaintants both saw the top of an AR 15. Police Officer #2: Any white males brown cowboy boots, they had Glock-style pistols in their waistbands. Police Officer #3: 8736 with the message that subject weapon on his right hip. Police Officer #4: Motor one, make sure PPD knows they have an elevated threat in the tree South side of Constitution Avenue. Look for the "Don't tread on me" flag, American flag facemask cowboy boots, weapon on the right side hip. Police Officer #5: I got three men walking down the street in fatigues and carrying AR-15s. Copy at Fourteenth and Independence. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): We're going to show now an exchange of texts between you and Deputy Chief of Staff Ornato, and these text messages were exchanged while you were at the Ellipse. In one text, you write, "but the crowd looks good from this vantage point, as long as we get the shot. He was f---ing furious." But could you tell us, first of all, who it is in the text who was furious? Cassidy Hutchinson: The he in that text that I was referring to was the President. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): And why was he furious, Miss Hutchinson? Cassidy Hutchinson: He was furious because he wanted the arena that we had on the Ellipse to be maxed out at capacity for all attendees. The advanced team had relayed to him that the mags were free flowing. Everybody who wanted to come in had already come in, but he still was angry about the extra space and wanted more people to come in. Cassidy Hutchinson: And that's what Tony [Ornato] had been trying to relate to him [President Trump] that morning. You know, it's not the issue that we encountered on the campaign. We have enough space. They don't want to come in right now, they have weapons they don't want confiscated by the Secret Service. They're fine on the Mall, they can see you on the Mall and they want to march straight to the Capitol from the Mall. But when we were in the off stage announced tent, I was part of a conversation -- I was in the, I was in the vicinity of a conversation -- where I overheard the President say something to the effect of you know, "I don't think that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me take the effing mags away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in, take the effing mags away." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On December 1, 2020, Attorney General Barr said in an interview that the Department of Justice had now not found evidence of widespread election fraud, sufficient to change the outcome of the election. Ms. Hutchinson, how did the President react to hearing that news? Cassidy Hutchinson: I left the office and went down to the dining room, and I noticed that the door was propped open in the valet was inside the dining room changing the tablecloth off of the dining room table. The valet had articulated that the President was extremely angry at the Attorney General's AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Miss Hutchinson, Attorney General Barr described to the Committee the President's angry reaction when he finally met with President Trump. Let's listen. Former Attorney General Bill Barr: And I said, "Look, I I know that you're dissatisfied with me and I'm glad to offer my resignation" and then he pounded the table very hard. Everyone sort of jumped and he said "Accepted." Reporter: Leader McCarthy, Do you condemn this violence? Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA): I completely condemn the violence in the Capitol. What we're currently watching unfold is un-American. I'm disappointed, I'm sad. This is not what our country should look like. This is not who we are. This is not the First Amendment. This has to stop and this has to stop now. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Did White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a Presidential Pardon related to January 6? Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon. Yes, ma'am. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): While our committee has seen many witnesses, including many Republicans, testify fully and forthrightly, this has not been true of every witness. And we have received evidence of one particular practice that raises significant concern. Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's administration or campaign whether they'd been contacted by any of their former colleagues, or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony, without identifying any of the individuals involved. Let me show you a couple of samples of answers we received to this question. First, here's how one witness described phone calls from people interested in that witness's testimony. "What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know I'm on the right team, I'm doing the right thing, I'm protecting who I need to protect, you know, I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World. And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just keep that in mind as I proceed through my interviews with the committee." Here's another sample in a different context. This is a call received by one of our witnesses. "A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he's thinking about you. He knows you're loyal, and you're going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition." I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns. 06/23/22 Select Committee Hearing June 23, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jeffrey A. Rosen, Former Acting Attorney General Richard Donoghue, Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Steven Engel, Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Clips Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): From the time you took over from Attorney General Barr until January 3, how often did President Trump contact you or the Department to push allegations of election fraud? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: So between December 23 and January 3, the president either called me or met with me virtually every day, with one or two exceptions like Christmas Day Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ): Again, I join my colleagues in calling on Attorney General Barr to immediately let us know what he's doing. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ): We're already working on challenging the certified electors. And what about the court? How pathetic are the courts? Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): January 6, I'm joining with the fighters in the Congress, and we are going to object to electors from states that didn't run clean elections. Democracy is left undefended if we accept the result of a stolen election without fighting with every bit of vigor we can muster. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): The ultimate date of significance is January 6. This is how the process works. The ultimate arbiter here, the ultimate check and balance, is the United States Congress. And when something is done in an unconstitutional fashion, which happened in several of these states, we have a duty to step forward and have this debate and have this vote on the 6th of January. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So both the Acting Attorney General [Rosen] and I tried to explain to the President on this occasion, and on several other occasions that the Justice Department has a very important, very specific, but very limited role in these elections. States run their elections. We are not quality control for the states. We are obviously interested in and have a mission that relates to criminal conduct in relation to federal elections. We also have related civil rights responsibilities. So we do have an important role, but the bottom line was if a state ran their election in such a way that it was defective, that is to the state or Congress to correct. It is not for the Justice Department to step in. And I certainly understood the President, as a layman, not understanding why the Justice Department didn't have at least a civil role to step in and bring suit on behalf of the American people. We tried to explain that to him. The American people do not constitute the client for the United States Justice Department. The one and only client of the United States Justice Department is the United States government. And the United States government does not have standing, as we were repeatedly told by our internal teams. Office of Legal Counsel, led by Steve Engel, as well as the Office of the Solicitor General researched it and gave us thorough clear opinions that we simply did not have standing and we tried to explain that to the President on numerous occasions. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Let's take a look at another one of your notes. You also noted that Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Trump, quote, "DOJ can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election." How did the President respond to that, sir? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He responded very quickly and said, essentially, that's not what I'm asking you to do. What I'm just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: There were isolated instances of fraud. None of them came close to calling into question the outcome of the election in any individual State. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And was representative Gaetz requesting a pardon? Eric Herschmann: Believe so. The general tone was, we may get prosecuted because we were defensive of, you know, the President's positions on these things. A pardon that he was discussing, requesting, was as broad as you could describe, from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things. He had mentioned Nixon and I said Nixon's pardon was never nearly that broad. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And are you aware of any members of Congress seeking pardons? Cassidy Hutchinson: I guess Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks, I know, both advocated for, there to be a blanket pardon for members involved in that meeting and a handful of other members that weren't at the December 21 meeting as the preemptive pardons. Mr. Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon and he was doing so since early December. I'm not sure why. Mr. Gaetz had reached out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr. Meadows about receiving a Presidential pardon. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did they all contact you? Cassidy Hutchinson: Not all of them, but several of them did. January 6 Committee Lawyer: So you'd be mentioned Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks. Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Biggs did. Mr. Jordan talks about congressional pardons but he never asked me for one. It was more for an update on whether the White House is going to pardon members of Congress. Mr. Gohmert asked for one as well. Mr. Perry asked for a pardon too, I'm sorry. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Mr. Perry, did he talk to you directly? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, he did. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Clark was the acting head of the Civil Division and head of Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Do either of those divisions have any role whatsoever in investigating election fraud, sir? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: No. And and to my awareness, Jeff Clark had had no prior involvement of any kind with regard to the work that the department was doing. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Is there a policy that governs who can have contact directly with the White House? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. So across many administrations for a long period of time, there's a policy that particularly with regard to criminal investigations restricts at both the White House and the Justice Department and those more sensitive issues to the highest ranks. So for criminal matters, the policy for a long time has been that only the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General from the DOJ side can have conversations about criminal matters with the White House, or the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General can authorize someone for a specific item with their permission. But the idea is to make sure that the top rung of the Justice Department knows about it, and is in the thing to control it and make sure only appropriate things are done. Steven Engel: The purpose of these these policies is to keep these communications as infrequent, and at the highest levels as possible, just to make sure that people who are less careful about it who don't really understand these implications, such as Mr. Clark, don't run afoul of those contact policies. Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: He acknowledged that shortly before Christmas, he had gone to a meeting in the Oval Office with the President. That, of course, surprised me. And I asked him, How did that happen? And he was defensive, he said it had been unplanned, that he had been talking to someone he referred to as "General Perry," but I believe is Congressman Perry, and that, unbeknownst to him, he was asked to go to a meeting and he didn't know it, but it turned out it was at the Oval -- he found himself at the Oval Office. And he was apologetic for that. And I said, Well, you didn't tell me about it. It wasn't authorized. And you didn't even tell me after the fact. You know, this is not not appropriate. But he was contrite and said it had been inadvertent and it would not happen again and that if anyone asked him to go to such a meeting, he would notify [Former Acting Deputy Attorney General] Rich Donohue and me. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): On the same day Acting Attorney General Rosen told Mr. Clark to stop talking to the White House, Representative Perry was urging Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to elevate Clark within the Department of Justice. You can now see on the screen behind me a series of tasks between representative Perry and Mr. Meadows. They show that Representative Perry requested that Mr. Clark be elevated within the department. Representative Perry tells Mr. Meadows on December 26, that quote, "Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down, 11 days to January 6 and 25 days to inauguration. We've got to get going!" Representative Perry followed up and says quote, "Mark, you should call Jeff. I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won't work especially with the FBI. They will view it as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done." Mr. Meadows responds with "I got it. I think I understand. Let me work on the deputy position." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Mr. Donohue on December 28, Mr. Clark emailed you and Mr. Rosen a draft letter that he wanted you to sign and send to Georgia State officials. This letter claims that the US Department of Justice's investigations have quote, "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the state of Georgia." The letter also said this: quote, "in light of these developments, the Department recommends that the Georgia General Assembly should convene in special session," end quote, and consider approving a new slate of electors. Steven Engel: The States had chosen their electors, the electors had been certified, they'd cast their votes, they had been sent to Washington DC. Neither Georgia nor any of the other States on December 28, or whenever this was, was in a position to change those votes. Essentially, the election had happened. The only thing that hadn't happened was the formal counting of the votes. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: I had to read both the email and the attached letter twice to make sure I really understood what he was proposing because it was so extreme to me, I had a hard time getting my head around it initially. But I read it and I did understand it for what he intended and I had to sit down and sort of compose what I thought was an appropriate response. In my response, I explained a number of reasons this is not the Department's role to suggest or dictate to State legislatures how they should select their electors. But more importantly, this was not based on fact, that this was actually contrary to the facts, as developed by Department investigations over the last several weeks and months. So I responded to that. And for the Department to insert itself into the political process's way, I think would have had grave consequences for the country. It may very well have spiraled us into a Constitutional crisis. And I wanted to make sure that he understood the gravity of the situation because he didn't seem to really appreciate it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): President Trump rushed back early from Mar-a-Lago on December 31, and called an emergency meeting with the Department's leadership. Mr. Donohue, during this meeting, did the President tell you that he would remove you and Mr. Rosen because you weren't declaring there was election fraud? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: Toward the end of the meeting, the President, again was getting very agitated. And he said, "People tell me I should just get rid of both of you. I should just remove you and make a change in the leadership, put Jeff Clark and maybe something will finally get done." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Rosen during a January 2 meeting with Mr. Clark, did you confront him again about his contact with the President? And if so, can you describe that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: We had -- it was a contentious meeting where we were chastising him that he was insubordinate, he was out of line, he had not honored his own representations of what he would do. And he raised again, that he thought that letter should go out. And we were not receptive to that. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): So in that meeting, did Mr. Clark say he would turn down the President's offer if you reversed your position and sign the letter? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. Subsequently, he told me that on the on Sunday the 3rd. He told me that the timeline had moved up, and that the President had offered him the job and that he was accepting it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): White House Call Logs obtained by the Committee show that by 4:19pm, on January 3, the White House had already begun referring to Mr. Clark as the Acting Attorney General. Let's ask about that, what was your reaction to that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Well, you know, on the one hand, I wasn't going to accept being fired by my subordinate. So I wanted to talk to the President directly. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So the four of us knew, but no one else, aside from Jeff Clark of course, knew what was going on until late that Sunday afternoon. We chose to keep a close hold, because we didn't want to create concern or panic in the Justice Department leadership. But at this point, I asked the Acting AG [Rosen], what else can I do to help prepare for this meeting in the Oval Office, and he said, You and Pat [Cipollone] should get the Assistant Attorney Generals on the phone, and it's time to let them know what's going on. Let's find out what they may do if there's a change in leadership, because that will help inform the conversation at the Oval Office. We got most, not all, but most of the AAGs on the phone. We very quickly explained to them what the situation was. [They] essentially said they would leave, they would resign en mass if the President made that change in the department leadership. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): DOJ leadership arrived at the White House. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: The conversation this point was really about whether the President should remove Jeff Rosen and replace him with Jeff Clark. And everyone in the room, I think, understood that that meant that letter would go out. And at some point, the conversation turned to whether Jeff Clark was even qualified, competent to run the Justice Department, which in my mind, he clearly was not. And it was a heated conversation. I thought it was useful to point out to the President that Jeff Clark simply didn't have the skills, the ability and the experience to run the Department. And so I said, "Mr. President, you're talking about putting a man in that seat who has never tried a criminal case, who's never conducted a criminal investigation, he's telling you that he's going to take charge of the department, 115,000 employees, including the entire FBI, and turn the place on a dime and conduct nationwide criminal investigations that will produce results in a matter of days. It's impossible. It's absurd. It's not going to happen, and it's going to fail. He has never been in front of a trial jury, a grand jury. He's never even been to Chris Wray's office." I said at one point, "if you walked into Chris Wray's office, one, would you know how to get there and, two, if you got there, would he even know who you are? And you really think that the FBI is going to suddenly start following you orders? It's not going to happen. He's not competent." And that's the point at which Mr. Clark tried to defend himself by saying, "Well, I've been involved in very significant civil and environmental litigation. I've argued many appeals and appellate courts and things of that nature." And then I pointed out that, yes, he was an environmental lawyer, and I didn't think that was appropriate background to be running in the United States Justice Department. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Did anybody in there support Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: No one. Along those lines, he [former President Trump] said, "so suppose I do this, suppose I replace him, Jeff Rosen, with him, Jeff Clark, what would you do?" And I said, "Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I'm not working one minute for this guy [Clark], who I just declared was completely incompetent." And so the President immediately turned to to Mr. Engel. Steven Engel: My recollection is that when the President turned to me and said, "Steve, you wouldn't leave, would you?" I said, "Mr. President, I've been with you through four Attorneys General, including two Acting Attorneys General, but I couldn't be part of this." Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And I said, and we're not the only ones. No one cares if we resign. If Steve and I go, that's fine, it doesn't matter. But I'm telling you what's going to happen. You're gonna lose your entire Department leadership, every single AAG will walk out on you. Your entire Department of leadership will walk out within hours." And I said, "Mr. President, within 24...48...72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?" Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And then the other thing that I said was that, you know, look, all anyone is going to sort of think about when they see this...no one is going to read this letter....all anyone is going to think is that you went through two Attorneys General in two weeks until you found the environmental guy to sign this thing. And so the story is not going to be that the Department of Justice has found massive corruption that would have changed results of the election. It's going to be the disaster of Jeff Clark. I think at that point Pat Cipollone said, "Yeah, this is a murder suicide pact, this letter." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Cipollone, the White House Counsel, told the Committee that Mr. Engels response had a noticeable impact on the President, that this was a turning point in the conversation. Mr. Donohue, towards the end of this meeting, did the President asked you what was going to happen to Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He did. When we finally got to, I'd say, the last 15 minutes of the meeting, the President's decision was apparent, he announced it. Jeff Clark tried to scrape his way back and asked the President to reconsider. The President double down said "No, I've made my decision. That's it. We're not going to do it." And then he turned to me and said, "so what happens to him now?" Meaning Mr. Clark. He understood that Mr. Clark reported to me. And I didn't initially understand the question. I said, "Mr. President?" and he said, "Are you going to fire him?" And I said, "I don't have the authority to fire him. He's the Senate confirmed Assistant Attorney General." And he said, "Well, who has the authority to fire him?" And I said, "Only you do, sir." And he said, "Well, I'm not going to fire him." I said, "Alright, well, then we should all go back to work." 06/21/22 Select Committee Hearing June 21, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Rusty Bowers, Arizona House Speaker Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State Gabriel Sterling, Georgia Secretary of State Chief Operating Officer Wandrea ArShaye, “Shaye” Moss, former Georgia election worker Ronna Romney McDaniel, RNC Chair Justin Clark, former Trump Campaign lawyer Robert Sinners, former Trump campaign staffer Andrew Hitt, Former Wisconsin Republican Party Chair Laura Cox, Former Michigan Republican Party Chair Josh Roselman, Investigative Counsel for the J6 Committee John Eastman, Former Trump Lawyer Mike Shirkey, Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate Angela McCallum, Trump Campaign caller Rudy Giuliani Clips Josh Roselman: My name is Josh Roselman, I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol. Beginning in late November 2020. The President and his lawyers started appearing before state legislators, urging them to give their electoral votes to Trump, even though he lost the popular vote. This was a strategy with both practical and legal elements. The Select Committee has obtained an email from just two days after the election, in which a Trump campaign lawyer named Cleata Mitchell asked another Trump lawyer, John Eastman, to write a memo justifying the idea. Eastman prepared a memo attempting to justify this strategy, which was circulated to the Trump White House, Rudy Giuliani's legal team, and state legislators around the country and he appeared before the Georgia State Legislature to advocate for it publicly. John Eastman: You could also do what the Florida Legislature was prepared to do, which is to adopt a slate of electors yourself. And when you add in the mix of the significant statistical anomalies in sworn affidavits and video evidence of outright election fraud, I don't think it's just your authority to do that, but quite frankly, I think you have a duty to do that to protect the integrity of the election here in Georgia. Josh Roselman: But Republican officials in several states released public statements recognizing that President Trump's proposal was unlawful. For instance, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp called the proposal unconstitutional, while Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers wrote that the idea would undermine the rule of law. The pressure campaign to get state legislators to go along with this scheme intensified when President Trump invited delegations from Michigan and Pennsylvania to the White House. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Either you or speaker Chatfield, did you make the point to the President, that you were not going to do anything that violated Michigan law? Mike Shirkey: I believe we did. Whether or not it was those exact words or not, I think the words that I would have more likely used is, "we are going to follow the law." Josh Roselman: Nevertheless, the pressure continued. The next day President Trump tweeted quote, "hopefully the Courts and/or Legislatures will have the COURAGE to do what has to be done to maintain the integrity of our Elections, and the United States of America itself. THE WORLD IS WATCHING!!!!" He posted multiple messages on Facebook, listing the contact information for state officials and urging his supporters to contact them to quote "demand a vote on decertification." These efforts also involves targeted outreach to state legislators from President Trump's lawyers and from Trump himself. Angela McCallum: Hi, my name is Angela McCallum, I'm calling from Trump campaign headquarters in Washington DC. You do have the power to reclaim your authority and send us a slate of Electors that will support President Trump and Vice President Pence. Josh Roselman: Another legislator, Pennsylvania House Speaker Brian Cutler, received daily voicemails from Trump's lawyers in the last week of November. Cutler felt that the outreach was inappropriate and asked his lawyers to tell Rudy Giuliani to stop calling, but Giuliani continued to reach out. Rudy Giuliani: I understand that you don't want to talk to me now. I just want to bring some facts to your attention and talk to you as a fellow Republican. Josh Roselman: These ads were another element in the effort. The Trump campaign spent millions of dollars running ads online and on television. Commercial Announcer: The evidence is overwhelming. Call your governor and legislators demand they inspect the machines and hear the evidence. Fake electors scheme Casey Lucier: My name is Casey Lucier. I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol. On November 18, a lawyer working with the Trump campaign named Kenneth Chesebro wrote a memo arguing that the Trump campaign should organize its own electors in the swing states that President Trump had lost. The Select Committee received testimony that those close to President Trump began planning to organize fake electors for Trump in states that Biden won in the weeks after the election. At the President's direct request, the RNC assisted the campaign in coordinating this effort. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did the President say when he called you? Ronna Romney McDaniel: Essentially, he turned the call over to Mr. Eastman, who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing change the result of any dates, I think more just helping them reach out and assemble them. But the My understanding is the campaign did take the lead, and we just were helping them in that in that role. Casey Lucier: As President Trump and his supporters continued to lose lawsuits, some campaign lawyers became convinced that convening electors in states that Trump lost was no longer appropriate. Justin Clark: I just remember I either replied or called somebody saying, unless we have litigation pending this, like in the states, like, I don't think this is appropriate, or no, this isn't the right thing to do. I'm out. Matt Morgan: At that point, I had Josh Findlay email Mr. Chesebro, politely, to say, "This is your task. You are responsible for the Electoral College issues moving forward". And this was my way of taking that responsibility to zero. Casey Lucier: The Committee learned the White House Counsel's Office also felt the plan was potentially illegal. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And so to be clear, did you hear the White House Counsel's office saying that this plan to have alternate electors meet and cast votes for Donald Trump in states that he had lost was not legally sound? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, sir. Casey Lucier: The Select Committee interviewed several of the individual fake electors, as well as Trump campaign staff who helped organize the effort. Robert Sinners: We were just, you know, kind of useful idiots or rubes at that point. You know, a strong part of me really feels that it's just kind of as the road continued, and as that was failure, failure, failure that that got formulated as what do we have on the table? Let's just do it. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And now after what we've told you today about the Select Committee's investigation about the conclusion of the professional lawyers on the campaign staff, Justin Clark, Matt Morgan and Josh Findlay, about their unwillingness to participate in the convening of these electors, how does that contribute to your understanding of these issues? Robert Sinners: I'm angry, I'm angry. Because I think in a sense, you know, no one really cared if people were potentially putting themselves in jeopardy. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Would you have not wanted to participate in this any further, as well? Robert Sinners: I absolutely would not have had I know that the three main lawyers for the campaign that I've spoken to in the past, and were leading up, we're not on board. Yeah. Andrew Hitt: I was told that these would only count if a court ruled in our favor. So that would have been using our electors. Well, it would have been using our electors in ways that we weren't told about and we wouldn't have supported. Casey Lucier: Documents obtained by the Select Committee indicate that instructions were given to the electors in several states that they needed to cast their ballots in complete secrecy. Because the scheme involved fake electors, those participating in certain states had no way to comply with state election laws, like where the electors were supposed to meet. One group of fake electors even considered hiding overnight to ensure that they could access the State Capitol, as required in Michigan. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did Mr. Norton say who he was working with at all on this effort to have electors meet? Laura Cox: He said he was working with the President's campaign. He told me that the Michigan Republican electors were planning to meet in the Capitol and hide overnight so that they could fulfill the role of casting their vote per law in the Michigan chambers and I told him in no uncertain terms that that was insane and inappropriate. Casey Lucier: In one state, the fake electors even asked for a promise that the campaign would pay their legal fees if they got sued or charged with a crime. Ultimately, fake electors did meet on December 14, 2020 in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. At the request of the Trump campaign, the electors from these battleground states signed documents falsely asserting that they were the quote, "duly elected" electors from their state and submitted them to the National Archives and to Vice President Pence in his capacity as President of the Senate. In an email produced to the Select Committee, Dr. Eastman told the Trump campaign representative that it did not matter that the electors had not been approved by a state authority. Quote, "the fact that we have multiple slates of electors demonstrates the uncertainty of either. That should be enough." He urged that Pence "act boldly and be challenged." Documents produced to the Select Committee show that the Trump campaign took steps to ensure that the physical copies of the fake electors' electoral votes from two states were delivered to Washington for January 6. Text messages exchanged between Republican Party officials in Wisconsin show that on January 4, the Trump campaign asked for someone to fly their fake electors' documents to Washington. A staffer for Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson texted a staffer for Vice President Pence just minutes before the beginning of the Joint Session. This staffer stated that Senator Johnson wished to hand deliver to the Vice President the fake electors' votes from Michigan and Wisconsin. The Vice President's aide unambiguously instructed them not to deliver the fake votes to the Vice President. Even though the fake elector slates were transmitted to Congress and the Executive Branch, the Vice President held firm and his position that his role was to count lawfully submitted electoral votes. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Brad Raffensperger is the 29th Secretary of State of Georgia, serving in this role since 2019. As an elected official, and a Republican Secretary, Raffensperger is responsible for supervising elections in Georgia and maintaining the state's public records. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Speaker Bowers, thank you for being with us today. You're the speaker of the Arizona House and a self-described conservative Republican. You campaigned for President Trump and with him during the 2020 election. Is it fair to say that you wanted Donald Trump to win a second term in office? Please? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Thank you. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): And is it your understanding that President Biden was the winner of the popular vote in Arizona in 2020? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Before we begin with the questions that I had prepared for you, I want to ask you about a statement that former President Trump issued, which I received just prior to the hearing. Former President Trump begins by calling you a RINO, Republican in Name Only. He then references a conversation in November 2020, in which he claims that you told him that the election was rigged, and that he had won Arizona. To quote the former President, "during the conversation, he told me the election was rigged and that I won Arizona," unquote. Is that false? Rusty Bowers: Anywhere, anyone, anytime that has said that I said the election was rigged, that would not be true. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when the former President, in his statement today, claimed that you told him that he won Arizona, is that also false? Rusty Bowers: That is also false. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Mr. Bowers, I understand that after the election, you received a phone call from President Trump and Rudy Giuliani, in which they discussed the result of the presidential election in Arizona. If you would, tell us about that call. Rusty Bowers: Mr. Giuliani came on first. And niceties...then Mr. Trump, President Trump, then-President Trump came on. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): During the conversation did you ask Mr. Giuliani for proof of these allegations of fraud that he was making? Rusty Bowers: On multiple occasions, yes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when you asked him for evidence of this fraud, what did he say? Rusty Bowers: He said that they did have proof. And I asked him, "Do you have names?" [He said] for example, we have 200,000 illegal immigrants, some large number, five or six thousand, dead people, etc. And I said, "Do you have their names?" Yes. "Will you give them to me?" Yes. The President interrupted and said, "Give the man what he needs Rudy." He said, "I will." And that happened on at least two occasions, that interchange in the conversation. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you ever receive from him that evidence either during the call, after the call, or to this day? Rusty Bowers: Never. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): What was the ask during this call? Rusty Bowers: The ones I remember, were first, that we would hold -- that I would allow an official committee at at the Capitol so that they could hear this evidence, and that we could take action thereafter. I said, "to what end? To what end the hearing." He said, well, we have heard by an official high up in the Republican legislature that there is a legal theory or a legal ability in Arizona, that you can remove the the electors of President Biden and replace them. And we would like to have the legitimate opportunity, through the committee, to come to that end and and remove that. And I said that's, that's something that's totally new to me. I've never heard of any such thing. And I would never do anything of such magnitude without deep consultation with qualified attorneys. And I said, I've got some good attorneys, and I'm going to give you their names. But you're asking me to do something against my oath and I will not break my oath. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you also receive a call from US Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona on the morning of January 6? Rusty Bowers: I did. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And what did Mr. Biggs asked you to do? Rusty Bowers: I believe that was the day that the vote was occurring in each state to have certification or to declare the certification of the electors. And he asked if I would sign on both to a letter that had been sent from my State, and/or that I would support the decertification of the electors. And I said I would not. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Speaking Bowers, did the President call you again later in December? Rusty Bowers: He did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you tell the president in that second call that you supported him, that you voted for him, but that you are not going to do anything illegal for him? Rusty Bowers: I did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Nevertheless, his lawyer John Eastman called you some days later, and what did Dr. Eastman want you to do? Rusty Bowers: That we would, in fact, take a vote to overthrow -- or I shouldn't say overthrow -- that we would decertify the electors, and that we had plenary authority to do so. But I said, "What would you have me do?" And he said, "Just do it and let the court sorted out." And I said, "You're asking me to do something that's never been done in history, the history of the United States. And I'm going to put my state through that without sufficient proof? And that's going to be good enough with me? That I would, I would put us through that, my state that I swore to uphold, both in Constitution and in law? No, sir." Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): I want to look even more deeply at the fake electoral scheme. Every four years, citizens from all over the United States go to the polls to elect the President. Under our Constitution, when we cast our votes for president, we are actually voting to send electors pledged to our preferred candidate to the Electoral College. In December, the electors in each state meet, cast their votes, and send those votes to Washington. There was only one legitimate slate of electors from each state. On the Sixth day of January, Congress meets in a joint session to count those votes, and the winner of the Electoral College vote becomes the president. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Secretary Raffensburger, thank you for being here today. You've been a public servant in Georgia since 2015, serving first as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives, and then since January 2019, as Georgia Secretary of State as a self described conservative Republican. Is it fair to say that you wanted President Trump to win the 2020 election? Brad Raffensperger: Yes, it is. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Secretary Raffensperger, did Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and by what margin? Brad Raffensperger: President Biden carried the state of Georgia by approximately 12,000 votes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Bear in mind as we discuss this call today that by this point in time, early January, the election in Georgia had already been certified. But perhaps more important, the President of the United States had already been told repeatedly by his own top Justice Department officials that the claims he was about to make to you about massive fraud in Georgia were completely false. 06/16/22 Select Committee Hearing June 16, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Greg Jacob, Former Counsel to Vice President Mike Pence J. Michael Luttig, Retired judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and informal advisor to Mike Pence Julie Radford, Former Chief of Staff for Ivanka Trump Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Nicholas Luna, Former Assistant to President Trump Gen. Keith Kellogg, Former National Security Advisor to VP Pence Clips 16:45 Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Greg Jacob was Counsel to Vice President Pence. He conducted a thorough analysis of the role of the Vice President in the Joint Session of Congress under the Constitution, the Electoral Count Act, and 230 years of historical practice. But he also has firsthand information about the attack on the Capitol because he lived through it. He was with the Vice President and his own life was in danger. 31:05 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Eastman was, at the time, a law professor at Chapman University Law School. He prepared a memo outlining the nonsensical theory that the Vice President could decide the outcome of the election at the Joint Session of Congress on January 6. 32:50 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Dr. Eastman himself admitted in an email that the fake electors had no legal weight. Referring to the fake electors as, quote "dead on arrival in Congress" end quote, because they did not have a certification from their States. 46:40 Greg Jacob: We had a constitutional crisis in 1876 because in that year, multiple slates of electors were certified by multiple slates [sic]. And when it came time to count those votes, the antecedent question of "which ones?" had to be answered. That required the appointment of an independent commission. That commission had to resolve that question. And the purpose of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 had been to resolve those latent ambiguities. Now I'm in complete agreement with Judge Luttig. It is unambiguous that the Vice President does not have the authority to reject electors. There is no suggestion of any kind that it does. There is no mention of rejecting or objecting to electors anywhere in the 12th amendment. And so the notion that the Vice President could do that certainly is not in the text. But the problem that we had and that John Eastman raised in our discussions was, we had all seen that in Congress in 2000, in 2004, in 2016, there had been objections raised to various states. And those had even been debated in 2004. And so, here you have an Amendment that says nothing about objecting or rejecting. And yet we did have some recent practice of that happening within the terms of the Electoral Count Act. So we started with that. 1:20:45 Greg Jacob: He again tried to say, but I don't think the courts will get involved in this. They'll invoke the political question doctrine and so if the courts stay out of it, that will mean that we'll have the 10 days for the States to weigh in and resolve it. And then, you know, they'll send back the Trump slates of electors, and the people will be able to accept that. I expressed my vociferous disagreement with that point, I did not think that this was a political question. Among other things, if the courts did not step in to resolve this, there was nobody else to resolve it. You would be in a situation where you have a standoff between the President of the United States and, counterfactually, the Vice President of the United States saying that we've exercised authorities that, Constitutionally, we think we have by which we have deemed ourselves the winners of the election. You would have an opposed House and Senate disagreeing with that. You would have State legislatures that, to that point, I mean, Republican leaders across those legislatures had put together, had put out statements, and we collected these for the Vice President as well, that the people had spoken in their States and that they had no intention of reversing the outcome of the election. We did receive some signed letters that Mr. Eastman forwarded us by minorities of leaders in those States, but no State had any legislative house that indicated that added any interest in it. So you would have had just a an unprecedented Constitutional jump ball situation with that standoff. And as I expressed to him, that issue might well then have to be decided in the streets. Because if we can't work it out politically, we've already seen how charged up people are about this election. And so it would be a disastrous situation to be in. So I said, I think the courts will intervene. I do not see a commitment in the Constitution of the question, whether the Vice President has that authority to some other actor to resolve there. There's arguments about whether Congress and the Vice President jointly have a Constitutional commitment to generally decide electoral vote issues. I don't think that they have any authority to object or reject them. I don't see it in the 12th Amendment, but nonetheless. And I concluded by saying, "John, in light of everything that we've discussed, can't we just both agree that this is a terrible idea?" And he couldn't quite bring himself to say yes to that. But he very clearly said, "Well, yeah, I see we're not going to be able to persuade you to do this." And that was how the meeting concluded. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): We understand that the Vice President started his day on January 4 with a rally in Georgia for the Republican candidates in the US Senate runoff. When the Vice President returned to Washington, he was summoned to meet with the President regarding the upcoming Joint Session of Congress. Mr. Jacob, during that meeting between the President and the Vice President, what theories did Dr. Eastman present regarding the role of the Vice President in counting the electoral votes? Greg Jacob: During the meeting on January 4, Mr. Eastman was opining there were two legally viable arguments as to authorities that the Vice President could exercise two days later on January 6. One of them was that he could reject electoral votes outright. The other was that he could use his capacity as Presiding Officer to suspend the proceedings and declare essentially a 10-day recess during which States that he deemed to be disputed, there was a list of five to seven states, the exact number changed from conversation to conversation, but that the Vice President could sort of issue and demand to the State Legislatures in those States to re-examine the election and declare who had won each of those States. So he said that both of those were legally viable options. He said that he did not recommend, upon questioning, he did not recommend what he called the "more aggressive option," which was reject outright, because he thought that that would be less politically palatable. The imprimatur of State Legislature authority would be necessary to ultimately have public acceptance of an outcome in favor of President Trump. And so he advocated that the preferred course of action would be the procedural route of suspending the Joint Session and sending the election back to the States. And again, the Vice President's first instinct here is so decisive on this question, there's just no way that the framers of the Constitution who divided power and authority, who separated it out, who had broken away from George III, and declared him to be a tyrant, there was no way that they would have put in the hands of one person, the authority to determine who was going to be President of the United States. And then we went to history. We examined every single electoral vote count that had happened in Congress since the beginning of the country. And critically, no Vice President, in 230 years of history, had ever claimed to have that kind of authority, hadn't claimed authority to reject electoral votes, had not claimed authority to return electoral votes back to the States. In the entire history of the United States, not once had a Joint Session, ever returned electoral votes back to the States to be counted. So the history was absolutely decisive. And again, part of my discussion with Mr. Eastman was, if you were right, don't you think Al Gore might have liked to have known in 2000, that he had authority to just declare himself President of the United States? Did you think that the Democrat lawyers just didn't think of this very obvious quirk that he could use to do that? And of course, he acknowledged Al Gore did not and should not have had that authority at that point in time. So at the conclusion of the meeting on the 4th, the President had asked that our office meet with Mr. Eastman the next day to hear more about the positions he had expressed at that meeting, and the Vice President indicated that....offered me up as his counsel, to fulfill that duty. We had an extended discussion an hour and a half to two hours on January 5. What most surprised me about that meeting was that when Mr. Eastman came in, he said, "I'm here to request that you reject the electors." So on the 4th, that had been the path that he had said, "I'm not recommending that you do that." But on the 5th, he came in and expressly requested that. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Mr. Jacob did you, Mr. Short, and the Vice President have a call later that day, again, with the President and Dr. Eastman? Greg Jacob: So, yes, we did. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): And what did Dr. Eastman requested on that call? Greg Jacob: On that phone call, Mr. Eastman stated that he had heard us loud and clear that morning, we were not going to be rejecting electors. But would we be open to considering the other course that we had discussed on the 4th, which would be to suspend the Joint Session and request that State Legislatures reexamine certification of the electoral votes? Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Trump issued a statement claiming the Vice President had agreed that he could determine the outcome of the election, despite the fact that the Vice President had consistently rejected that position. Mr. Jacob, how did the Vice President's team reacts to the stat

As part of his bid to secure the position of Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has made a series of proposals in an effort to garner party support. One notable proposal calls for the gutting of the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent, non-partisan entity created in 2008 and tasked with reviewing allegations of misconduct against members, officers, and staff of the US House of Representatives. In light of recent pressure to investigate some House Republicans in regards to January 6th, as well as recent high-profile allegations against incoming congressman George Santos, ethics has taken center stage. In this episode, host Craig Williams joins guest Richard W. Painter, former Chief White House ethics lawyer and the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at University of Minnesota Law School, as they spotlight ethics and its role within Congress, SCOTUS, and the Executive branch.

As part of his bid to secure the position of Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has made a series of proposals in an effort to garner party support. One notable proposal calls for the gutting of the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent, non-partisan entity created in 2008 and tasked with reviewing allegations of misconduct against members, officers, and staff of the US House of Representatives. In light of recent pressure to investigate some House Republicans in regards to January 6th, as well as recent high-profile allegations against incoming congressman George Santos, ethics has taken center stage. In this episode, host Craig Williams joins guest Richard W. Painter, former Chief White House ethics lawyer and the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at University of Minnesota Law School, as they spotlight ethics and its role within Congress, SCOTUS, and the Executive branch.

In this episode, you'll learn the answer to the fifteenth possible question on your U.S. Citizenship Civics Test, "Who is in charge of the executive branch?" In addition to the question and answer, Andrea will provide a brief history lesson as well to help you understand the question and answer.As you prepare for your U.S. Citizenship Test, you can download my "Audio Pack", which includes all 100 civics lessons, a Citizenship Guide, and Audio Flash Cards for easy memorization of all 100 questions & answers at StudyWithAndrea.com/USA.Support the show

Before we get to this morning's segment on The Captain's America: Third Watch with Matt Bruce, I'd like to take a moment to talk about the attacks on New York City Police Department personnel on New Year's Eve into New Year's Day in the Big Apple.The FBI says the person who executed the machete attack on three law enforcement officers on New Year's Eve was on their radar, yet they didn't do anything about it; didn't do anything to get in front of this lone-wolf attack from an Islamofascist terrorist who was trying to make a statement and cause terror and chaos on New Year's Eve in the biggest city in the United States.I can't help but wonder. If the FBI were more focused on investigating and preventing real violent crime, real egregious crime in the United States and not being used for political persecution, like they are under the Biden administration – and probably were under the Obama administration quite honestly, then maybe this attack wouldn't have happened. Maybe they would have been paying enough attention to have circumvented this tragedy.The idea that the DoJ and the FBI have been politicized is completely anathema to what the United States Executive Branch is supposed to be.The Executive Branch is not supposed to have discretionary power to the level that it has today. It is supposed to execute well-written laws that Congress provides and the President signs into law. Right now we've got crap legislation coming out of Congress and they kick the can over to the Executive Branch to give the many departments and agencies regulatory power to literally create legislation. That's not the way it's supposed to work and you can thank Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and let's throw in LBJ as well for this situation.Our Department of Justice and our FBI have to get back to investigating real crimes and dispensing color-blind, gender-blind, and non-partisan justice when it's called for. What's happened to the DoJ and the FBI is beyond a tragedy. We are seeing the seeds sowed for despotism if we allow it to go any further…Underground USA is a reader-supported publication. Please consider helping the effort with a small contribution. Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe

On tonight's edition of the Other Side of Midnight: Frank kicks off the show talking about New York Congressman-elect George Santos being accused of faking his biography and wonders where Count Von Count is on Sesame Street. Then, Frank talks about Christmas movies vs. Hanukkah movies and Chat GPT which is an artificial intelligence that can instantaneously write generated stories. After, Frank is joined by Douglas Dean Johnson, researcher and writer on UAP-related activity in Congress and the Executive Branch about changes in UAP reporting in recently passed NDAA. Later, Frank asks if people who commit murder be allowed to publish scientific papers, and much more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Frank Morano interviews Douglas Dean Johnson, researcher and writer on UAP-related activity in Congress and the Executive Branch about changes in UAP reporting in recently passed NDAA. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's show is dedicated to The Twitter Files part 6, which dropped late Friday night and had a supplemental drop on Sunday night. The entire episode is about how the FBI treated Twitter like a wholly owned subsidiary, there to do the Bureau's bidding. In a series of tweets, Matt Taibbi shows the cozy relationship that blossomed between Twitter and the FBI. As the relationship grew, so did the volume of interactions, both through email and proprietary portals or platforms. What's clear is the FBI continued to act as though this were part of their mission to cut down on foreign interference in our election. However, when looking at the accounts or tweet flagged, they were all domestic, which is in direct opposition to the First Amendment. Through the course of the episode it is clear, Twitter had concerns about taking direction from the FBI. In a move that borders on intimidation, the agency suddenly issued a questionnaire to Twitter, stating their concerns that Twitter didn't see nearly as much propaganda as they did. The FBI also referenced concerns coming from the whole of the United States Intelligence Community. In essence, Twitter was strong-armed (to a degree) to take orders from the FBI and deal with the accounts as flagged. The relationship grew forward from there to where Twitter really was considered a subsidiary of the FBI, expected to heel and take orders like a good doggy. The fact the Legacy/mainstream media seems disinterested in what should be one of the biggest stories of our lifetime is all you need to know to realize how pervasive the corruption. The Legacy/mainstream media cannot risk reporting on this lest their own collusion with the Executive Branch to censor and propagandize Americans is revealed. What matters now is whether or not anything will be done. It's up to us to contact our representatives and see that everyone who pushed the wanton infringement of our First Amendment is removed from government permanently. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. You can also support the show by visiting my Patreon page!

Today will be just a little different. We are gearing up for our annual holiday shindig and so I've got a full schedule over the next two days. However, I still wanted to make sure to bring you a brand new episode. To start, I do open with breaking news. The Biden regime has decided on a prisoner swap with Russia. The colossal idiots in our White House have swapped the Merchant of Death for an America-hating bigot over a decorated Marine. I know I say this a lot, but you cannot make this up. Biden chose Britney Griner over Marine Paul Whalen. What a perfect microcosm to illustrate the rot currently infested in the Executive Branch. My next topic is my sit down interview with Dr. Tim Ryan. Dr. Ryan has been a medical practitioner for over three decades and is a recurring guest on my Saturday radio show. Recently, we sat down to talk about the overused (and usually misused) term, "misinformation,' especially as it relates to COVID and the nonsense that surrounded public health for over two years. It's important to be reminded that what gets labeled as misinformation today, often turns out to be true and vice versa. What's sad is how much faith the average person has lost in the competence of public health. It is at an all-time low and not showing any signs of improvement. And the more we learn about how dubious they played behind the scenes, the worse it gets. Maybe, going forward, we will all understand the sheer stupidity of putting our faith into a one-size-fits-all solution and realizing more voices and experts is better than locking people down who aren't towing the government line. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. You can also support the show by visiting my Patreon page!

This week on Facing the Future, we hear from Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Molly Reynolds who specializes in researching Congress. She says the failure of Congress to do the most basic things like pass an annual budget due to partisan polarization and dysfunction weakens the institution and dilutes its constitutionally protected role of appropriating government funds. At the same time, this emboldens Presidents to take unilateral executive actions such as forgiving student loans that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Lt. Governor Sheila Oliver has served in municipal government, county government, the State Legislature, and now Executive Branch. The Lt. Governor has always had a sense of compassion and commitment to those needing a Second Chance. As Commissioner of DCA during the pandemic, she lifted housing restrictions to enable NJRC to house, care, and feed persons in houses of worship.

In this week's special episode, we cover some key takeaways coming out of the 2022 midterm elections. Host Heather Horn sat down with Michael O'Brien of PwC's Office of Government, Regulatory Affairs, & Public Policy group to discuss how the midterm election outcomes may impact companies and what we can expect from Congress over the next two years.In this episode you'll hear:1:40 - An overview of the outcome of the midterm elections 7:40 - The impact of a split Congress on President Biden's legislative agenda13:42 - The key points companies should be aware of regarding the outcomes of state elections18:13 - What the results of the midterm elections mean for the SEC and PCAOB's agendas22:12 - Background on the upcoming Congressional leadership elections and their influence on future legislation28:44 - Ways President Biden might accomplish his agenda with a split Congress over the next two years35:28 - What to expect from the “lame duck” Congress over the next month40:33 - Advice for companies as they navigate the current period of uncertaintyWant to learn more about recent federal actions? Check out our podcast episode on the US government's proposal on federal contractor climate disclosures.Michael O'Brien is a Managing Director in the Office of Government, Regulatory Affairs & Public Policy. In his current role, Michael represents the firm and its interests before Congress, the Executive Branch, and Federal regulatory agencies. He has represented the firm on matters related to the implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, state and federal taxation, and litigation reform.Heather Horn is PwC's National Office thought leader, responsible for developing our communications strategy and conveying firm positions on accounting and financial reporting matters. She is the engaging host of PwC's accounting and reporting weekly podcast and quarterly webcast series. With over 30 years of experience, Heather's accounting and auditing expertise includes financial instruments and rate-regulated accounting.Transcripts available upon request for individuals who may need a disability-related accommodation. Please send requests to us_podcast@pwc.com.

With the Commerce Secretary given the power to allocate $100B to businesses loyal to the Democratic Party, we're seeing a return to the imperial Executive Branch of the FDR days.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Part 1: The AI Safety community has four main work groups, Strategy, Governance, Technical and Movement Building, published by PeterSlattery on November 25, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Epistemic status Written as a non-expert to develop and get feedback on my views, rather than persuade. It will probably be somewhat incomplete and inaccurate, but it should provoke helpful feedback and discussion. Aim This is the first part of my series ‘A proposed approach for AI safety movement building'. Through this series, I outline a theory of change for AI Safety movement building. I don't necessarily want to immediately accelerate recruitment into AI safety because I take concerns (e.g., 1,2) about the downsides of AI Safety movement building seriously. However, I do want to understand how different viewpoints within the AI Safety community overlap and aggregate. I start by attempting to conceptualise the AI Safety community. I originally planned to outline my theory of change in my first post. However, when I got feedback, I realised that i) I conceptualised the AI Safety community differently from some of my readers, and ii) I wasn't confident in my understanding of all the key parts. TLDR I argue that the AI Safety community mainly comprises four overlapping, self-identifying, groups: Strategy, Governance, Technical and Movement Building. I explain what each group does and what differentiates it from the other groups I outline a few other potential work groups I integrate these into an illustration of my current conceptualisation of the AI Safety community I request constructive feedback. My conceptualisation of the AI Safety community At a high level of simplification and low level of precision, the AI Safety community mainly comprises four overlapping, self-identifying, groups who are working to prevent an AI-related catastrophe. These groups are Strategy, Governance, Technical and Movement Building. These are illustrated below. We can compare the AI Safety community to a government and relate each work group to a government body. I think this helps clarify how the parts of the community fit together (though of course, the analogies are imperfect). Strategy The AI Safety Strategy group seeks to mitigate AI risk by understanding and influencing strategy. Their work focuses on developing strategies (i.e., plans of action) that maximise the probability that we achieve positive AI-related outcomes and avoid catastrophes. In practice, this includes researching, evaluating, developing, and disseminating strategy (see this for more detail). They attempt to answer questions such as i) ‘how can we best distribute funds to improve interpretability?', ii) ‘when should we expect transformative AI?', or iii) “What is happening in areas relevant to AI?”. Due to a lack of ‘strategic clarity/consensus' most AI strategy work focuses on research. However, Toby Ord's submission to the UK parliament is arguably an example of developing, and disseminating an AI Safety related strategy. We can compare the Strategy group to the Executive Branch of a government, which sets a strategy for the state and parts of the government, while also attempting to understand and influence the strategies of external parties (e.g., organisations and nations). AI Safety Strategy exemplars: Holden Karnofsky, Toby Ord and Luke Muehlhauser. AI Safety Strategy post examples (1,2,3,4). Governance The AI Safety Governance group seeks to mitigate AI risk by understanding and influencing decision-making. Their work focuses on understanding how decisions are made about AI and what institutions and arrangements help those decisions to be made well. In practice, this includes consultation, research, policy advocacy and policy implementation (see 1 & 2 for more detail). They attempt to answer questions such as i) ...

Whistleblower Report – The Utah Judge's 12b6 Dismissal of this case sends chilling shock waves across America. The Court effectively gave up its authority and duty for judicial review on matters of law and simply “deferred” to Executive Branch political appointees in charge of regulatory agencies and their agreed-upon medical definitions and “expert opinions” to govern...

Congressional gridlock has created a vacuum that undermines key principles of the Constitution, raising concerns about the country's future. Yet constitutional expert extraordinaire Kannon Shanmugam believes our future is bright. Learn why.

EP-104 Who is Eric Jon Boerner ? Volunteer for service - We the People BoernerTheUSA Campaign Website Eric Jon Boerner on Twitter BoernerTheUSA Official Twitter Who is Eric Jon Boerner? He is running for President of the United States in 2024. But who is he? Have we lost our culture and logic so far that we expect a candidate to be a celebrity or corrupted bureaucrat? Eric is one of We the People, and he is volunteering for service once again to defend our country. We the People are not irrelevant! Stand with us. Join us! Volunteer for service and we shall bring common sense, kindness, and holistic vision to the Executive Branch once again. Fill out the contact form here.

Today's show opens with a reminder that Nancy Pelosi promised they would pick up more seats in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, I follow that up with her speech on the floor today saying she is not going to seek any leadership positions in her caucus. Too bad other octogenarians aren't learning to relinquish the reins of power at a younger age. Next we move to a piece in the Washington Post having to finally admit, or at least conveniently waiting until after the midterms, that the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago was much ado about nothing. It's amazing how so many who are ruled solely by emotion can be played for suckers over and over and over again by the Legacy/mainstream media. I would be ashamed to show my face in public for months if I was so gullible. While I would prefer the new GOP House majority would focus more on the present-day issues we are facing in the country, I understand why they announced an investigation into the Biden Crime Family. It could be they will also be announcing plans to defund the agenda of Joe Biden to keep him from hiring 87,000 IRS agents or continuing to waste taxpayer dollars on his green new deal vision. Today, Representative James Comer (R-KY) made it clear their investigation is focusing on Joe Biden, not Hunter. Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) reminds us of the collusion by elements of the Executive Branch and the media to protect the Biden's while going after conservatives. We will see if anything comes of it. For now, I am willing to give them a little latitude so long as they remember the other kitchen table issues Americans are facing. An aide close to John Fetterman (D-PA) admits he won't be able to perform basic tasks as a senator while still dealing with some of the brain damage caused by a stroke. Remember, it was MSNBC who already suggested Fetterman should run for president in 2024. Finally, I give you my thoughts on Donald Trump's announcement to run in 2024. I have concerns. I like the majority of the platform and his agenda is rock solid. I also think there are many others who would run on the same ideas who could serve two full terms and have the stamina and vigor necessary. I am not suggesting Trump is not capable, I just feel age is something we have to be honest about when considering any candidate. In the end, if we cannot figure out how to use the Democrat playbook for ballot harvesting and voting for weeks and weeks, it really won't matter who is on the ballot. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. You can also support the show by visiting my Patreon page!

Every election cycle provides a preview of what advocates for national defense and sea power will have on their side - or not on their side - in the next Congress.New people arrive, experienced people leave, and priorities, agendas, and advocacy will shift change with them.What can we expect in the next Congress based on changes we see and those national security issues waxing or waning in the mind of legislators and their counterparts in the Executive Branch?Politics matter.Our guests for the full hour to discuss the implications of this years election in the national security arena, will be Claude Berube and Derek (Dirk) Maurer.Claude Berube, PhD, is the author of “On Wide Seas: The US Navy in the Jacksonian Era” and several other books. He has worked on Capitol Hill, in the defense industry, and the Office of Naval Intelligence. A Commander in the US Navy Reserve, he is currently assigned to a unit with Navy Warfare Development Center. Since 2005 he has taught in the Political Science and History Departments at the US Naval Academy.Dirk Maurer currently is Vice President at Layer 8 Security, & a Visiting Fellow at the National Security Institute at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. He is the Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Defense Continuity and Mission Assurance and as DASD for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction. and was DASD for Defense Support and Civil Authorities during the George W. Bush administrationMr. Maurer has served on multiple Senate committees and in the personal offices of three Senators. He retired from the Marine Corps Reserve after twenty years. He received a bachelor's degree from the University of Washington and a Juris Doctorate from Georgetown University Law Center.

So naughty. Fun with Math and the Executive Branch. The new P&G open. It's a little long. Mr. Lix wants to sponsor a segment on Pepper n' Genie. Ketchup talk. StrodeCast. We read the erotic story from QFTA this week. Pepper and Genie don't believe it. Iggy freestyles an erotic story. Mizzou - Tennessee. What will the uniforms look like? Dennis Gates with a big recruiting day. U of I hoops.

On today's show, I decide to revisit some of the over-the-top hyperbole from presidential historian, Michael Beschloss. When I talked about his yesterday, I was giving my first impressions. However, I thought even more about it and wanted to address the individual assertions he made on MSNBC immediately following President Joe Biden's divide and conquer speech. First, of the two major political parties in the United States, which one already has a papertrail proving agencies within the Executive Branch are wantonly trampling over the First Amendment? Which party was having weekly censorship meetings, wanted to create a Ministry of Truth and even has secret, backdoor portals to Facebook and Twitter engineers to get censorship requests moved to the top of the list? Folks, it's not the GOP. Next, which party has already shown a movement toward embracing death, especially of innocent children? Which party broke into raucous glee when their General Assembly allowed babies up to the very moment of birth to be ripped apart and destroyed? Which party now has a state where it can be argued a baby can be "retroactively" aborted within the first 28 days after birth? Moreover, when it comes to "our children," which party is advocating for the unfettered administration of puberty-blockers, genital mutilations and radical, life-altering surgeries? Most of those children will never have the chance to reproduce if (when) they change their minds? Is this part of the Republican agenda? Which party demands total allegiance, where you are not allowed to question them or to provide contrary evidence? It seems the case for Authoritarianism rests much more easily on the heads of Democrats. President Biden is now talking about his fears over being impeached. He addressed a crowd telling them a vote for Democrats is a vote to stop from being impeached. When we are discussing the concept of rigging elections and being election deniers, what does it say when the President of the United States is already warning Americans it might takes days or weeks to count the ballots for the midterms. Why not just throw kerosene on the conspiratorial fires? Finally, did you know CNN reporters and hosts didn't know you can learn a lot about the state of the economy by watching the choices people make regarding going out to eat? Bobby Flay, chef and restauranteur, had to explain to the elites how each night is like a mini-focus group. You can see the signs of the worsening economy just by paying attention to how people are scaling back and how restaurant owners are finding it more difficult to make a profit. Someone tell CNN's news department; they might want to investigate this radical conspiracy theory further. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. You can also support the show by visiting my Patreon page!