Leaked audio obtained by @CurrentRevolt shows Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee berating a staffer: "F**king idiots serve no goddamn purpose ... Nobody gives a shit about what you're doing and you ain't doing shit!"
I don’t want you to do a goddamn thing. I want you to have a f*cking brain. I want you to have read it. I want you to say, Congresswoman, with such and such date. That’s what I want. That’s the kind of staff that I want to have. So some stupid other motherf*cker did it. And, and I don’t have the information. Nobody sent me the information. I need to, uh, ensure my, um, schedule and, uh, you know, if, if Boo Boo did it, shit a** did it, f*ck face did it. And nobody knows a goddamn thing in my office. Okay? Nothing. I gave it to you. Your job was to get it on the calendar, imprint it in your brain, or send me the information back saying, “Congresswoman, I made sure that the Ovide Ducantell event that you gave me, uh, for a so-and-so date at seven is on the f*cking calendar.” Not to, oh, Jerome has it.
Sheila Jackson Lee • 1:02 – 1:33
Okay. So when I called Jerome, he only sitting up there like a fat a** stupid idiot talking about, uh, what the f*ck? He doesn’t know. Okay? Both of y’all are f*ck ups [inaudible]. It’s the worst sh*t that I could have ever had put together. Two g*ddamn big a** children f*cking idiots serve no goddamn purpose. Ain’t managing nobody. Nobody’s respecting them. Nobody gives a sh*t about what you’re doing and you ain’t doing sh*t. And this is an example of it. I gave it to Jerome. This is not child’s work.
UC Davis Professor Under Fire Over Posts Threatening ‘Zionist’ Journalists And Their Families. Seems like I’m always reading something about this school. We now have a Professor who teaches of all things American Studies getting into the hate the Jewish Journalists.
Jemma Decristo, an assistant professor of American studies at University of California, Davis, wrote in a post last week on X that “zionist journalists” spread “propaganda & misinformation.”
She followed that up with an apparent threat to those journalists and their families, as well as three different emojis: a knife, an ax, and blood droplets.
UC DAVIS Professor Jemma Decristo is threatening to hunt down Jewish journalists in their homes.
Using knife, axe, and blood emojis and talking about their addresses being public.
A opinion piece writer in the Washington Post is asking the two white candidates to step aside and allow a person of color to be the Democrat candidate.
Foolish column in today’s WP: “Schiff and Porter are White; Lee is a Black woman. The right course is clear, isn’t it…Schiff and Porter should step aside.”
Martin Luther King would roll over in his grave. Good idea. Let’s judge people by the color of their skin. pic.twitter.com/ttbIGT2067
California’s Democratic leaders have an opportunity to do more than pay lip service to their rhetoric around diversity. It wouldn’t hurt to remind them that Harris gave up one of California’s seats to serve the country. They need to know, and show, that forcing genuine equality isn’t easy or comfortable. It requires hard decisions, especially for White people who might have to disappoint their friends or sacrifice their egos and ambitions for the sake of the larger cause.
Comer is demanding interviews with multiple White House staffers involved in the movement of boxes from the Penn Biden Center.
AP
Comer probing White House’s ‘incomplete and misleading’ Biden classified docs timeline.
This article first appeared in the NY Post on October 11th.
James Comer is demanding that the White House explain why it put out an “incomplete and misleading” timeline related to the discovery of classified documents at the Penn Biden Center.
Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said the panel obtained evidence that President Biden’s aides began inspecting the material at his private office nearly 20 months before the sensitive papers were said to be found.
Annie Tomasini, the 80-year-old president’s senior adviser, was the first of five White House staffers and a Department of Defense employee, to rummage through the documents and materials at Biden’s Washington, DC, think tank office, Comer claims.
This incident occurred just two months after the president’s inauguration, on March 18, 2021.
The House Oversight Committee says it has evidence that a White House employee inspected President Biden’s Penn Biden Center office in March 2021, earlier than previously known.ZUMAPRESS.com
The Kentucky Republican details four other expeditions to retrieve material from the Penn Biden Center that was previously unknown.
On May 24, 2022, Comer claimed that former White House counsel and Assistant to the President Dana Remus contacted former Biden aide and Department of Defense employee Kathy Chung – via her personal email address – to retrieve the commander in chief’s papers at the Penn Biden Center.
A month later, on June 28, 2022, Chung packed up Biden’s things at the think tank office, according to Comer.
A dozen classified documents were discovered at the Penn Biden Center on Nov. 2, 2022.AFP via Getty Images
Then, on June 30, 2022, Remus, White House staffer Anthony Bernal and another unknown White House employee went to Penn Biden Center to “take possession of the boxes of documents and materials but could not fit all of the boxes into their vehicle.”
“The next wave of assessing of files and looking at boxes,” according to the oversight chairman, began on Oct. 12, 2022, when White House staffer Ashley Williams and Biden’s personal attorney Pat Moore visited the president’s former office.
The following day, Williams returned to Penn Biden Center and left with “a few” of Biden’s boxes, and Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney, texted Chung that Moore had begun sorting through the boxes.
“Each of the encounters above was omitted from the White House’s and President Biden’s personal attorney’s public statements,” Comer argues, noting that a January statement from Bauer included a timeline of event that “inexplicably” begins on Nov. 2, 2022 – when the lawyer claims he first stumbled upon classified material that was stored at the Penn Biden Center.
Comer is demanding interviews with multiple White House staffers involved in the movement of boxes from the Penn Biden Center.AP
“President Biden’s timeline was incomplete and misleading,” Comer writes. “It omitted months of communications, planning, and coordinating among multiple White House officials, Ms. Chung, Penn Biden Center employees, and President Biden’s personal attorneys to retrieve the boxes containing classified materials.”
The oversight chairman adds that “there is no reasonable explanation as to why this many White House employees and lawyers were so concerned with retrieving boxes they believed only contained personal documents and materials.”
Comer requests transcribed interviews with the White House staffers involved in the previously unknown activity at the Penn Biden Center, and access to all White House communications regarding the movement of material from the think tank and the drafting of public statements related to the discovery of sensitive documents.
The letter comes days after special counsel Robert Hur, who is overseeing the Justice Department’s probe into Biden’s mishandling of White House documents, conducted two “voluntary” interviews with the president at the executive mansion.
“As we have said from the beginning, the President and the White House are cooperating with this investigation, and as it has been appropriate, we have provided relevant updates publicly, being as transparent as we can consistent with protecting and preserving the integrity of the investigation,” Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, said Monday.
The Nov. 2, 2022, discovery of at least a dozen classified documents – some related to the United Kingdom, Ukraine and Iran – at his old office near the US Capitol was kept under wraps by the White House through the 2022 midterm elections and for weeks after.
More sensitive documents were discovered in Biden’s Wimington home in January after an FBI search. The bureau also searched the president’s Rehoboth Beach, Del., home as part of the probe but did not turn up any additional documents.
Biden has dismissed the shocking findings as simply “stray papers” that ended up on his property and private office because of careless aides who packed up his White House office over a decade ago.
New evidence may destroy Biden’s defense in his classified documents case.
This month, the sudden appearance of Special Counsel Robert Hur caused as much of a stir as Bigfoot suddenly appearing on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Unlike his counterpart, Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has been aggressively prosecuting former president Donald Trump, Hur has virtually disappeared since his appointment to investigate President Joe Biden. Hur surfaced to interview Biden over his possession of classified documents, including some that go back to his time as a U.S. senator.
I have referred to Hur as a “neutron prosecutor” — a special counsel with no possible charge, under Justice Department policy barring the indictment of a sitting president. If that was not enough of a problem, Hur may have growing evidence that accounts offered by the White House over the discovery of the documents are false.
The new evidence could prove transformative, not only for the criminal but the impeachment investigation of the president.
This week, the House Oversight Committee released a new timeline on the discovery of classified documents in various locations associated with Biden. From the outset, many of us flagged problems with the account that had been given by Biden, who insisted that he had no knowledge or involvement in the removal or use of the documents.
The most glaring problem is that, after they were removed at the end of his term as vice president, the documents were repeatedly moved and divided up. Some were found in the Penn Center office used by Biden in Washington, D.C. Others were found in his garage and reportedly in his library.
Biden made clear from the beginning that he expected the investigation to be perfunctory and brief. He publicly declared that he has “no regrets” over his own conduct and told the public that the documents investigation would soon peter out when it determined that “there is no ‘there’ there.”
Now, however, it appears that a critical claim by the White House in the scandal may not only be false, but was knowingly false at the time it was made. The White House and Biden’s counsel have long maintained that, as soon as documents were discovered in the D.C. office, they notified the national archives. Many asked why they did not call the FBI, but the White House has at least maintained that, unlike Trump, they took immediate action to notify authorities.
However, it now appears that this was not true. One of the closest aides to Biden and a close friend to Hunter Biden is Annie Tomasini. She referred to Hunter as her “brother” and signed off messages with “LY” or “love you.”
Tomasini was once a senior aide to Joe Biden and, according to the Oversight Committee, inspected the classified material on March 18, 2021, two months after Biden took office — nearly 20 months before they were said to be found by the Biden team.
The committee now alleges that the White House “omitted months of communications, planning, and coordinating among multiple White House officials, [Kathy] Chung, Penn Biden Center employees, and President Biden’s personal attorneys to retrieve the boxes containing classified materials. The timeline also omitted multiple visits from at least five White House employees, including Dana Remus, Anthony Bernal, Ashley Williams, Annie Tomasini, and an unknown staffer.”
If true, the evidence demolishes the timeline long maintained by the Biden team. That could have an immediate impact on both the criminal and impeachment investigations.
The timeline has been a critical distinction drawn by the White House in distinguishing this matter from the Trump indictment, in which Smith charged the former president with 37 counts, including retaining classified information, obstructing justice and making false statements, and other charges.
Biden insisted that he was entirely “surprised” by the discovery of the documents in Nov. 2021. He echoed the narrative of both his lawyers and the media at large: “And they did what they should have done,” he said. “They immediately called the Archives — immediately called the Archives, turned them over to the Archives, and I was briefed about this discovery.”
In reality, Biden’s counsel and associates conducted repeated searches and declared repeatedly that no further classified documents were found. That was repeatedly found to be untrue.
Moreover, the concern is that Biden’s lawyers, in the course of these private searches, may have consolidated material and contaminated the scene by the time FBI agents conducted their searches. This includes changing how documents were originally stored and whether classified markings were visible to anyone working around the Biden home or garage.
Now it appears that the discovery had actually been made months earlier. The timeline would now more closely mirror Trump’s timeline in the knowing retention of classified material, the failure to turn over all of the classified material despite assurances from counsel, and alleged false accounts about the document’s discovery.
It is not clear what Hur can do if he finds either from witnesses or forensic testing (including perhaps fingerprints on the documents) that President Biden lied.
I have long disagreed with the policy that the Justice Department has long held, that prosecutors should not indict a sitting president. Were he to seek an indictment, Hur would have to ask for reconsideration of the policy based on a decades-old memo issued by the Office of Legal Counsel under President Bill Clinton, who at the time faced calls for an indictment for perjury.
The DOJ policy will also put pressure on the House in its ongoing impeachment inquiry. In my recent testimony at the first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing, I mapped out four possible articles of impeachment. They included obstruction and abuse of power.
If this new timeline is accurate, the question is whether Biden knew that the account being put forward by his staff and counsel was false. It also raises the question of whether the president knowingly possessed classified documents and lied about their removal, use, and discovery. Finally, if Biden repeated his public denials to Hur, there could be added allegations of false statements to federal investigators, another commonly-charged federal crime.
We still have to see if there is evidence to support such crimes, but what is clear is that the past narrative may no longer suffice.
In his press conference announcing the criminal charges against Trump, Smith declared, “We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone….Nothing more, nothing less.”
The question for Hur is whether they can also apply to a sitting president. Likewise, if these allegations are true and Biden knowingly committed these crimes, the question for Congress could be whether he should remain as president.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) went on the leftist “comedian’s” late night host’s show to discuss his health struggles and the challenges of working in a “dysfunctional” Congress.
Wokism: A growing cultural consciousness that makes us think twice before using certain phrases. Our words shape our world, and while some old-school sayings might bring nostalgia, they can also encourage outdated or offensive views. So, let’s walk down memory lane and explore how some classic expressions have been reshaped – for better or for worse!
Hitting a Blind Spot and Not Just on the Road.
People often used the term “blind spot” in driving jargon, indicating that little area that mirrors just couldn’t capture. But when used metaphorically, it raised eyebrows. Connecting “blind” to “ignorance” can offend the visually impaired community. As society becomes more conscious of such subtleties, shifting from potentially insensitive idioms becomes key.
(Raises WHOSE eyebrows? I’m “visually impaired,” and I don’t have a problem with it,)
Indian Giver Is More Than Just a Take-Back
The term “Indian Giver” paints a misleading image of Native Americans, suggesting a tendency to retract gifts. Given the profound respect Native Americans have for giving and community, this phrase is a glaring misrepresentation. Today’s informed society is moving away from such misnomers, embracing accuracy and respect.
(Again, I have to take issue with this reasoning, since anyone with the least bit of American History know that the term at its core refers to Americans (usually the government) who gave Natives things then took them back. Every single Treaty the US Government made, they broke.)
Addict
While “addict” may have been tossed around easily in the past, it’s a narrow lens to view someone through. Addiction is a complex issue, and pigeonholing someone’s identity based solely on it is reductive. So, the world now leans towards more empathetic terms like “person with an addiction,” which better reflects the reality of the situation.
(Another indication of wanting to use more words to obscure a simple fact, like changing “homeless person” or” the homeless” to “person experiencing homelessness.” Seriously, are they going to start referring to abandoned or feral cats as “Felines experiencing homelessness” next?)
Lame Language? Time for an Upgrade!
Once, we wouldn’t think twice before labeling that less-than-thrilling movie as “lame.” But did you know this term originally described those with physical challenges? It’s high time we jazz up our vocabulary, don’t you think? There’s a whole world of words out there, from “mundane” to “uninspiring,” waiting to be used.
(Oh, PLEASE!)
Man Up? Let’s Think Bigger!
“Man up” – it might’ve been your coach’s favorite pep talk. Yet, it subtly hints that bravery is a man’s game. Newsflash! With our evolving understanding of gender fluidity and emotional strength, shouldn’t our idioms grow, too? Bravery isn’t just for one of the genders. Let’s cheer each other on in more inclusive ways.
(Yeah, let’s bring in woke concepts like “gender fluidity” instead.)
Decoding the Policeman Conundrum
In the past, “Hurry up! Get the policeman!” was a staple line from the movies. But with the increasing number of dedicated women in blue, that phrase can feel out of place, right? The term “police officer” bridges this gap. It’s unbiased, forward-thinking, and gives a nod of respect to every individual serving in the force, irrespective of their gender.
(Using “police officer” is okay, but again the ‘logic’ is misleading You’re much more likely to have heard “Call the Cops!” or “Call the police!” than “Hurry up! Get the policeman!” )
Hey, Guys! Or is it… Everyone?
Who hasn’t just called out, “Hey, guys!” upon entering a gathering? It was the ultimate casual greeting. However, on closer examination, “guys” might be boxing us into gender corners. With society’s expanding views on gender and inclusivity, it’s about time our everyday greetings got an upgrade. “Hello, folks” or “Hey, crew” has a fresh, inclusive ring to it, right?
(Oh, dear! “gender AND inclusivity?” What a crock!)
Don’t Be So Hysterical
Using “hysterical” to describe something extremely funny or exaggerated became second nature for many. However, a peek into the past reveals its association with women, suggesting an exaggerated emotional state. In our journey towards embracing gender fairness and shedding stereotypes, sidelining such terms feels right.
(Feels trump everything, right?”
Grandfathered Is a Term with Deep Roots .
On the surface, “grandfathered” shows a sense of legacy and timelessness. However, its historical roots connect it to policies that, unfortunately, sidelined Black communities during the post-Civil War period. As conversations around racial justice become louder, reassessing and recontextualizing some of our age-old terms seems the best option.
(What juvenile BS!)
Real Man, Real Woman? Let’s Rethink That! .
Ever wondered who came up with the criteria for a “real” man or woman? These phrases press people into molds they may not fit into. Instead of sticking to narrow definitions, it’s high time we acknowledged and celebrated every person’s individuality. After all, every person’s journey and identity are real and valid, regardless of societal expectations.
(I can’t decide whether the OP is being satirical or serious. For 99% of humans you’re either XX -female- or XY -male- and surgical mutilation does not change that. [I’m excluding the extremely rare hermaphrodites.)
Mastering a New Bedroom Terminology
Historically, the term “Master bedroom” sounded fancy. But dig a little deeper, and you uncover undertones of slavery and hierarchical dominance. As societies become more conscious and sensitive, many advocate for a terminology shift. “Primary bedroom” or “main suite” not only sounds contemporary but also lacks the baggage of the past.
(More regurgitated crap. Some snowflake’s feels might get hurt.)
Seeing Beyond ‘Colorblind’
In the past, proclaiming, “I’m colorblind” was a well-intended remark to show you were impartial about race. However, in today’s more nuanced world, this phrase might be seen as a way to gloss over individual racial experiences and challenges. It’s not about being blind to color but understanding and appreciating the stories each color tells.
(This stupidity needs no further comment.)
From Mankind to Humankind: An Inclusive Shift.
Once upon a time, “mankind” was a common phrase, representing all of humanity. But as our understanding of gender becomes more sophisticated and inclusive, this term feels a tad exclusive. The shift towards “humankind” is more than just linguistic. It’s a nod towards a future where everyone feels seen and acknowledged.
(There’s already a term for that: HUMANITY, FFS.)
The Whitelist Conundrum.
The term “Whitelist” was traditionally used to describe approved or safe items. However, against a backdrop of racial sensitivities, words that unconsciously encourage color biases are being reevaluated. So, it’s no surprise that “allow list” is gaining traction, emphasizing function over potentially problematic connotations.
(Has anyone ever seen “allow list” before? Or “disallow list”?)
Steering Clear of ‘Gyp’
To “gyp” someone out of something meant that you deceived them. But what many might not realize is that it’s rooted in stereotypes against the Romani people. With a broader understanding of cultural sensitivities, it’s only right that we retire such phrases and opt for words that don’t allow for such biases.
(This one I can agree with, but what’s next? Eliminate “con” because it offends people convicted of a crime?)
Humanizing Undocumented Individuals
Terms matter, especially when they concern human beings. Labeling someone as an “illegal alien” feels cold and strips them of their humanity. As conversations around immigration grow more compassionate, “undocumented individuals” emerges as a term that’s both accurate and respectful.
(They’re still here illegally, bunky.)
I’ can’t hear you! Nah nah nah nah nah I can’t hear you!
The ‘Crazy’ and ‘Insane’ Evolution
Calling an unexpected event “crazy” or “insane” was commonplace. But as society becomes more aware of the realities and challenges of mental health, such casual use can feel dismissive. When used out of context, these terms can trivialize genuine mental health issues. It reflects a society that’s growing more empathetic by the day.
(So, calling the Hamas 2023 mass murders “Insane” is inaccurate?)
Moving Away from Troubled Waters
Historically, the expression “sold down the river” was used casually to indicate betrayal. However, its origins trace back to the dark times of American slavery, where slaves were often literally sold down the Mississippi River. Today, with an emphasis on sensitivity and historical accuracy, it’s better to opt for alternatives like “betrayed” or “deceived.”
(Uhm, historically, it would have been UP the Mississippi. New Orleans was the port of entry, not someplace in Iowa or Illinois. Yet another woke distortion.)
As I said above, I’m not sure if the OP is being satirical or serious. Unfortunately, I think he’s serious.
Progressives. LA F.U.E.R.Z.A, a student-run advocacy group, marched through the campus of CSU Long Beach for a Day of Resistance protest for Palestine in Long Beach, Calif., October 10, 2023.(Brittany Murray/MediaNews Group/Long Beach Press-Telegram via Getty Images)
NO Virginia there isn’t just one example of hate from the left. Just yesterday a person posted a comment that there was just one example of hate from the left. Well, it’s obvious that this person lives in a small corner of the world where life’s reality is ignored.
Recently ZACH KESSEL is a William F. Buckley Jr. Fellow in Political Journalism and a recent graduate of Northwestern University reposted a few tweets to show us true examples of hate from the left that exists on college campuses. Below are a few examples.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper said Tuesday on his show “The Lead” that after the Hamas terror attacks in Israel, the last few days have been a real eye-opening period “in terms of antisemitism on the left.”
Tapper said, “So you have a Democratic colleague from Michigan, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian American to serve in Congress, and she released a statement. ‘I grieve the Palestinian and Israeli lives lost. The path to peace must include lifting the blockade and, ending the occupation and dismantling the apartheid system that creates the suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that could lead to resistance. As longs our country provides billions in unconditional funding to support the apartheid government, this heartbreaking cycle of violence will continue.’ What was your reaction when you heard Congresswoman Tlaib’s statement?”
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) said, “To me, I think the hardest part, not just about that statement but a number of statements that have come out from organizations and individuals, I don’t question whether someone has the right to be angry at the Israeli government, I question their inability to condemn grievous, grievous violence and that is what has been difficult.”
Tapper said, “There does seem to be, look, we spent a lot of time during the Trump years looking at antisemitism on the right. This does. These last few days have been a real eye-opening period for a lot of people, a lot of Democrats and a lot progressives in terms of antisemitism on the left. A lot of people who seemed more shocks at dehumanizing language to describe Hamas than what Hamas actually perpetrated on Saturday.”
Slotkin said, “Yeah, I mean, look, antisemitism should be stamped out wherever it is on the right, or on the left.”
