Connect with us

Breaking: DNC Rejects Sanders Demand to Remove Barney Frank, Dannel Malloy as Committee Co-Chairs

Published

on

Gov. Malloy and Former Rep. Barney Frank Will Remain as Co-Chairs of the Convention’s Platform and Rules Committees

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has responded quickly to the Bernie Sanders for President Campaign’s demand that two high-profile Democrats, Gov. Dannel Malloy and former Rep. Barney Frank be removed as co-chairs of the convention’s platform and rules committees.

“Having carefully reviewed your challenge, we find that it fails to meet the criteria for the foregoing reasons and pursuant to the Regulations and Bylaws Committee for the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Reg. 3.4(G)(i) we are compelled to dismiss it,” Jim Roosevelt and Lorraine Miller, co-chairs of the Rules and Bylaws Committee wrote to the Sanders Campaign, according to The Hill.

The original, formal complaint was a four-page letter penned by the Campaign’s attorney Brad Deutsch and filed Friday with the DNC Friday. It reads in part:

“Gov. Malloy and Mr. Frank have both been aggressive attack surrogates for the Clinton campaign. Their criticisms of Senator Sanders have gone beyond the dispassionate ideological disagreement and have exposed a deeper professional, political and personal hostility toward the Senator and his Campaign.”  

The letter offers several examples of comments both Rep. Frank and Gov. Malloy have made that are critical of Sen. Sanders, who himself placed on the committee at least one member, Cornel West, who has attacked Hillary Clinton quite strongly. The Clinton campaign did not request his removal.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Friday reported that the Sanders Campaign ended it “letter with a threat. If the Committee doesn’t kick Gov. Malloy and Barney Frank out of those leadership positions the Sanders campaign will essentially grind the process of the convention to a halt.”

 

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change. This story will be updated, and NCRM will likely publish follow-up stories on this news. Stay tuned and refresh for updates.

 

Image via Facebook

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

'WITHOUT EVIDENCE'

Jim Jordan Busted for Lying About Nancy Pelosi and Capitol Insurrection

Published

on

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) made false claims about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s actions during the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The Ohio Republican claimed that Pelosi initially denied the Capitol police request for National Guard assistance, and then waited nearly an hour to approve a second request — but a Washington Post fact-checker found that’s not what happened.

Three key figures involved in Capitol security, each of whom resigned under pressure following the riot — former Capitol police chief Steven Sund, former House sergeant-at-arms Paul Irving and former Senate sergeant-at-arms Michael Stenger — testified before Congress last week about what went wrong.

Sund wrote Feb. 1 to Pelosi that he approached two sergeants-at-arms to ask for help from the National Guard, which he didn’t have authority to do without an emergency declaration by the Capitol police board, but Irving — who had been appointed in 2012 by former House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), not Pelosi — said he was concerned about the optics of that and didn’t feel there was enough evidence to support additional security.

Stenger, however, suggested that Sund should find out how quickly the National Guard support could be ready in case that was needed, and the former Capitol police chief contacted Gen. William Walker, commanding officer of the D.C. National Guard, who said he could have 125 troops ready to act quickly, once approved.

“There is no indication that Pelosi was at all involved,” wrote the Post‘s Glenn Kessley. “Irving supposedly had made a vague reference to ‘optics,’ but there is no indication what that means. Moreover, the Stenger, the Senate sergeant-at-arms, was also reluctant to support an immediate dispatch of National Guard troops. So there is little reason to suggest Irving, acting under Pelosi’s direction, only was responsible. It appeared to have been a joint decision.”

Irving testified last week that he did not care about the appearance of National Guard troops guarding the Capitol, and did not see the need to alert House leadership that he may request that assistance until early on Jan. 6, the same Stenger notified former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s staff.

A spokesman for Pelosi said there had been no discussions between Irving and the House speaker or her staff about the National Guard before Jan. 6, saying security professionals are expected to make decisions about security.

“Without evidence, Jordan asserted that House Speaker Pelosi had denied a request for National Guard troops two days before the insurrection,” Kessley concluded. “Instead, public testimony shows she did not even hear about the request until two days later. Jordan also tried to pin the blame on House sergeant-at-arms, but testimony shows the Senate sergeant-at-arms also was not keen about the idea.”

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Snooze Fest’: Internet Mocks Trump’s ‘Extremely Boring’ and ‘Low Energy’ CPAC Speech

Published

on

White Nationalist One-Term Twice-Impeached Former US President Speaks to Right Wing Group From Nazi-Inspired Stage

For the first time since he incited an insurrection last month the disgraced former American president, Donald Trump, on Sunday delivered what many are calling a “low-energy” and “extremely boring” speech to attendees of CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, in Orlando, Florida late Sunday afternoon.

The ex-president, who started his speech 100 minutes late, looked and sounded far older than he did on January 6, attacking President Joe Biden and insisting that his five weeks performance should be enough for “Democrats to lose the White House” in 2024.

“Actually, as you know, they just lost the White House,” Trump told supporters, adding: “I may even decide to beat them for a third time, who knows?”

The crowd, a mostly over-50 group of white Americans, roared, even though Trump has won only one election, and never the popular vote.

Trump’s speech was very similar to his past stump speeches, filled with racism, white nationalism, and lies about his opponents and the 2020 election that he lost – which he continues to refuse to admit. The “fake news” media, transgender people, and NIH Director Dr. Anthony Fauci were also the target of his attacks.

He also tried to re-instill the perceived victimization of conservatives that fueled his presidency, claiming for example that Americans will no longer be able to hire attorneys because undocumented immigrants are taking them all away from U.S. citizens, which is a lie.

Other lies included that wind energy is bad for the environment,

Some responses:

 

Continue Reading

'POLICY WASTELAND'

Trump Has Left Behind a Republican Party Almost as ‘Toxic’ as He Is: GOP Adviser

Published

on

According to a report from Politico, Donald Trump may no longer be president but the Republican Party he left behind has been damaged to the point where it has almost become as “toxic” as he is to voters, according to one former top aide to a Republican senator.

As the report notes, high-profile members of the Republican party are still pushing Trump’s “Big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen from him and have made that their focus going forward in lieu of proposing new policies that would allow them to win back the White House and both chambers on Congress.

Writing for Politico, David Siders explained, “Nearly four months after the election and one month into Joe Biden’s presidency, the politics of grievance has become the near-singular organizing principle of the post-Trump GOP. And whether at CPAC or in statehouses across the country, policy prescriptions for restoring so-called voter integrity have emerged as the primary focus of the party’s energy.”

That focus on stopping people from voting could blow up in their faces, but worse still, it means they have no other message for voters other than the fact that they are lingering on Trump’s loss.

Benjamin Ginsberg, a conservative election lawyer asked, “Tell me what the innovative Republican policies have been of late?” before adding it is “probably a sign that the Republican Party is mired in a bit of a policy wasteland and doesn’t know which way to turn to get out.”

According to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who served in President George W. Bush’s administration, there is no evidence of widespread election fraud and Republicans harping on it is, “a big distraction. And I worry that it will continue to be a big distraction as long as a certain individual makes statements that it was stolen.”

Former Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) adviser Kevin Madden was a bit more blunt in his assessment.

“It is a party that has been fashioned in the mold of Trump — Trump’s message, Trump’s tactics — and it is perfectly comfortable being a party that is defined by what it’s against,” he explained before adding, “… you become almost toxic as a party brand to larger, growing parts of the electorate. … The limitation of a message and a platform that’s just about disagreeing with the opposition is that it doesn’t speak to the broader concerns or anxieties of a big part of the electorate.”

You can read more here.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.