Connect with us

Democrats Vow to Unseat Republicans Who Switched Votes to Kill LGBT Protections Bill That Had Passed

Published

on

Seven Republicans Changed Their Votes to Defeat a Bill to Protect LGBT Workers After the Clock Had Already Run Out

In one of the most cowardly and homophobic acts of Congress in recent years, top Republican House leadership colluded to ensure a bill to protect LGBT workers went down in flames. The bill, sponsored by freshman Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, would have nullified an amendment to the vital annual military sending bill. That measure, known as the Russell Amendment, passed, and would gut and nullify President Barack Obama‘s historic 2014 executive orders banning discrimination against LGBT employees of federal contractors. 

The Russell Amendment passed with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Thursday night, but Friday morning Rep. Maloney offered his bill, which, when the clock ran out, had passed. But according to multiple reports, three top Republican leaders, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana, and Chief Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, conspired with each other and convinced seven Republican Congressmen to switch their votes. As the GOP is the party in power, they were able to keep the clock open until enough lawmakers had changed their votes from yea to nay, and the legislation was defeated.

Now, Democrats are determined to unseat the vote switchers. The seven who changed their votes are: 

Jeff Denham (Calif.)

Darrell Issa (Calif.)

Bruce Poliquin (Maine)

David Valadao (Calif.)

Greg Walden (Ore.)

Mimi Walters (Calif.)

David Young (Iowa)

Of those seven, four are considered to be particularly vulnerable.

The Hill reports Reps. Young, Poliquin, Denham and Valadao (top photo, left to right) are now “among Democrats’ biggest targets this election cycle.”

Democrats will use the cowardly vote switching to target and unseat the four Republicans. 

An official for House Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), told The Hill that the vote is expected to become a major issue in a competitive race like Young’s”

Already, Democratic opponents of the four have exposed the Republicans’ anti-LGBT vote switching.

“This type of extreme partisanship is something we should expect from someone who has never held a job outside of Congress,” Democrat Jim Mowrer, running against Rep. Young, said in a statement. “This is why we need new representation in Congress and why I believe so strongly in putting service to Iowans ahead of politics.” 

“Congressman Poliquin apparently has no moral compass on the issue of discrimination,” said Emily Cain, who is expected to run against Rep. Poliquin, in a statement. “But what’s truly disappointing is that Congressman Poliquin didn’t come clean with voters, but instead reversed himself in secret as part of a backroom deal with Republican leadership.” 

The Hill also notes local media took Rep. Poliquin to task for his vote switching.

“Poliquin takes flak for switching to vote against LGBT-rights provision,” blared a headline in the Bangor Daily News. “Poliquin among 7 House Republicans to switch votes, defeating gay rights protection,” read another in the Portland Press Herald. 

On Twitter, some responses to the colluding, vote switching Republicans:

 

Image compiled via Wikimedia

 

 

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.

News

Comer Announces Public Hearing After Hunter Biden Closed Door Testimony

Published

on

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer announced he will hold a public hearing with Hunter Biden after the president’s son testified behind closed doors for most of Wednesday.

“I think this was a great deposition for us, it proved several bits of our evidence, that we’ve been conducting throughout this investigation, but there are also some contradictory statements that I think need further review,” Comer told reporters Wednesday afternoon.

“So this impeachment inquiry will now go to the next phase, which will be a public hearing. And that’s something that I think everyone in the media has been asking a lot of questions about. Something that I know that Mr. Biden and his attorney both demanded, just as I said, when we said we were going to do the deposition first, we will have a public hearing next.”

It’s unclear what other witnesses Chairman Comer and Chairman Jordan will present.

Comer claimed that parts of Hunter Biden’s testimony contradicted some of their previous witness’ testimony, although he refused to elaborate.

READ MORE: Court Denies Trump Request to Pause $454M Bond Requirement Amid His Cash Liquidity Claim

Hunter Biden stated in the opening remarks he released publicly Wednesday morning that Chairman Comer and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan had built their “entire partisan house of cards on lies told by the likes of Gal Luft, Tony Bobulinski, Alexander Smirnov, and Jason Galanis.”

“Luft, who is a fugitive, has been indicted for his lies and other crimes; Smirnov, who has made you dupes in carrying out a Russian disinformation campaign waged against my father, has been indicted for his lies; Bobulinski, who has been exposed for the many false statements he has made, and Galanis, who is serving 14 years in prison for fraud.”

Politico described Hunter Biden’s opening statement as “blistering.”

“I am here today,” the President’s son began, “to provide the Committees with the one uncontestable fact that should end the false premise of this inquiry: I did not involve my father in my business. Not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist. Never.”

Watch Comer below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story

Continue Reading

News

Court Denies Trump Request to Pause $454M Bond Requirement Amid His Cash Liquidity Claim

Published

on

A New York appeals court has denied Donald Trump’s request to issue a stay on the state Supreme Court’s ruling ordering the ex-president to pay $454 million in the civil business fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James. Trump had offered to post a bond of $100 million as he appeals the ruling, as he suggested he did not have sufficient liquid assets – namely, cash – to post the full amount required.

The judge did, however, pause a portion of the ruling barring Trump from operating a business in New York, and also paused the portion of the ruling barring him from obtaining a loan from a bank registered in the State of New York.

“It’s a mixed bag for Trump, and the former president GAINS some ability, in an interim ruling, to continue his business activities and loan-seeking. But the most crucial request, a stay of enforcement of the $450M+ judgment, has been rejected,” reports Just Security’s Adam Klasfeld.

Unless he can obtain a loan or other financing, Trump, as he admitted in his legal filing, may have to sell some of his assets, likely real estate, to come up with enough cash to satisfy the judgment.

The court “also denied Trump’s request to delay his obligation to post $454 million until his appeal of the civil fraud verdict is over,” CNN adds.

RELATED: Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story

Continue Reading

News

Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story

Published

on

Attorneys for Donald Trump are arguing the ex-president and self-professed billionaire should not have to post a bond of $454 million as he appeals the New York State Supreme Court’s ruling holding him liable for civil business fraud. Instead, Trump is offering a bond of $100 million.

But as legal experts are pointing out, under oath, Trump stated he had $400 million in liquid assets. And his attorney, Alina Habba, when asked last week if he could come up with $350 million, said on-camera, “Yes, I mean, he does, of course he has money, you know, he’s a billionaire. We know that.”

Former federal and state prosecutor Ron Filipkowski, now the editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch.com, responded to Habba’s remarks, saying: “As we now know, this was also a lie.”

READ MORE: ‘How Extremism Is Normalized’: Schlapp Furious as Critics Slam CPAC Over Report of Nazis

“Trump says he doesn’t have the cash that both he and Habba told everyone he had, and that ‘properties would have to be sold’ to come up with the money,” Filipkowski adds.

He sums up the situation: “Trump under oath in his deposition: I’m worth at least $10 billion, I have over $3 billion in tangible assets, I have $400 million in cash. Trump to appellate court: I can come up with $100 million and I need more time to sell stuff to come up with the rest.”

Indeed, The New York Times reported earlier this month, “Mr. Trump claimed under oath last year that he was sitting on more than $400 million in cash.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James was quick to urge the court to deny Trump’s offer of $100 million, or, as Just Security’s Adam Klasfeld reports, “to deny Trump’s application to pause enforcement of the judgment pending appeal, including the disgorgement, monitoring, and loan prohibition.”

“Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment amount; defendants would need ‘to raise capital’ to do so,” James writes, as Klasfeld notes.

READ MORE: ‘Conspiring With Putin’: Democratic Congressman Brings the Hammer Down on Jim Jordan

Klasfeld points to this section of Trump’s motion that reads: “In the absence of a stay on the terms herein outlined, properties would likely need to be sold to raise capital under exigent circumstances, and there would be no way to recover any property sold following a successful appeal and no means to recover the resulting financial losses from the Attorney General.”

In other words, Trump’s attorneys are saying he would have to sell assets, or properties, at less than market value, and should he win his appeal, he would have no means to be compensated for the difference in value.

“Trump has less than 30 days to post the money to prevent the New York attorney general’s office from taking steps to execute the judgment, including potentially move to seize properties,” CNN adds. “It is not yet clear how he plans to cover the payment.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.