Connect with us

ABC Host Shuts Down Trump Adviser On Voter Fraud: “You Have Provided Zero Evidence. Thanks For Joining Us.”

Published

on

George Stephanopoulos Visibly Angered By Stephen Miller’s Lies

ABC News host George Stephanopoulos shut down White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller on Sunday, after Miller doubled down on President Donald Trump’s false claims this week about voter fraud in New Hampshire. 

“Do you have that evidence?” Stephanopoulos asked on ABC’s “This Week.”  

Miller responded that he once worked on a campaign in New Hampshire, and it’s “widely known by anybody who’s worked in New Hampshire politics.” 

“Hold on a second, you just claimed again that there was illegal voting in New Hampshire, people bused in from the state of Massachusetts. Do you have any evidence to back that up?” Stephanopoulos said. 

“George, go to New Hampshire, talk to anybody who’s worked in politics there for a long time. Everybody’s aware of the problem in New Hampshire with respect to bringing in voters,” Miller said. 

“I’m asking you as the White House senior policy adviser,” Stephanopoulos interrupted. “The president made a statement saying he was the victim of voter fraud, people being bused from Massachusetts to New Hampshire. Do you have any evidence?” 

“If this is an issue that interests you, then we can talk about it more in the future,” Miller responded.  

“Just for the record, you have provided absolutely no evidence,” Stephanopoulos eventually said. “You have provided zero evidence that the president was the victim of massive voter fraud in New Hampshire. You have provided zero evidence of the president’s claim that he would have won the popular vote if 3-5 million illegal immigrants hadn’t voted. Zero evidence for either one of those claims. Thanks a lot of joining us this morning.” 

Reactions from Twitter below. 

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.

'EXPAND THE SUPREME COURT'

‘Endless Cycle of Republican Abuse of Power’: Legal Experts Blast McConnell for Planning to Block a Biden SCOTUS Pick

Published

on

U.S. Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell kicked off the week by telling right wing radio host Hugh Hewitt that he is planning to block any U.S. Supreme Court nominee President Joe Biden makes if Republicans win back the Senate next year.

“Let me ask you, if you regain the majority in 2022 for the Republicans, and there’s a very good chance of that happening,” Hewitt posited, “would the rule that you applied in 2016 to the Scalia vacancy apply in 2024 to any vacancy that occurred then?”

McConnell responded by once again invoking happenstance as precedence.

“Well, I think in the middle of a presidential election, if you have a Senate of the opposite party of the president, you have to go back to the 1880s to find the last time a vacancy was filled,” he said, not mentioning that none were actually blocked. “So I think it’s highly unlikely. In fact, no, I don’t think either party if it controlled, if it were different from the president, would confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the middle of an election. What was different in 2020 was we were of the same party as the president.”

“And that’s why we went ahead with it,” McConnell added.

The U.S. Constitution says nothing about party control in the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, and in fact the founders warned of the dangers of even having political parties.

During the interview Hewitt credited McConnell’s blocking of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee to Donald Trump winning the 2016 election. Obama nominated then-Judge Merrick Garland 237 days before Election Day. McConnell bragged that blocking him is “the single most consequential thing I’ve done in my time as majority leader of the Senate.”

Legal experts are blasting McConnell.

“I’m not convinced a Republican-controlled Senate will ever confirm another Democratic president’s appeals court nominees, either,” says Slate staff writer on courts and the law, Mark Joseph Stern. “*Maybe* a tiny handful, but as a rule, Republicans will hold those seats open. They’ve all but admitted as much!”

Clinton White House official, Harvard-educated attorney, CNN political commentator Keith Boykin:

Legal Affairs Editor, Condé Nast Luke Zaleski:

National Security attorney Brad Moss:

Voting rights expert and contributing writer at The Nation Ari Berman:

Election law expert, Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine Rick Hasen:

US Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey:

 

 

 

Continue Reading

BREAKING NEWS

Trump-Appointed DOJ Official Involved in Spying on Democrats to Exit Next Week

Published

on

Trump-appointee John Demers, the head of the Dept. of Justice’s National Security Division and one of the officials who was involved in the spying on Democratic lawmakers in Congress is expected to step down at the end of next week.

The New York Times reports “prosecutors supervised by Mr. Demers seized the records of reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN and of top House Democrats while investigating leaks of classified information. The department’s inspector general announced an investigation on Friday into the matter.”

But the Times makes clear spying on Democratic lawmakers, at least two, plus their staffs, family members, and even a minor child – or at least the gag order on that spying – required sign-off by the Attorney General.

“While it is common for the Justice Department to try to find out who shared classified information with the media, it is highly unusual to secretly gather records from the press and lawmakers. The prosecutors also prevented the lawyers and executives of The Times and CNN from disclosing that records had been taken, even to their newsroom leaders, another highly aggressive step,” the Times notes.

“Such moves require signoff by the attorney general. But Mr. Demers and his top counterintelligence deputies in the division would typically be briefed and updated on those efforts.”

Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has demanded Demers, whose official title is Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, testify.

The Times claims that Demers’ departure “was arranged months ago but now comes amid widespread backlash over investigations into leaks of classified information that began under the Trump administration.”

 

This is a breaking news and developing story. 

Continue Reading

ANALYSIS

Watergate Prosecutor Explains Why It’s Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions Who Are Lying About Trump’s Spying

Published

on

Former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks explained on MSNBC Sunday that there’s no way that Attorneys General Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions didn’t know about the warrants to spy on reporters, Democratic members of Congress, their staff and families, and of his own White House counsel.

Barr, Sessions and former Justice Department deputy Rod Rosenstein have all denied they knew of the subpoenas to spy, but Wine-Banks explained that’s impossible because something like this would go all the way to the top.

“It may be that the person that they were investigating, had a legitimate predication for the search warrants and that they had some reason to do this,” she told MSNBC. “It could have been that he got called by somebody that they were already investigating. It doesn’t mean this is normal. It is not normal, and I think the investigation is absolutely critical, holding someone accountable is important to stop this from ever happening again. We can’t have members of Congress, the press, and the White House counsel subjected to this. And the reason Don McGahn, of course, is of concern is because he was cooperating with Mueller which made him an enemy of Donald Trump. Donald Trump was calling out [Adam] Schiff, he was calling out [Eric] Swalwell, people who were subject to this search warrant, and he certainly must have felt uncomfortable with his own White House counsel who was cooperating and telling the truth to Mueller. So, that’s why it’s of concern.”

Sessions said that he was never briefed on this seizure of records. Barr played fast and loose with the language, saying that he never discussed the leak cases with Trump. That was similar language to Barr’s refusal to answer when then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) questioned him about Trump or anybody else who “asked or suggested” that he open an investigation into his political foes. Barr pretended not to know what the word “suggested” meant and refused to answer.

Host Alicia Menendez asked Wine-Banks if it was possible they didn’t have any idea what was going on.

“In my opinion, no, and let me tell you why,” said Wine-Banks. “First of all, we had [Osmar] Benvenuto, who was brought in at the recommendation of the U.S. Attorney from New Jersey, who was put in by Barr to replace the New York attorney who he was pushing out. He recommended Benvenuto who came in, and Benvenuto has said — in a recording, that he briefed Barr at least every other week. So, it is not credible. And if Barr didn’t know about this, then Barr is the worst manager, the worst Attorney General ever, because that is his job. The Department of Justice policy requires that there be notice and approval from a higher source. So, it’s not something that you can just subpoena a member of Congress’ records or a reporter’s records without something much more. So, it doesn’t pass what I call the ‘red face test.’ It’s like, could I stand up before a jury and say this in front of them without blushing or giggling? The answer is, no, I couldn’t.”

Apple said in a statement that the DOJ request provided “no information on the nature of the investigation and it would have been virtually impossible for Apple to understand the intent of the desired information without digging through users’ accounts.”

Presumably, the court documents would have detailed who appeared in court for the warrant and there should be enough of a paper trail that some of the Justice Department officials involved were named. Barr hasn’t actually denied that he played any role in renewing the requests or that he didn’t know of the investigation. He’s only said he didn’t discuss it with Trump. It’s unclear why he would have discussed it given he wasn’t there when the investigation was launched. The gag order against Apple was renewed over and over again, which would have also required a lot of paperwork.

See the video below:

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.