President Donald Trump will nominate former Tea Party Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain to the Federal Reserve board, but this time is expected to wait until a background check is completed, Axios reports.
Cain, who is not an economist, was forced to drop his 2012 White House hopes after accusations by five different women of sexual misconduct.
He is best known for his “9-9-9” tax policies that were not actual policies and were never fully fleshed out. Essentially, Cain proposed a 9% personal income tax, a 9% federal sales tax, and a 9% corporate tax, but there were no studies done that explained how they would affect the U.S. economy.
A former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Cain’s positions on same-sex marriage abortion, and other social issues place him on the hard core, far right wing conservative spectrum.
Cain’s impending nomination follows Trump’s also disastrous choice of Stephen Moore, a former Fox News and CNN analyst associated with right wing think tanks and activist organizations.
Moore wrote a book praising Trump’s economic “plans” and called for him to be awarded a Nobel prize.
Moore, it was revealed after Trump nominated him, owes the IRS $75,000, and owed his ex-wife hundreds of thousands of dollars. She also has accused him of flaunting his extramarital affairs in her face.
Here is video from 2011 of one of Cain’s accusers:
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.
Sinema ‘Weighing’ Senate Speech Against Changing Filibuster for Voting Rights as Biden Visits Hill to Meet With Dems
President Joe Biden Thursday afternoon will make a rare trip to Capitol Hill, where he will attend a regular Democratic luncheon with the singular purpose of shaking hands and twisting arms, hoping to convince the lawmakers to pass his voting rights legislation: the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Conspicuous in her absence likely will be U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema who may be on the Senate floor when the President of the United States comes to meet with members of her own party.
The Arizona Democrat is “weighing” delivering a speech “against changing the rules for voting rights, per two Senate sources,” Politico’s Tara Palmieri reports.
One of those sources, Palmieri adds, says “Sinema is having Joe Biden for lunch.”
President Biden served as a U.S. Senator for 36 years before being elected Vice President, and subsequently President. Sinema served six years in the House and is a freshman Senator, first elected in 2018.
Sen. Sinema’s top donors, according to Open Secrets include a Texas-based tax software firm, a private equity firm, and Goldman Sachs, the multi-national investment giant.
‘Hideous Coward’: Critics Blast ‘Disgusting Fraud’ Lindsey Graham for Accusing Biden of Politicizing the Insurrection
After President Joe Biden delivered what some are calling his best speech ever, commemorating the one-year anniversary of Trump supporters’ attack on the U.S. Capitol – an insurrection and attempted coup – Senator Lindsey Graham served up a horrific attack on the American President, and is being highly criticized for it.
“What brazen politicization of January 6 by President Biden,” Sen. Graham tweeted. “I wonder if the Taliban who now rule Afghanistan with al-Qaeda elements present, contrary to President Biden’s beliefs, are allowing this speech to be carried?”
Tom Nichols, a U.S. Naval War College professor and expert with a lengthy résumé on Russia, national security, and nuclear weapons, slammed the Republican from South Carolina as a “hideous coward.”
Amy Siskind, whose work documenting the fascism of the Trump presidency gained national attention, likewise labeled Graham as an “unpatriotic coward.”
“Trying to prevent the certification of the election was done by ONE side and it wasn’t the left,” The Atlantic’s Molly Jong-Fast replied to Graham. “Also Watching Republicans turn against democracy instead of disavowing trumpism is pretty depressing.”
Political commentator Keith Olbermann minced no words: “So your party’s attempt to overthrow democracy was a non-partisan event? Once you were a Senator, grudgingly respected by your opponents. Now you are a Trump Whore. Flee the country.”
Slate’s Will Saletan:
It’s tragic that the Afghan government collapsed and that we had to abandon so many Afghans, after Biden withdrew in compliance with the deal Trump signed.
It’s even more dismaying that an American senator cares more about Afghanistan than about an attack on the United States.
— Will Saletan (@saletan) January 6, 2022
“Yes, the Taliban loves broadcasting speeches by American presidents, that’s a terrific point,” wrote historian Kevin Kruse, mocking Graham, who’s supposedly an expert on foreign affairs.
Some other responses:
So you are outraged over politicization and then go and do the same thing all in one tweet. Disgusting fraud.
— Tim Hannan (@TimHannan) January 6, 2022
I’m pretty sure Jan. 6th was politicized the moment your political base attempted to siege the Capitol with an intent to kill the Vice President.
— Charlotte Clymer 🏳️🌈 (@cmclymer) January 6, 2022
“Trump and I, we’ve had a hell of a journey. I hate it to end this way. Oh my God, I hate it. From my point of view, he’s been a consequential president, but today, first thing you’ll see. All I can say is a count me out. Enough is enough.” Lindsey Graham Speech January 6, 2021
— Outspoken (@Out5p0ken) January 6, 2022
Garland Speech Satisfies Some, Disappoints Others Who Say It Focused on Violence and Not Those Behind the Insurrection
Attorney General Merrick Garland finally delivered a speech on the January 6 insurrection, 364 days after the attack on American democracy. Some experts appeared to be satisfied, but many more casual observers and critics continue to be frustrated at his focus on prioritizing investigating and indicting those who perpetrated violence that day while continuing to, apparently, ignore those responsible for inciting the insurrection and creating and disseminating “the big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen.
One popular social media commentator seemed to sum up the feelings of many watching and responding via social media, calling Garland’s remarks “a July 2021 speech not a ‘One Year After a Coup Attempt’ speech.”
Merrick Garland is delivering the speech he should have given six months ago.
This is a July 2021 speech not a “One Year After a Coup Attempt” speech.
— The Hoarse Whisperer (@TheRealHoarse) January 5, 2022
“The Justice Dept. remains committed to holding all January 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law — whether they were present that day or otherwise criminally responsible,” Garland said in his speech (full video via C-SPAN), addressing DOJ employees. “There are questions about how long the investigation will take, and about what exactly we are doing. Our answer is — whatever it takes for justice to be done.”
But critics point out that Garland’s speech was largely focused on “statistics,” including how many arrests have been made. None of those arrests include Trump administration officials, or those who were behind the attack on American democracy.
“So, one thing you should notice about Garland’s framing of Jan 6 is that he *starts* at storming of the Capitol, *not* at the rally before,” wrote The Nation’s Justice Correspondent Elie Mystal, as Garland was speaking. “This goes to his general way of framing this as individual bad actors instead of a wider criminal conspiracy.”
MSNBC legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance responded to Mystal, saying: “This is a fair criticism. One of the things I’m looking for in this speech is whether he will suggest that Jan 6 was the culmination of an effort to overturn the election, or whether he views the events that took place at the Capitol in a vacuum.”
Vance appeared less concerned, adding:
Garland: “We will follow the facts wherever they lead.”
He says this with emphasis. It’s a commitment. He says he’ll take as long as it takes to do it right. “We will & we must speak through our work.”
This is prosecutor speak for, game on.
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) January 5, 2022
Well-known, retired FBI Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi, now an NBC News National Security Contributor appeared more hopeful:
AG references “Watergate”. “Same norms for the powerful or the powerless”. DOJ will pursue those “whether present that day or not”. Get it? Merrick Garland pledges pursuit of Jan 6 suspects at ‘any level’ https://t.co/5zn3m5Lnyp
— Frank Figliuzzi (@FrankFigliuzzi1) January 5, 2022
And the highly-respected President and Director-Counsel of NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), Sherrilyn Ifill, also seemed satisfied:
Critical points I heard frm the Garland speech:
1) DOJ is prosecuting the full web of participants involved in Jan 6 & following all leads.
2)No one is off the table for prosecution if they were involved.
3) elaborate prosecutions of this sort take time & begin at the bottom /
— Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sifill_LDF) January 5, 2022
So was Daniel Goldman, the former Lead Counsel of the House Impeachment Inquiry,a nd a former Asst. U.S. Attorney at SDNY:
Strong, emphatic, and determined speech by Garland. The key quote is when he referred to perpetrators who may not have been at the Capitol on Jan 6. But open question remains whether investig has or will extend to efforts to overturn the election, separate from Jan 6 culpability.
— Daniel Goldman (@danielsgoldman) January 5, 2022
The Guardian’s congressional reporter Hugo Lowell observes Garland “effectively left open the possibility of a criminal investigation into the Trump WH over the Capitol attack, vowing to hold accountable the perpetrators — at any level — of the Jan. 6 insurrection.”
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM3 days ago
Virginia’s Republican Attorney General-Elect Fires Dozens of Lawyers Including in Civil Rights Division
- CRIME3 days ago
Former Federal Prosecutor: DOJ Believes It Can Prove Insurrection Was ‘Armed Effort to Overthrow Our Government’
- CRIME2 days ago
Sedition Indictments Reveal the DOJ Is Looking Beyond the Jan 6th Insurrection: Former US Attorney
- 'WINDOW INTO WHERE THIS IS ALL HEADED'1 day ago
‘Avalanche of Lies’: Trump’s Arizona Speech Smacked Down by CNN Host
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM23 hours ago
Die-Hard MAGA Trump Supporters in Arizona Think ‘It’s Very Possible’ States Will ‘Decertify’ the 2020 Election
- 'NO SHAME'4 hours ago
‘You Singlehandedly Blocked the Emmett Till Antilynching Act’: Rand Paul Scorched Over His MLK ‘Commemoration’
- WTH?7 hours ago
Lara Trump Thinks Microsoft Office Assistant ‘Clippy’ Is a Real Person Spying on Everything She Writes
- 'WHAT'S THE NEXT LINE?'6 hours ago
‘Performative Drivel’: Marco Rubio Mocked and Schooled After Taking MLK Quote Out of Context