Connect with us

News

Pence Bombshell Resurfaces Old Questions About Grassley and January 6

Published

on

An ABC News bombshell report revealing then-Vice President Mike Pence had, at one point, decided to not preside over the January 6 joint congressional session to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election is once again bringing up questions about remarks U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) had made one day before the event, which some interpreted as him announcing he, and not the Vice President, would be presiding over the proceedings. Grassley later denied the claim.

The ABC News report includes conversations Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team had in closed-door sessions with Pence, including the former vice president’s notes they obtained from the National Archives.

“According to sources, one of Pence’s notes obtained by Smith’s team shows that, days before Pence was set to preside over Congress certifying the election results on Jan. 6, 2021, he momentarily decided that he would skip the proceedings altogether, writing in the note that there were ‘too many questions’ and it would otherwise be ‘too hurtful to my friend.’ But he ultimately concluded he had a duty to show up,” ABC News reported.

The report added that their “sources said, with the pressure on Pence mounting, he concluded on Christmas Eve — just for a moment — that he would follow Trump’s suggestion and let someone else preside over the proceedings on Jan. 6.”

READ MORE: Johnson Suggests Santos May Resign – Will Indicted Congressman Try to Burn the House Down First?

“Speaking with Smith’s team, Pence insisted his loyalty to President Trump at the time never faltered — ‘My only higher loyalty was to God and the Constitution,’ sources described Pence as telling them.”

“‘Not feeling like I should attend electoral count,’ Pence wrote in his notes in late December. ‘Too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. Therefore I’m not going to participate in certification of election.'”

ABC’s report is prompting questions about U.S. Senator Grassley’s remarks on January 5, 2021, when he said he would be presiding over the Senate the following, fateful day.

Back in September, the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake revisited that event, which in 2021 sparked rumors and speculation.

“Asked whether former president Donald Trump’s legal team had any discussions about Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) presiding over the certification of the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021, rather than Vice President Mike Pence, [Trump coup memo author John] Eastman declined to answer, citing attorney-client privilege with Trump,” The Post reported, referring to Eastman’s legal testimony in a disbarment proceeding. “The moment drew renewed attention to one of the bigger unanswered questions about Jan. 6: How extensive was the effort to get Pence to step aside?”

READ MORE: ‘How Sick Your Soul’: Conservatives Slammed for Suing Over Program Supporting Pregnant Black Women

“While Grassley has denied any outreach about whether he would preside on Jan. 6, an email obtained by the [U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack] shows that one of his staff members asked Pence’s office on Dec. 23, 2020, about such a scenario.”

“‘ … Is there any reason to believe that your boss will not preside over the electoral college vote count,’ Grassley aide James Rice wrote, as recounted in Jan. 6 committee transcripts, ‘leaving my boss in the spot as [president pro tem]?'”

“Pence aide Paul Teller responded that ‘it’s not a zero percent chance of that happening.'”

But The Post concluded, “the suggestion that this was a concerted effort to get rid of Pence remains unsubstantiated.”

In October of 2022, the Des Moines Register also looked that that event from January 5.

“As the counting of electoral votes neared, reporters asked Grassley how he planned to vote on election certification, the Iowa newspaper reported.

“’If the vice president isn’t there, and we don’t expect him to be there, I will be presiding over the Senate and obviously listening to the debate without saying anything,’ [Grassley] said on a call with agriculture reporters Jan. 5, 2021. ‘You’re asking me how I’m going to vote. I’m going to listen to that debate on what my colleagues have to say during that debate and decide how to cast my vote after considering the information before me.'”

The Register added, “Taylor Foy, a spokesperson for Grassley, quickly issued a clarification to the media the same day, saying Grassley was talking about possibly presiding over the Senate debate if Pence happened to step out. The House and Senate needed to meet separately to consider objections to the electoral count in individual states before convening a joint session of Congress.”

READ MORE: Trump Serves Up ‘Sarcastic’ Reason Why He Uses Obama’s Name Instead of Biden’s

Regardless of the Grassley issue, many have served up sharp criticism of Pence after learning he at one point had decided to not execute his constitutional responsibilities, even if he ultimately did perform his duty.

“A regular Profile in Courage,” presidential historian Michael Beschloss sarcastically declared.

“I myself would never want to upset a good friend who wishes to see me hung by an angry armed mob,” conservative attorney George Conway said mockingly.

“The most important takeaway from the ABC News story re: Pence hedging on whether he should preside over the counting of the Electoral College votes on January 6, is that the pressure campaign on Pence to unlawfully and unilaterally upend the election was not entirely ineffective,” observed professor of law Anthony Michael Kreis.

“Remember that Mike Pence, who didn’t want to carry out the Constitutional oath he took that ended with the words ‘So Help Me God’ shamelessly titled his book about the events ‘So Help Me God.’ The man’s always been a shameless fraud,” declared political scientist David Darmofal.

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

Trump Dodges, Denies and Deflects Questions as Ukraine Weapons Scandal Grows

Published

on

The halted Ukraine weapons scandal is growing as President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he had not even thought about who gave the order to pause the shipment of vital munitions—which caused tremendous turmoil inside the White House, Congress, and Kyiv—but if it had been given, he claimed, he would have both known about it and likely been the one to give it.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, for the third time, approved the decision to pause the shipments of weapons to Ukraine—just before President Donald Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Hours after that conversation, Russia launched one of the largest bombing attacks since the start of its illegal war against Ukraine.

“Sir,” a reporter asked President Trump at the White House on Wednesday afternoon, “yesterday you said that you were not sure who ordered the munitions halted to Ukraine. Have you since been able to figure that out?”

RELATED: ‘Secretary Chaos’: Hegseth Running ‘Absolute Clown Show’ Critics Say, Amid Calls to Resign

“Well,” Trump replied, as he acknowledged the munitions had been halted, “I haven’t thought about it because we’re looking at Ukraine right now and munitions, but, uh, I have no, I have not gone into it.”

“What does it say that such a big decision could be made inside your government without you knowing?” the reporter pressed.

“Uh, I would know,” Trump insisted. “If a decision was made, I would know. I’d be the first to know, in fact, most likely, I’d give the order, but I haven’t done that yet.”

The President then moved on to take a question from a different reporter.

President Trump on Tuesday had claimed he had no knowledge of who ordered the halt in weapons shipments. That pause came just after his July 3 call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Hours later, Russia launched a massive bombing campaign against Ukraine.

“So who ordered the pause last week?” a CNN reporter had asked Trump on Tuesday.

“I don’t know,” Trump replied. “Why don’t you tell me?”

The halt of weapons to Ukraine was so catastrophic and damaging that it set off “a scramble inside the administration to understand why the halt was implemented and explain it to Congress and the Ukrainian government,” CNN reported.

Critics blasted the President.

READ MORE: ‘No Amnesty’ and No Plan: Trump Ag Sec Grilled on Farm Labor as Deportations Continue

“This is quite literally becoming a daily thing, where Trump disavows making decision after decision, some of which would be wildly illegal without his involvement,” observed civil liberties and national security journalist Marcy Wheeler.

“There are some people who I think are really principled callers-out of cognitive decline, just like deeply invested in the matter as something that self-evidently needs to be called out publicly and not swept under the rug, who I can’t wait to hear from,” noted Pat Dennis, president of American Bridge, a Democratic Super PAC.

Watch the video below or at this link.

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Not Even Done Your Homework, Sir’: Dem Demands ‘Unqualified’ Trump Nominee ‘Shape Up’

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as Ambassador to Singapore, orthopedic and sports medicine surgeon Dr. Anjani (Anji) Sinha, was blasted and berated during his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, after he appeared unable to answer critical questions about the role Singapore plays in U.S. national security and security in the Indo-Pacific region.

U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), a decorated Iraq War veteran and retired lieutenant colonel, pressed Dr. Sinha with pointed questions—particularly about Singapore’s role in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a bloc of ten member countries that includes Singapore.

“What does holding the ASEAN chairmanship entail for Singapore?” Senator Duckworth asked. “Can you name one thing? A role that they would have to play as ASEAN chair?”

“Well, you know that there—this is ASEAN chair is not only one country that are ten countries in—” Dr. Sinha replied.

READ MORE: ‘Secretary Chaos’: Hegseth Running ‘Absolute Clown Show’ Critics Say, Amid Calls to Resign

“No, the ASEAN chair is one country,” Duckworth explained.

“But there are 10 countries involved as the ASEAN group,” Sinha responded.

“You’re not answering my question. You’re not answering my question, sir,” said Duckworth, who sits on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee and on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. “Can you name one thing there will be of critical importance to Singapore as ASEAN Chair? A role? There are many things. Can you name one thing?”

“Defense, economics…” Sinha offered.

“Those are very broad. Name an issue,” Duckworth demanded.

“Trade,” Sinha said.

“I don’t think…no,” Duckworth replied.

The questions continued, with Duckworth appearing extremely dissatisfied with Sinha’s answers.

“Please,” she finally said, “I’m trying to help you here, but you’ve not even done your homework, sir. You want to be ambassador to Singapore, one of the most important alliances, friends we have in the Indo-Pacific. A key place that we’re going to be fighting against our greatest adversary in the region, the PRC,” she explained, referring to the People’s Republic of China.

READ MORE: ‘No Amnesty’ and No Plan: Trump Ag Sec Grilled on Farm Labor as Deportations Continue

“Singapore may feature incredible culture, but that should not be treated as a glamour posting,” Duckworth continued. “This nation is too important to the United States, to ASEAN, to the entire region. And frankly, I think the mission is important to U.S. interests and national security, and it should actually be a foreign service officer.”

“But I have even larger concerns with the political pick, when that political pick is somebody as unqualified as you,” she charged. “I’ve opposed political picks for Singapore from Democrats. So this is not a partisan issue. I just feel that you are not taking this seriously, and you think this is a glamour posting that you’re going to live a nice life in Singapore. What we need is someone who’s going to actually do the work.”

“You are not currently prepared for this posting, period,” Duckworth concluded, “and you need to shape up and do some homework.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Claims ‘Tremendous Power’ to Run ‘Places’ Like DC and NYC

Continue Reading

News

‘No Amnesty’ and No Plan: Trump Ag Sec Grilled on Farm Labor as Deportations Continue

Published

on

One day after appearing in front of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to tell reporters there will be “no amnesty” for undocumented farm workers while insisting adults on Medicaid could replace them, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins faced sharp criticism for having no “concrete” plan to meet what she declared is the Trump administration’s goal of an entirely “legal” U.S. farm worker workforce.

“It sounds like you don’t yet have a concrete proposal to deal with farmers who rely on undocumented workers, am I right?” a Fox News Business host asked (video below).

“Well, no, we are working on it. We’re working on a concrete proposal,” Secretary Rollins insisted.

READ MORE: ‘Secretary Chaos’: Hegseth Running ‘Absolute Clown Show’ Critics Say, Amid Calls to Resign

“You’re working on it but that’s not a concrete proposal,” the host sharply charged.

“Well, no, the president has been very, very clear. We need to make sure that the food supply is safe,” Rollins said, before insisting that “ultimately, we have to move toward a 100% legal workforce, and that’s what this president stands for, and that’s what we’re doing.”

“The mass deportations will continue, but the president has been very clear that we have to make sure we’re not compromising our food supply at the same time,” Rollins said before declaring that “Congress has to fix it,” and U.S. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer “is on it.”

“The border has to be secure and there will be no amnesty,” Rollins added, before the host again pointed out the administration has no plan yet.

READ MORE: Trump Claims ‘Tremendous Power’ to Run ‘Places’ Like DC and NYC

“It’s not easy, but I don’t think it’s fair to say there is a concrete proposal when you’re still working out details to try to deal with the needs of farmers who need a lot of these undocumented workers and at the same time not providing an amnesty.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Stupid Liberals With Stupid Policies’: Trump Transportation Secretary Slams NYC

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.