House of Representatives: Democrats in da house!

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Gaetz is a thug:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Devin Nunes sues CNN for $435 million, alleging ‘false hit piece’"

Spoiler

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) filed a lawsuit against CNN on Tuesday, seeking $435,350,000 in damages and claiming that the outlet defamed him last month when it published a “demonstrably false hit piece.”

The Nov. 22 story reported that in December 2018, while serving as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes traveled to Vienna and met with Ukrainian former prosecutor general Victor Shokin to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden — which Nunes’s complaint says is untrue.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleged violations of Virginia’s law against insults and said CNN reporter Vicky Ward, who wrote the article, and anchor Chris Cuomo, who discussed its details on air, conspired with the network “to boost CNN’s ratings and further the House Democrats’ impeachment ‘inquiry.’”

“In promoting fake news about secret meetings in Vienna with a corrupt former Ukraine prosecutor, CNN pandered to lurid curiosity,” the complaint said. “CNN is the mother of fake news. It is the least trusted name. CNN is eroding the fabric of America, proselytizing, sowing distrust and disharmony. It must be held accountable.”

Speaking Tuesday to FOX host Sean Hannity, Nunes claimed he was not in Vienna at the time. Instead, he said, he was in Benghazi meeting with a general and then in Malta participating in a “repatriation ceremony” for a slain American soldier. Pictures that he says were taken on the visits flashed on-screen.

Before publishing the story, CNN asked Nunes to comment, but he declined repeated requests, according to the article.

Nunes told Hannity that he does not respond to any questions from CNN in protest of other “fake news” stories on him.

The story relied on an account from Lev Parnas, a now-indicted business associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani, relayed to CNN by Joseph A. Bondy, Parnas’s attorney. Bondy has said his client would be willing to tell Congress that he learned from Shokin directly that he and Nunes met in Vienna last year.

Nunes’s 47-page complaint accused Parnas of manufacturing a narrative that he hoped would help him negotiate a deal with federal prosecutors or obtain immunity from Congress, and it argued that it was “obvious to everyone — including disgraceful CNN — that Parnas was a fraudster and a hustler.”

Nunes questioned Parnas’s credibility by calling him an “indicted criminal,” yet quoted Igor Fruman, Parnas’s co-defendant who faces the same charges, as evidence that Parnas’s version of events was untrue.

Records disclosed Tuesday in the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry report show phone calls between Nunes and Giuliani as well as between Nunes and Parnas earlier this year. Nunes affirmed on “Hannity” that he has spoken with Giuliani but said the recordings would reveal no wrongdoing.

“They’re welcome to play them,” he said.

He added that “it’s possible” he has spoken with Parnas but that he “doesn’t really recall” the man’s name and has not gone through his records.

“We have Americans and foreigners contacting us every single day with information” on the House Intelligence Committee, he said.

According to Nunes, CNN published the defamatory statements with two goals: to harm his reputation and “cause him to be removed from the impeachment inquiry.”

“CNN harbors an institutional hatred, extreme bias, spite and ill-will toward [Nunes], the GOP and President Trump,” the lawsuit claimed.

As the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes was the face of Trump’s defense throughout the two weeks of public hearings that preceded CNN’s November article. Since then, critics have said he should have recused himself from the impeachment inquiry months ago.

A CNN spokesperson declined to comment Tuesday and did not immediately respond to an inquiry Wednesday morning about Nunes’s comments on FOX. Nunes’s attorney did not respond to The Washington Post’s request Tuesday.

CNN is the most recent defendant in a handful of defamation suits filed by the lawmaker this year.

In March, Nunes filed a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter, claiming the platform, two parody Twitter accounts and a Republican political consultant defamed him with mean tweets. He sued the McClatchy news organization, alleging defamation in August, and sued Ryan Lizza and Hearst Magazines for $77 million two months later, claiming that a story in Esquire about the Nunes family farm in Iowa defamed him.

Tuesday’s lawsuit against CNN delivered on a threat to sue that Nunes made during an appearance on Fox News last month.

 

[fraurosena]

3 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Devin Nunes sues CNN for $435 million, alleging ‘false hit piece’"

  Hide contents

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) filed a lawsuit against CNN on Tuesday, seeking $435,350,000 in damages and claiming that the outlet defamed him last month when it published a “demonstrably false hit piece.”

The Nov. 22 story reported that in December 2018, while serving as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes traveled to Vienna and met with Ukrainian former prosecutor general Victor Shokin to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden — which Nunes’s complaint says is untrue.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleged violations of Virginia’s law against insults and said CNN reporter Vicky Ward, who wrote the article, and anchor Chris Cuomo, who discussed its details on air, conspired with the network “to boost CNN’s ratings and further the House Democrats’ impeachment ‘inquiry.’”

“In promoting fake news about secret meetings in Vienna with a corrupt former Ukraine prosecutor, CNN pandered to lurid curiosity,” the complaint said. “CNN is the mother of fake news. It is the least trusted name. CNN is eroding the fabric of America, proselytizing, sowing distrust and disharmony. It must be held accountable.”

Speaking Tuesday to FOX host Sean Hannity, Nunes claimed he was not in Vienna at the time. Instead, he said, he was in Benghazi meeting with a general and then in Malta participating in a “repatriation ceremony” for a slain American soldier. Pictures that he says were taken on the visits flashed on-screen.

Before publishing the story, CNN asked Nunes to comment, but he declined repeated requests, according to the article.

Nunes told Hannity that he does not respond to any questions from CNN in protest of other “fake news” stories on him.

The story relied on an account from Lev Parnas, a now-indicted business associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani, relayed to CNN by Joseph A. Bondy, Parnas’s attorney. Bondy has said his client would be willing to tell Congress that he learned from Shokin directly that he and Nunes met in Vienna last year.

Nunes’s 47-page complaint accused Parnas of manufacturing a narrative that he hoped would help him negotiate a deal with federal prosecutors or obtain immunity from Congress, and it argued that it was “obvious to everyone — including disgraceful CNN — that Parnas was a fraudster and a hustler.”

Nunes questioned Parnas’s credibility by calling him an “indicted criminal,” yet quoted Igor Fruman, Parnas’s co-defendant who faces the same charges, as evidence that Parnas’s version of events was untrue.

Records disclosed Tuesday in the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry report show phone calls between Nunes and Giuliani as well as between Nunes and Parnas earlier this year. Nunes affirmed on “Hannity” that he has spoken with Giuliani but said the recordings would reveal no wrongdoing.

“They’re welcome to play them,” he said.

He added that “it’s possible” he has spoken with Parnas but that he “doesn’t really recall” the man’s name and has not gone through his records.

“We have Americans and foreigners contacting us every single day with information” on the House Intelligence Committee, he said.

According to Nunes, CNN published the defamatory statements with two goals: to harm his reputation and “cause him to be removed from the impeachment inquiry.”

“CNN harbors an institutional hatred, extreme bias, spite and ill-will toward [Nunes], the GOP and President Trump,” the lawsuit claimed.

As the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes was the face of Trump’s defense throughout the two weeks of public hearings that preceded CNN’s November article. Since then, critics have said he should have recused himself from the impeachment inquiry months ago.

A CNN spokesperson declined to comment Tuesday and did not immediately respond to an inquiry Wednesday morning about Nunes’s comments on FOX. Nunes’s attorney did not respond to The Washington Post’s request Tuesday.

CNN is the most recent defendant in a handful of defamation suits filed by the lawmaker this year.

In March, Nunes filed a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter, claiming the platform, two parody Twitter accounts and a Republican political consultant defamed him with mean tweets. He sued the McClatchy news organization, alleging defamation in August, and sued Ryan Lizza and Hearst Magazines for $77 million two months later, claiming that a story in Esquire about the Nunes family farm in Iowa defamed him.

Tuesday’s lawsuit against CNN delivered on a threat to sue that Nunes made during an appearance on Fox News last month.

 

Sorry, but this just makes me laugh. Another lawsuit? Good grief, if he keeps this up he'll be in court till the day he dies.

[GreyhoundFan]

I hadn't heard this. I hope he'll be okay:

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

Things that make you go hmmmm....

[JMarie]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rep-van-drew-to-switch-to-republican-party-11576359538

Quote

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a New Jersey Democrat opposed to impeaching President Trump, plans to switch to the Republican Party, according to several people familiar with his thinking.

Mr. Van Drew is one of two Democratic lawmakers who opposed an impeachment investigation into Mr. Trump. He represents a district that the president won in 2016.

Mr. Van Drew informed his staff of his plans this weekend, according to people familiar with the conversations, though it wasn’t clear when he would make the switch. His spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

 

[thoughtful]

Ted Lieu is recovering, and being droll as ever:

 

[JMarie]

On 12/14/2019 at 6:17 PM, JMarie said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rep-van-drew-to-switch-to-republican-party-11576359538

 

https://www.inquirer.com/news/jeff-van-drew-aides-resign-republican-switch-impeachment-20191216.html

https://www.inquirer.com/news/jeff-van-drew-party-switch-trump-impeachment-20191218.html

 

[JMarie]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/north-carolinas-mark-meadows-wont-run-for-reelection/ar-BBY9B7G?ocid=spartanntp

 

[thoughtful]

1 hour ago, JMarie said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/north-carolinas-mark-meadows-wont-run-for-reelection/ar-BBY9B7G?ocid=spartanntp

 

Quote

"I’m going to be working closer with the president, not less so,” Meadows said. “Without getting into any specifics, I’ve had ongoing conversations with the president about helping with his team in a closer environment."

May they both sink into obscurity, like the allosaur. Amen.

Edited December 19, 2019 by thoughtful
fixing quote

[GreyhoundFan]

I wonder if he had to kiss the mango moron's ring: "Van Drew pledges 'undying support' for Trump as he switches parties"

Spoiler

Rep. Jeff Van Drew on Thursday formally became a Republican, pledging his “undying support“ for Donald Trump as the ex-Democrat sat next to the president in the White House.

“I believe that this is just a better fit for me,” the New Jersey lawmaker said, following a meeting with Trump on Thursday afternoon. “This is who I am.”

Van Drew made the move after breaking with the Democrats on impeachment, voting against both articles on Wednesday night.

Trump quickly embraced Van Drew on Thursday, endorsing him and calling him “highly respected.“ Van Drew was first elected to the House in 2018 in a Southern New Jersey district that voted for Trump in 2016.

“I don’t know how, as a Democrat, you could have won in that district very well. That’s a great tribute to you,” Trump said. “We were very fortunate he voted our way yesterday.“

Vice President Mike Pence and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy also threw their support behind Van Drew.

Also joining the Trump-Van Drew meeting were acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Trump‘s daughter and senior adviser, Ivanka Trump.

McCarthy said the switch was significant because Van Drew was going from the majority to minority party in the House.

“Normally it doesn’t go that way,” he said.

Van Drew was automatically kicked out of the Democratic Caucus after he made his announcement. The caucus chairman, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, sent a two-sentence letter to Van Drew on Thursday afternoon notifying him of the move.

“Pursuant to Rule 1 of the House Democratic Caucus, membership is automatically relinquished upon resignation from the Democratic Party,” the letter read. “In accordance with that Rule, you are no longer a Member of the House Democratic Caucus effective immediately.”

House Majority PAC, a super PAC dedicated to electing Democrats, issued a terse request for the newly minted Republican to return the organization's $2,500 donation, calling Van Drew‘s decision “shameful.“

The president has been praising Van Drew as his party-switching plans started leaking out.

“Congressman Jeff Van Drew is very popular in our great and very united Republican Party," Trump tweeted earlier this week. “It was a tribute to him that he was able to win his heavily Republican district as a Democrat. People like that are not easily replaceable!“

Trump first approached Van Drew about becoming a Republican after the New Jersey Democrat voted against a resolution that endorsed the House's impeachment inquiry and set out rules for the proceedings.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"'I'm never afraid and I'm rarely surprised': Pelosi emboldened"

Spoiler

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is heading into the holidays emboldened, finishing a tumultuous year back in the majority by both impeaching President Donald Trump and then muscling through the House his biggest legislative win on trade — a signature issue for him — all within 24 hours.

Pelosi was assertive and upbeat during a year-end interview in her speaker’s suite Thursday, punching back at her GOP critics, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

“Oh pfft,” Pelosi told POLITICO, waving her hand dismissively when asked about McConnell’s suggestion she was “too afraid” to send him the articles of impeachment against Trump, which would trigger a Senate trial on whether to oust the president.

“Fear is never a word used with me. You should know right away,” Pelosi added. “I’m never afraid and I’m rarely surprised.”

The California Democrat’s confidence comes after Congress wrapped up a heavy legislative workload for 2019, including passing key pieces of her party’s agenda. Lawmakers eagerly departed the Capitol Thursday for a nearly three-week recess, although many questions remain unanswered about the next steps on impeachment.

Pelosi, personally, is ending the year on a high note after successfully guiding her diverse, and at times fractured, caucus through a turbulent 12 months bookended by a record-breaking 35-day government shutdown in January and Trump's impeachment in December.

Even after Democrats won back the House majority in November 2018, some members of Pelosi’s own caucus questioned whether she should be their leader and demanded term-limits on her second turn as speaker. Now, even her loudest Democratic critics are trumpeting Pelosi’s job performance.

The House impeached Trump late Wednesday, charging him with abusing power and obstructing Congress for his effort to pressure Ukraine to help his reelection campaign and then block the House’s inquiry.

Pelosi has refused to commit to sending over the articles of impeachment until McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) reach an agreement on ground rules for the trial. But she has also downplayed the idea that she will delay the trial as long as possible, saying she’s merely waiting to see what kind of deal the two Senate leaders can reach before she formally transmits them across the Capitol.

McConnell has angered Democrats by repeatedly predicting Trump will be acquitted and by vowing to closely coordinate with the White House during the Senate proceedings. “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can,” McConnell said on Fox News last week.

Pelosi also didn’t hesitate to chide House Republicans’ for their performance during the floor debate over Trump’s impeachment. Some GOP lawmakers compared the president’s predicament to both the crucifixion of Jesus and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

“I mean really? Get out of here,” Pelosi exclaimed.

“Some of them don’t believe in the Constitution,” she continued. “They didn’t act upon it, they acted completely against it. They believe in Donald Trump.”

Pelosi said she hasn’t talked to the president in more than two months, since the day Democratic leaders walked out of a White House meeting after Trump unleashed a string of insults about the speaker.

Shortly after that exchange, the White House tweeted a photo of Pelosi standing and defiantly pointing a finger at the president, who, like everyone else at the table, remained seated.

“Nervous Nancy’s unhinged meltdown!” Trump captioned the photo. But the move backfired; the photo immediately went viral with Democrats tweeting it out as a symbol of the speaker’s strength in facing down a hostile president. Pelosi even triumphantly splashed the photo across her Twitter profile, where it remains.

“Can you believe they tweeted that out?” she said Thursday. “They thought it was a thing to tweet it out. ‘There she is falling apart in a room full of white men.’ And I go out saying, ‘All roads lead to Putin.’”

Yet despite epic confrontations with the president, Pelosi has maintained productive working relationships with some of Trump’s closest advisers, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. In recent weeks, she has worked closely with each of them — hammering out a $1.4 trillion spending deal with Mnuchin and negotiating with Lighthizer on a new North American trade agreement.

The House overwhelmingly passed the trade deal on Thursday — its last business of the year — with only 38 out of 233 House Democrats voting against the measure. It was a stunning level of support inside a caucus where trade deals have often faced vocal opposition.

Some progressive activists and pundits have bashed Pelosi for giving Trump a major legislative victory ahead of the 2020 election, but she insists that it was important for the U.S. economy to enact the agreement.

Pelosi also trumpeted numerous changes to the trade deal demanded by Democrats over months of negotiations. Pulling the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement to the left persuaded AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and other labor leaders to support it, which in turn convinced dozens of rank-and-file Democrats to vote for it.

“Sometimes when you do something there’s a collateral benefit,” Pelosi said of the trade deal. “And it was just not worth it to us to say we’re not doing it because of [Trump].”

With much of the legislative lifting done for the remainder of the 116th Congress — next year is an election year — Pelosi said she felt very confident about Democrats retaining their majority in November.

And more than 30 House Republicans have already announced their retirements or left office, a sign that the GOP is not optimistic about taking back power. On Thursday, Rep, Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a top Trump ally and major force in the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, announced he wasn't going to run for reelection.

“It means that they know they’re gonna lose,” Pelosi declared. “And if you win, you’re going to serve in the minority under a Democratic president. You may want to spend more time with your family.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Party-switching Rep. Van Drew could be an odd fit among House Republicans"

Spoiler

Announcing a switch of parties Thursday, Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) sat next to President Trump in the Oval Office and professed his “undying support.” Meanwhile, Van Drew’s voting record in the House painted a different picture: loyalty to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s policy agenda.

Aside from votes against Trump’s impeachment, the freshman member of Congress had been a loyal vote for key Democratic bills in 2019 — highlighting the odd fit he might be in an increasingly conservative House Republican conference and the potentially tough path he might face in next year’s GOP primary.

Among the legislation Van Drew supported this year were measures blocking Trump from withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, opposing Trump’s ban on transgender military members, opposing Trump’s efforts to undo the Affordable Care Act in the courts and overruling Trump’s efforts to rein in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Van Drew also opposed Trump’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, condemned Trump’s racist comments against minority congresswomen and — twice — voted to overturn Trump’s emergency declaration to build the border wall.

He also backed key policy bills opposed by the Trump administration and all but a handful of Republicans — bills that would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, ban most oil drilling along the U.S. coastline and expand background checks for gun buyers.

At the White House on Thursday, Van Drew said he believed the Republican Party was “just a better fit” for his views. Privately in the preceding days, Van Drew’s top aide assured staffers that his voting behavior would not change as a Republican.

According to two former Van Drew staffers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution, Chief of Staff Allison Murphy told them Van Drew would continue voting for Democratic legislation. The only difference, Murphy said in those conversations, according to the ex-aides, would be that Republican leaders would place him on better committees — suggesting that Van Drew had made those assignments a condition of his switch. The assurances came as part of an effort by Murphy to keep the aides on the congressman’s staff.

Murphy, who continues to work for Van Drew and attended Thursday’s Oval Office event, did not respond to an email seeking comment on the conversations, which happened over the weekend as news of Van Drew’s impending party switch went public.

Her appeals did not succeed: Six staffers resigned shortly after Van Drew informed them of his intended party switch.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, before making his announcement with Trump, Van Drew had a hard time spelling out his policy differences with the Democrats, citing “American exceptionalism” — a point he would make the next day in the Oval Office.

“I don’t want anybody to ever say that this is the same as every other country in the world, because it is not,” he said, citing “certain groups of people that represented certain parts” of the Democratic Party who said “there is no such thing as American exceptionalism.”

Van Drew also expressed support for Trump’s handling of the economy, as well as “honoring our police, our fire, our rescue, our veterans, our soldiers.”

That solidarity with Trump on broad matters of policy and cultural sensibility may not be enough to endear him to Republican voters in South Jersey, which elected GOP Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo to 12 terms before his retirement paved the way for Van Drew’s election last year.

Van Drew on Wednesday described his voting record thusly: “If it’s something that I think is good, I’m going to vote for it. If it’s something that I don’t think is as good, I won’t.”

On one of his first votes as a Republican on Thursday, Van Drew broke with the Trump administration — supporting a bill restoring the full state-and-local-tax deduction, which was capped in the 2017 Republican tax bill. The White House said the restoration measure “is unfair to middle-class taxpayers, encourages excessive spending by states, and would stunt economic growth.”

That bill, however, is one apostasy that may not bother New Jersey Republicans much. As a state with an above-average tax burden, Garden State taxpayers were disproportionately hurt by the tax bill’s cap on the long-standing deduction.

In any case, three conservative Republicans say they will seek the GOP nomination against Van Drew next year and have not been shy about attacking Van Drew as an untrustworthy turncoat who has reliably voted with Democrats.

“How stupid does Desperate Jeff Van Drew think South Jersey Republicans are?” one GOP candidate, Brian Fitzherbert, said in a Facebook post this week. “Desperate Jeff knew exactly what Washington Democrats were about when he ran for Congress two years ago. . . . How can South Jersey Republicans trust Jeff Van Drew to represent our Party?”

Van Drew could find himself relying largely on Trump’s sometimes unreliable goodwill as he seeks to fend off more conservative primary challengers. Republicans familiar with the discussions between Trump, Van Drew and GOP operatives expect the president to campaign in some manner for Van Drew next year.

Mike DuHaime, a Republican strategist and former top political aide to former governor Chris Christie, said he believed support from Trump would be more than enough to allow Van Drew to overcome the intra-GOP attacks.

Van Drew, he noted, earned a reputation in New Jersey as a reliable vote for Christie during his governorship, and voters in the relatively conservative southern tip of the state remain solidly behind Trump.

“People are going to look at that more than some percentage of his votes,” DuHaime said. “That is going to carry more weight.”

But with a campaign of his own to win — one that does not pivot in any way on New Jersey — Van Drew’s renomination might ultimately slip down Trump’s political priority list.

The National Republican Congressional Committee typically does not intervene in GOP primaries, and on Thursday it did not signal any change in policy.

Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the group’s chairman, praised Van Drew “for refusing to blindly follow Nancy Pelosi’s stampede of hate-filled Democrats over the edge of the political cliff” but otherwise made no mention of the primary race to come.

“This is now a Republican seat and we will fight tooth and nail to ensure it remains a Republican seat,” he said, whether Van Drew holds it or not.

On Wednesday, Van Drew said he believed GOP primary voters would recognize his long record as a state legislator who won elections in a largely Republican county.

“I work hard,” he said. “Republicans have always been very supportive of me.”

That may change, though, in New Jersey’s June 2 primary. Another Republican challenger, Bob Patterson, called Van Drew a “liberal opportunist who only cares about protecting his political career” in a Friday statement and called on him to disburse the more than $800,000 he raised as a Democrat.

On that, there is some bipartisan accord: The House Majority PAC, a political action committee affiliated with Pelosi, called on Van Drew to return a $2,500 donation it had given. Democratic colleagues had given his campaign another $234,600 this year, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

“Your shameful decision to join Trump’s GOP is not in line with our values or stated mission,” Abby Curran Horrell, the House Majority PAC executive director, wrote in a letter to Van Drew, echoing grumbling inside the party ranks about Van Drew’s decision to switch parties after millions of dollars of Democratic investment in 2018.

Some Democrats have suggested that Van Drew’s switch was based on his political outlook.

Van Drew’s decision to oppose impeachment badly alienated Democratic voters in his district, sparking a primary challenge that threatened his prospects for reelection. A polling memo obtained by The Washington Post, citing results of a Dec. 7-10 survey of likely Democratic voters commissioned by Van Drew’s campaign, found only 24 percent thought he should be reelected, with 58 percent wanting another Democrat nominated for the seat.

 

[fraurosena]

12 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Party-switching Rep. Van Drew could be an odd fit among House Republicans"

  Hide contents

Announcing a switch of parties Thursday, Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) sat next to President Trump in the Oval Office and professed his “undying support.” Meanwhile, Van Drew’s voting record in the House painted a different picture: loyalty to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s policy agenda.

Aside from votes against Trump’s impeachment, the freshman member of Congress had been a loyal vote for key Democratic bills in 2019 — highlighting the odd fit he might be in an increasingly conservative House Republican conference and the potentially tough path he might face in next year’s GOP primary.

Among the legislation Van Drew supported this year were measures blocking Trump from withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, opposing Trump’s ban on transgender military members, opposing Trump’s efforts to undo the Affordable Care Act in the courts and overruling Trump’s efforts to rein in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Van Drew also opposed Trump’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, condemned Trump’s racist comments against minority congresswomen and — twice — voted to overturn Trump’s emergency declaration to build the border wall.

He also backed key policy bills opposed by the Trump administration and all but a handful of Republicans — bills that would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, ban most oil drilling along the U.S. coastline and expand background checks for gun buyers.

At the White House on Thursday, Van Drew said he believed the Republican Party was “just a better fit” for his views. Privately in the preceding days, Van Drew’s top aide assured staffers that his voting behavior would not change as a Republican.

According to two former Van Drew staffers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution, Chief of Staff Allison Murphy told them Van Drew would continue voting for Democratic legislation. The only difference, Murphy said in those conversations, according to the ex-aides, would be that Republican leaders would place him on better committees — suggesting that Van Drew had made those assignments a condition of his switch. The assurances came as part of an effort by Murphy to keep the aides on the congressman’s staff.

Murphy, who continues to work for Van Drew and attended Thursday’s Oval Office event, did not respond to an email seeking comment on the conversations, which happened over the weekend as news of Van Drew’s impending party switch went public.

Her appeals did not succeed: Six staffers resigned shortly after Van Drew informed them of his intended party switch.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, before making his announcement with Trump, Van Drew had a hard time spelling out his policy differences with the Democrats, citing “American exceptionalism” — a point he would make the next day in the Oval Office.

“I don’t want anybody to ever say that this is the same as every other country in the world, because it is not,” he said, citing “certain groups of people that represented certain parts” of the Democratic Party who said “there is no such thing as American exceptionalism.”

Van Drew also expressed support for Trump’s handling of the economy, as well as “honoring our police, our fire, our rescue, our veterans, our soldiers.”

That solidarity with Trump on broad matters of policy and cultural sensibility may not be enough to endear him to Republican voters in South Jersey, which elected GOP Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo to 12 terms before his retirement paved the way for Van Drew’s election last year.

Van Drew on Wednesday described his voting record thusly: “If it’s something that I think is good, I’m going to vote for it. If it’s something that I don’t think is as good, I won’t.”

On one of his first votes as a Republican on Thursday, Van Drew broke with the Trump administration — supporting a bill restoring the full state-and-local-tax deduction, which was capped in the 2017 Republican tax bill. The White House said the restoration measure “is unfair to middle-class taxpayers, encourages excessive spending by states, and would stunt economic growth.”

That bill, however, is one apostasy that may not bother New Jersey Republicans much. As a state with an above-average tax burden, Garden State taxpayers were disproportionately hurt by the tax bill’s cap on the long-standing deduction.

In any case, three conservative Republicans say they will seek the GOP nomination against Van Drew next year and have not been shy about attacking Van Drew as an untrustworthy turncoat who has reliably voted with Democrats.

“How stupid does Desperate Jeff Van Drew think South Jersey Republicans are?” one GOP candidate, Brian Fitzherbert, said in a Facebook post this week. “Desperate Jeff knew exactly what Washington Democrats were about when he ran for Congress two years ago. . . . How can South Jersey Republicans trust Jeff Van Drew to represent our Party?”

Van Drew could find himself relying largely on Trump’s sometimes unreliable goodwill as he seeks to fend off more conservative primary challengers. Republicans familiar with the discussions between Trump, Van Drew and GOP operatives expect the president to campaign in some manner for Van Drew next year.

Mike DuHaime, a Republican strategist and former top political aide to former governor Chris Christie, said he believed support from Trump would be more than enough to allow Van Drew to overcome the intra-GOP attacks.

Van Drew, he noted, earned a reputation in New Jersey as a reliable vote for Christie during his governorship, and voters in the relatively conservative southern tip of the state remain solidly behind Trump.

“People are going to look at that more than some percentage of his votes,” DuHaime said. “That is going to carry more weight.”

But with a campaign of his own to win — one that does not pivot in any way on New Jersey — Van Drew’s renomination might ultimately slip down Trump’s political priority list.

The National Republican Congressional Committee typically does not intervene in GOP primaries, and on Thursday it did not signal any change in policy.

Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the group’s chairman, praised Van Drew “for refusing to blindly follow Nancy Pelosi’s stampede of hate-filled Democrats over the edge of the political cliff” but otherwise made no mention of the primary race to come.

“This is now a Republican seat and we will fight tooth and nail to ensure it remains a Republican seat,” he said, whether Van Drew holds it or not.

On Wednesday, Van Drew said he believed GOP primary voters would recognize his long record as a state legislator who won elections in a largely Republican county.

“I work hard,” he said. “Republicans have always been very supportive of me.”

That may change, though, in New Jersey’s June 2 primary. Another Republican challenger, Bob Patterson, called Van Drew a “liberal opportunist who only cares about protecting his political career” in a Friday statement and called on him to disburse the more than $800,000 he raised as a Democrat.

On that, there is some bipartisan accord: The House Majority PAC, a political action committee affiliated with Pelosi, called on Van Drew to return a $2,500 donation it had given. Democratic colleagues had given his campaign another $234,600 this year, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

“Your shameful decision to join Trump’s GOP is not in line with our values or stated mission,” Abby Curran Horrell, the House Majority PAC executive director, wrote in a letter to Van Drew, echoing grumbling inside the party ranks about Van Drew’s decision to switch parties after millions of dollars of Democratic investment in 2018.

Some Democrats have suggested that Van Drew’s switch was based on his political outlook.

Van Drew’s decision to oppose impeachment badly alienated Democratic voters in his district, sparking a primary challenge that threatened his prospects for reelection. A polling memo obtained by The Washington Post, citing results of a Dec. 7-10 survey of likely Democratic voters commissioned by Van Drew’s campaign, found only 24 percent thought he should be reelected, with 58 percent wanting another Democrat nominated for the seat.

 

I can't help but think that somebody is holding something over Drew's head. I can think of no reason other than blackmail as to why a Democrat would suddenly become such a sycophantic trumplican seemingly overnight. 

[GreyhoundFan]

I was so sad to read about Rep. Lewis' cancer:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is interesting, but no surprising:

 

[JMarie]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-reps-request-for-reading-recommendations-goes-spectacularly-awry/ar-BBYuiG0

[GreyhoundFan]

I can't stand her: "Rep. Stefanik tweets altered photo of Pelosi in GOP fundraising appeal"

Spoiler

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) tweeted a petition and fundraising appeal that included what appeared to be an altered photo of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, drawing a retweet Thursday morning from President Trump.

The tweet marks the second time this week that a House Republican has tweeted a photo that appears to have been manipulated.

On Monday, Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) tweeted a fake photo of President Barack Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in an apparent effort to criticize the former U.S. leader’s Iran policy.

Stefanik’s tweet comes as Pelosi is under increasing pressure from members of both parties to send articles of impeachment to the Senate following the House’s approval of two charges against Trump last month.

The tweet shows a close-up, red-tinted photo of Pelosi, with the lines in the House speaker’s face exaggerated due to the image’s unnaturally high contrast.

The photo is included on a fundraising page that urges donors to add their names to a petition and “Pressure Pelosi Now.” The site is hosted by WinRed, a Republican fundraising platform launched last year to rival the Democratic small-donor platform ActBlue.

A spokeswoman for Stefanik did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Stefanik is serving her third term in the House. She led candidate recruitment during the 2018 cycle at the National Republican Congressional Committee and rose to prominence as a moderate seeking to boost the ranks of female GOP lawmakers in the House.

“It’s quite stark and quite obvious as you look around the GOP conference that it’s not reflective of the American public,” Stefanik told The Washington Post in an interview last year. “We need to do better.”

Since the impeachment hearings got underway, however, Stefanik took a sharp turn toward Trump, fiercely defending the president even as his administration has come under scrutiny and his political future has been thrown into uncertainty.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Nunes is one of the dumbest people around:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[fraurosena]

Ted Lieu is having none of it.

‘... or you can take your letter and shove it.’

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[CTRLZero]

I love how Rep. Katie Porter tries to educate people on how to collaborate on the issues.  We need more like her.  She apparently graduated from Yale and Harvard law, so definitely not in the uneducated bucket.