I Know What You Did Last Summer, Nancy Pelosi

I know what you did last summer, Nancy.

I know you have been plotting with your minions to strip Mr. Conyers of his chairmanship for quite some time.

I know you have been plotting to take Mr. Conyers out of congress, for quite some time, also.

I know how your tried to do it.

I know why you tried to do it.

And I know who you did it with.

Perhaps, it is time you retire, gracefully, Nancy.

I know you shall do the right thing.

http://nancypelosiforcongress.com

CHUCK TODD:
Joining me now is House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. Leader Pelosi, welcome back to Meet the Press.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Morning. My pleasure to be here.

CHUCK TODD:

Happy Thanksgiving weekend.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving to you, and congratulations on 70 years.

CHUCK TODD:

Thank you. Thank you for that. We're now 71. I'm going to go back into our wayback machine here. Here's you on Meet the Press, asked specifically about allegations against President Clinton. Here's what you said back in 1998.

(BEGIN TAPE)

TIM RUSSERT:

Why the silence when there have been these allegations, serious ones, about President Clinton?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Well, I'd like to say that I think that the women of America are speaking out about what they think about this whole situation. And the women of America are just like other Americans in that they value fairness, they value privacy, and do not want to see a person with uncontrolled power, uncontrolled time, uncontrolled, unlimited money investigating the president of the United States.

(END TAPE)

CHUCK TODD:

That's back then. And look, both Senator Gillibrand and Mayor de Blasio were basically making the argument that our culture's changed, and that, today, same allegations probably would have led Democrats, perhaps like yourself, to call for his resignation. You can have a debate about whether it was an impeachable offense, but whether he had the moral standing to stay in office. Do you agree with this idea that this is a generational change that we're experiencing?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Well, I think it's obviously a generational change. But let me just say the concern that we had then was that they were impeaching the president of the United States, and for something that had nothing to do with the performance of his duties, and trying to take him out for that reason.

But let's go forward. Let's go forward. I think that something wonderful is happening now, very credible. It's 100 years, almost 100 years, since women got the right to vote. Here we are, almost 100 years later, and something very transformative is happening. That is, women are saying, "Zero tolerance, no more, and we're going to speak out on it." And this is so wholesome, so refreshing, so different.

CHUCK TODD:

But why do you think the reaction was different by women on Bill Clinton? And I say that because it does seem as if, frankly, when you watch some of the reactions by the president in defending Roy Moore, or at least overlooking the allegations against Roy Moore, that, were you putting politics ahead of your personal disgust?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

No, but we're talking about a child molester. This is--

CHUCK TODD:

Okay, but--

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

We're talking about a child molester.

CHUCK TODD:

But President Clinton was accused of being a sexual predator.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Well--

CHUCK TODD:

And of even rape at one point, by one accuser.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Why don't we talk, instead, about how we go forward. Nobody is proud of President Clinton's behavior at the time. But he was being impeached--

CHUCK TODD:

But I think the reason there's a re-litigation of this is that, I think the concern is that we allowed the erosion, that the reason we're at this moment and the reason it got worse over the last 20 years is because of the way we handled it collectively then. Do you buy that argument?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

No. I buy that the election of President Trump, really, as your presenter said earlier, just evoked a response. So many women, and this is really important, I think, to note, because I've heard from so many women in the last few months, in fact, I heard, around the time of Anita Hill, so many women who've had a bad experience.

And now they're saying, "I had a bad experience, and now a person who possibly engaged in that activity is the president of the United States. I'm speaking out." So I think, as your presenter said earlier--

CHUCK TODD:

It was me, actually.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Was that your voice?

CHUCK TODD:

Yes, that is my voice. That's okay.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Then you had it right when you said Harvey didn't evoke this, the election of President Trump evoked what happened to Harvey. And now everybody is served notice.

CHUCK TODD:

Right.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Let's go forward. Let's talk about, okay, let's learn from past decisions and go forward.

CHUCK TODD:

So define zero tolerance. You said there’s now a zero tolerance.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Yes.

CHUCK TODD:

John Conyers. What does that mean for him? Right now. In or out?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

We are strengthened by due process. Just because someone is accused -- and was it one accusation? Is it two? I think there has to be -- John Conyers is an icon in our country. He has done a great deal to protect women -- Violence Against Women Act, which the left -- right-wing -- is now quoting me as praising him for his work on that, and he did great work on that. But the fact is, as John reviews his case, which he knows, which I don’t, I believe he will do the right thing.

CHUCK TODD:

Why don’t you?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Excuse me. May I finish my sentence?

CHUCK TODD:

Sure, sure.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

That he will do the right thing.

CHUCK TODD:

And is the right thing what? Resign?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

He will do the right thing in terms of what he knows about his situation. That he’s entitled to due process. But women are entitled to due process as well.

CHUCK TODD:

But he took advantage of a situation where he had a - the rules of Congress and I know you guys want to change these rules, but he got to hide his settlement, he got to - his accusers had to go through all sorts of craziness, so why is he entitled to new due process in this case?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

No, I I - we are talking about what we have heard. I’ve asked the Ethics Committee to review that. He has said he’d be open - he will cooperate with any review.

CHUCK TODD:

Do you believe the accusers?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Excuse me?

CHUCK TODD:

Do you believe John Conyers’ accusers?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

I don’t know who they are. Do you? They have not really come forward. And that gets to --

CHUCK TODD:

So you don’t know if you believe the accusations?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Well, that’s for the Ethics Committee to review. But I believe he understands what is at stake here and he will do the right thing. But all of these non-disclosure agreements have to go. By the way, some of them are there to protect the victim because they didn’t want some of it to be public. But that’s over. In other words, if the victim wants to be private, she can be -- he or she can be.

CHUCK TODD:

I guess it goes back to what is this line? What is a fireable offense? You say it’s zero tolerance.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Yes.

CHUCK TODD:

But zero tolerance -- what does that mean if you’re saying John Conyers, who already had due process, gets to stay right now.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

As I said, we’ve asked for the Ethics Committee to review that. He, I believe, will do the right thing. It’s about going forward.

CHUCK TODD:

Where are you on Senator Franken?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Well, same thing. I don't think that you can equate Senator Franken with Roy Moore. It's two different things. So, you know, let's have some discernment.

CHUCK TODD:

So you would accept an apology right now from Al Franken if there's no other accusers, or if all we know are what we know?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Well, also, his accusers have to accept an apology. The victims have some say in all of this, as well. And that has happened in the past. People have accepted an apology, as is coming forth now that I see in the press. But we didn't know, because there was a nondisclosure agreement to protect the victim. Sometimes they didn't want to be public. Sometimes they did. So now they will have their choice.

But this is about going forward. And when we go forward, we will address all of that. But we also have to address it for every person, every workplace in the country, not just in the Congress of the United States. And that's very important. And a good deal of that would be done by the Judiciary Committee.

CHUCK TODD:

Okay.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

And I know that John would take that into consideration.

CHUCK TODD:

You have one member has already, Gregory Meeks has already called for him to be withdrawn as ranking member.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

No.

CHUCK TODD:

Isn't that something in your power? Can't you decide that he should be suspended on ranking member on Judiciary, of all committees for him to be ranking on?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

You have to remember that this all happened during the Thanksgiving break. When we come together at the beginning of this week, I think John will do the right thing.

CHUCK TODD:

You're not going to unilaterally make this decision?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

I'm not sharing that with you right now. But what I am saying is this is a big distraction, and it's very, very important. Do you know that the beginning of the Women's Movement, Elizabeth Cady Stanton lived in Seneca Falls. And she would hear down below examples of family domestic violence. And that was one of the motivators for her to advance the cause of women.

CHUCK TODD:

Right.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

So this is as old as-- well, it's old as civilization, probably.

CHUCK TODD:

Right.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

But in terms of our history, in terms of the women's movement, one of the motivators. Now, 100 years after her fight for the right of women to vote, we will clear the deck on this. But I am here to talk about something also transformative in our society, and that is this tax bill that the Republicans have put forth.

CHUCK TODD:

And I want to get into this. But there seems to be a bit of a political paralysis here. I'm trying to figure this out.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

That isn't. It isn't. We're moving. This week we will pass bipartisan legislation for mandatory anti-harassment, anti-discrimination behavior, A. B) we will then take the larger issue, which has to pass both houses of the Congress for ending the nondisclosure, ending of who pays, all of the concerns that we have about this.

But I don't think that it should-- I think that we want to give people hope. This is going to be addressed. Women have spoken out. Their concerns will be addressed in a way that I think will give comfort, as well as end this behavior.

CHUCK TODD:

All right.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Because you know what? It's disgusting, it's repulsive, and it has to be zero tolerance.

CHUCK TODD:

Will you support Congress retroactively making public all of these private settlements that taxpayer dollars have been used?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Not necessarily. Sometimes the victim does not want that to happen.

CHUCK TODD:

But if the victim wants it public, will you side with the victim?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

What I have-- yes. But what I--

CHUCK TODD:

100%?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Well, here's the thing. It's really important.

CHUCK TODD:

Okay.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Because there is a question as to whether the Ethics Committee can get testimony if you have signed a nondisclosure agreement. We're saying we think the Ethics Committee can, but if you don't agree, we'll pass a law that says the Ethics Committee can, a resolution in Congress that the Ethics Committee can.

CHUCK TODD:

All right.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

But there's no-- I don't want anybody thinking there's any challenge here to our changing the law and see how people-- when we know more about the individual cases. Well, because you know what our biggest strength is? Due process that protects the rights of the victim, so that, whatever the outcome is, everybody knows that there was due process.

CHUCK TODD:

Leader Pelosi, unfortunately for time, I have to end it there. Appreciate your coming on.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

You mean we're not even going to talk about taxes?

CHUCK TODD:

I'm--

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

See, you have fallen into the place where they are doing something that's going to increase the debt enormously.

CHUCK TODD:

We're--

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

It's going to be a job killer.

CHUCK TODD:

I've been covering it a lot.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

A job killer.

CHUCK TODD:

Just finish this thought.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

And it's going to raise taxes on the middle class. And that has a big impact on individual lives of all Americans. And really, we should be spending more time on that.

CHUCK TODD:

Do you think this other issue isn't as serious as taxes?

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

I think it's eno-- look, as a woman, mother of four daughters, I think it's enormously important. But I think that we have to have a balance in how we go forward. Because this is giving the--

CHUCK TODD:

I struggle with this myself every day.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

This is giving them cover.

CHUCK TODD:

Okay.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

There are so many reasons that we should be concerned about the Republican majority in Congress.

CHUCK TODD:

I am going to be asking a Republican across the aisle some of these questions in a few minutes. Anyway, Leader Pelosi, I have to leave it there.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Yeah. Well, thank--

CHUCK TODD:

I appreciate it.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Yeah. That's disappointing. But anyway.

CHUCK TODD:

I wish I had more time.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Let me just say one more thing.

CHUCK TODD:

I'm always for more--

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

I have to say one more thing.

CHUCK TODD:

Go to my bosses, ask for two hours.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

I've got to thank--

CHUCK TODD:

I'll take it.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

--our firefighters and our first responders in California for what they did in the fires. Our Thanksgiving, we prayed for them as a blessing to us. And wishing their families the best.

CHUCK TODD:

A worthy last word. Thank you very much.

REP. NANCY PELOSI:

Thank you. Bye-bye.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: The Tale of Multiple Attestation, The Saddy Face of Christine Pelosi & Her Mother's Aversion To #sayhisname

"I do not care if Plato said the soul
was immortal, I paid Yuri & da crew
 to write up a new algorithm for the
search engines, wiretaps &
blackmail videos." said Nancy.

Once upon a time, in the land of "The Poors", the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed would go listen to this modern day Homer, who is known by the name of Paul Maier.

Paul is the one who introduced me to the Codexes that had lots of pretty pictures which where fairy tales of chattel law.

Fairy tales are just how those who are slimy shyte of the arse in character, with lots of money to pay someone to come up with a full scale propaganda campaign production to market them as all fabulous and stuff in the public record, to cloak what they do, which is to create apocalyptic literature called propaganda to compete with the formal records.

That is why everyone is coming out with books, so when they are prosecuted, the only thing on the internet is what they planted.

"See, I am a good person, I am a good person!"

Then, the generations, the posterity of this nation, will hail them as magnanimous saviors of all we hold sacred because the internet said so.

Paul is talking about the fraud component within Justinian administration of record keeping of the armoralities of the legacies, which is the children's trust.

The content of one's character is contained within the great repository of the state, under its seal, through heraldry, so what happens when there exists systemic corruption, for thousands of years?

You search for multiple attestations in the public record, or, more readily understood for my predictive modeling crappers, you just do some multivariate regression, or the Psychobabies in my life, roll around for that stochastic heterogeneity in the chit.

 

Here is a working example of a reiterative, transposable model.

Here is the original presser video of Nancy calling on John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the U.S. Judiciary Committee, to resign.

Now, here is another reiteration of the call for John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the U.S. Judiciary Committee, to resign, but notice the aggression in language, team huddling multiple players, recreating the public record, when the public recordkeepers, or rather, the administrators of justice are watching these individuals make a mockery of the system which retains the oaths of offices, or rather, the administrators of the children's trust.

In essence, media picked up the Nancy's call to action to remove him from office, and ran to rally the public with cyber pitchforks and torches to destroy a legacy with clicks and likes to make the magical algorithm always have Nancy's versions of her bastardized #MeToo movement pop up on the first page of relevancy ratings in the Google searches and in social media searches.

How do I know this?

The "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) started this game of privatizing legacies in Judiciary, which is why I do what I do.

The destruction of a legacy commences at the point when the public record of ones armorality is buried under layers upon layers of propaganda you intentionally generate for this exact purpose, where, in this instance, is via foreign, corporate media for U.S. news outlets, including social media.

I got the memes, Nancy, I got the memes.....(sssshhhh....whatever you do, do not let her know you can trace the origins.....sssshhhhhhh.....I got pretty pictures.....on the internet......and in real life......).

This is called propaganda because all you have to do is do a search, in Google, or the search engine of your choice, then crosscheck with PACER or GPO records because social media, well, even Google, suppresses any search terms of John Conyers, Jr.'s name, which is odd, considering I knew these people were trying to take him out of office for almost decade, which is what motivated me to do what I do.

But, since Google likes to search suppress me (ssshhh....whatever you do, do not let Google, Facebook and Twitter know that I can enter their own data into the public record to demonstrate how I have been search suppressed and how they lied to congress.  I do not go out very much being locked in the Woodshed so I must find unique ways to entertain myself like throwing cyber-moneywrenches) all you have to do is take whatever you find on me, then crosscheck with information entered into the courts, and more than likely, I believe you shall find that it is not possible to embrace Christine Pelosi's public outrage of the video of her mother being propaganda.

Besides, everyone around her already knows she was talking about the senile defense last year.

DUH.

Keep it real, gurl.

Now, Christine, daaarlin', #sayhisname.

Better yet, love, have your mother #sayhisname.

Cocktails & Popcorn: Nancy Prayed For Trump Like She Did For Conyers - But Will She Impeach The Same?

Nancy Pelosi Bears False Arms For Her #MeToo Bill

Christine, my precious one, I must confess that you may be the bravest of them all for defending the character of your mother in the public sphere, but instead of constantly modifying, how about we allow the video to remain, exactly like your mother has done of the public record for the U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives, and allow the heavens to fall.

Who came to the defense of Conyers, Christine?

And that ends the tale of Multiple Attestation, the Saddy Face of Christine Pelosi & Her Mother's Aversion to #sayhisname.

#perkinscoiesucks

#maytheheavensfall

Nancy Pelosi’s Daughter Blasts ‘Despicable’ Doctored Video Smearing House Speaker

As of Wednesday, deceptively edited footage has been circulating the internet, making the congresswoman appear drunk.

A series of deceptively edited videos targeting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have been circulating on the internet in an effort to make the congresswoman appear as if she is drunkenly stumbling through a speech. Now, her daughter is coming to her defense.

Republicans and their conservative allies have been pumping this despicable fake meme for years! Now they are caught. #FactCheck: Madam Speaker doesn’t even drink alcohol!
https://t.co/rJ5jxiuvqM

— Christine Pelosi (@sfpelosi) May 23, 2019

This is the cr*p I’m talking about - reported to @Facebook - which like @Twitter will not suspend the account that clearly violated Terms Of Service. Obviously this doesn’t stop ME but others are affected by the “voter depression” strategy that Trump allies are perpetuating. pic.twitter.com/wHF0dZVNHF

— Christine Pelosi (@sfpelosi) May 23, 2019

On Thursday, Christine Pelosi accused the GOP and its allies of “pumping this despicable fake meme for years!”

“Now they are caught,” she wrote, adding, “Madam Speaker doesn’t even drink alcohol!”

The tweet then linked to a Washington Post story that debunked altered footage of Pelosi’s speech at the Center for American Progress Ideas Festival in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. The Washington Post noted the video had been edited to make Pelosi sound as if she was struggling to speak clearly.

You do know alcohol abuse can be formed into a legal defense, right?

The origin of the video, the Post said, remains unclear.

Nancy Pelosi wants an apology for a caricature exaggerating her already halting speech pattern. First she should withdraw her charge which hurts our entire nation when she says the President needs an “intervention. “People who live in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones.”

— Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) May 24, 2019

How is Imran Awan and the crew doing, these days?

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Pelosi & Tony Cárdenas Have More Than An Ethics Issue

It seems Nancy Pelosi is aware that Tony Cárdenas did not have an Ethics investigation, which is why she called for one.

It also seems Nancy knows that you cannot call for an Ethics investigation, if there are already multiple active investigations, which have subsequently been referred to the DOJ.

The DOJ OIG report should be released in the next two weeks.  Rumors are around May 16th & 19th.

Stay tuned and get your popcorn.

Pelosi calls for ethics investigation into Cárdenas sexual assault allegations

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is demanding an ethics investigation into allegations Rep. Tony Cárdenas sexually assaulted a minor more than a decade ago, but the top Democrat stopped short of calling for his resignation.

“I have spoken with Congressman Cárdenas and he appropriately asked us to withhold judgement until there is a full investigation of the facts,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement Saturday. “I call upon the House Ethics Committee for a prompt investigation of this matter.”

Cárdenas has agreed to cooperate in the probe, Pelosi noted.

Cárdenas a California Democrat, has vehemently denied the allegations through a lawyer and has spent recent days privately reaching out to House Democrats to proclaim his innocence.

In calls with fellow lawmakers, Cárdenas identified himself as the unnamed “John Doe” in a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles last week, according to Democratic aides. In the lawsuit, Cárdenas is accused of sexually molesting a teenage girl after a golf outing in 2007 while he was a member of the Los Angeles City Council.

Cárdenas is accused of offering the underage woman, who was 16 at the time, water with an “unusual taste,” according to the Los Angeles Times. After the woman collapsed, the lawsuit alleges Cárdenas sexually assaulted her during a drive to the hospital.

“During the ride, he reached inside her shirt and rubbed her breasts, the suit alleges. He also reached down her shorts and fondled her vagina, according to the suit,” the Times reported.

Cárdenas’ attorney, Patricia Glaser, dismissed the allegations in a statement earlier this week, calling the unnamed plaintiff in the case “the daughter of a disgruntled former employee” who “may be the victim of manipulation.”

“My client is sickened and distraught by these horrific allegations, which are 100%, categorically untrue,” Glaser said in a statement.

“We respect victims who have found the strength to come forward and call out misconduct when it has actually occurred, but the type of baseless and reckless allegations that are contained in the complaint against my client can ruin the lives and careers of innocent people.”

Cárdenas has served in the House since 2013. He’s chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ political action committee and serves as Democratic Caucus representative, a low-ranking spot in party leadership.

Cárdenas is just the latest lawmaker to be embroiled in a sexual harassment or abuse scandal, with several members of Congress being forced to resign or retire after allegations were made against them.

Pelosi has handled the issue differently depending on the member involved.

Pelosi initially called for an ethics investigation into Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), whom she then defended as an “icon” who was “entitled to due process” during a November appearance on “Meet the Press,” before calling for his resignation four days later. Conyers, the longest-serving House lawmaker at the time, was accused of sexual harassment by multiple former staffers.

Pelosi’s response shifted after multiple accusers came forward over a period of several days, according to a source familiar with her thinking.

In another episode, Pelosi immediately called on Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D-Nev.) to resign in December after he was accused of sexual harassment by a former campaign aide and later by a lobbyist.

Kihuen did not step down, but the freshman lawmaker will not run for reelection this year.

At the time, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was presented with documentation corroborating the allegations against Kihuen, according to the Democratic source. No such corroboration has emerged in Cárdenas’ case, the source noted.

“As Members of Congress, we each have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the House of Representatives, and any type of alleged misconduct must be investigated by the Ethics Committee,” Pelosi said Saturday. “Congressman Cárdenas said he will fully cooperate with an Ethics investigation.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Rashida Tlaib Wants To Replace Conyers

Rashida Tlaib wants to run for congress.  <=== Make sure to click the links!

What an interesting way to entitle an article by insinuating that Conyers is still in his seat.

Quite the political move, just in case he is still in his seat, or will arise from the ashes to reclaim his seat, but hey, what do I know?

Either that or she is trying to co-opt some cheap political shot with the Conyers name recognition in making history for political clout.

In any event, to assist Rashida Tlaib in her "push to Impeach Trump" I thought about her best interests by supporting her lofty endeavor in providing her with the original federal impeachment complaint, below.

To further encourage her passionate campaign to make history by doing nothing to address the frauds in the 13th Congressional District which are currently under federal investigation, particularly her contractual demolition associations with the Detroit Land Bank Authority through Southwest Solutions, child trafficking in foster care and adoption, and questionable campaign finance activities, which she has a strong expertise in this industries, I have provided a link to a one-stop-shop to "quiet title" all the decades of work John Conyers, Jr. has done in the legal realm of impeachment.

Conyers Impeachment Link

Conyers Emoluments Link

Rashida Tlaib should consider herself an expert when it comes to the subject matter of emoluments.

Rashida Tlaib wants to run for congress.  <=== Make sure to click the links!

Dem hoping to replace Conyers pushes Trump impeachment

Rashida Tlaib could make history this fall as the first Muslim woman elected to Congress - and she's making impeaching President Trump central to her campaign.

Tlaib is running in a crowded Democratic primary on Aug. 7 to fill the deep-blue Detroit seat last held by former Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D), who resigned amid sexual harassment allegations.

And while some Democrats - especially party leaders - have shied away from talk of impeaching Trump, Tlaib plans to make impeachment a core part of her campaign.

"I keep telling people this is about electing a jury that will impeach him, and I make a heck of a juror," Tlaib, who became the first Muslim woman elected to the Michigan state legislature in 2009, told The Hill.

"Not only as a mother raising two Muslim boys that are now questioning if they can tell people whether or not they're Muslim ... what I hear from people supporting me is there's a tremendous amount of hope sending a voice like mine to Congress."

This isn't the first time Tlaib has sought to confront Trump. In August 2016, Tlaib was one of a dozen women escorted out of the Detroit Economic Club for interrupting Trump's speech and telling the president to read the Constitution.

Voters in Michigan's 13th District are used to hearing impeachment talk from their representative - Conyers wanted to impeach former President George W. Bush during Bush's second term. Now political observers in Michigan see Tlaib attempting to take up that mantle.

"For Rashida, her play is not so much being the farthest-left candidate on policy, it's being the farthest left on rhetoric and tactics," said Democratic strategist Susan Demas. "And she's not afraid to say, 'If I'm elected, I'm impeaching Donald Trump, that's my calling card.' "

Tlaib further bucks Democratic leaders by saying that, if elected, she "probably" won't vote for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to keep her leadership role.

A growing number of Democratic candidates running in swing districts this cycle have said they won't vote for Pelosi. But the frustration for Tlaib, who's running in a solidly Democratic district, mainly stems from how Pelosi handled the Conyers situation as the harassment allegations against him grew.

Pelosi initially defended Conyers, dodging questions about whether he should resign and calling on the House Ethics Committee to investigate the allegations. But a few days later, Pelosi called on Conyers to step down.

The committee opened up a probe in late November, but those investigations typically don't continue once a member leaves office.

Psst!  The matter was referred to the U.S. Department of Justice.  All you had to do was acknowledge that Perkins Coie Sucks.

#perkinscoiesucks

"I said 'probably not' about Nancy Pelosi primarily because it was very painful to see what happened with John Conyers," said Tlaib, who said she's a victim of sexual harassment herself.

"I do believe the survivors, and I just felt like they deserved a much better process instead of him being pushed out to retire. Because honestly all of us were like, 'We need an Ethics Committee hearing. We want to know what's happening and how to make sure it doesn't happen again.' "

All you have to do is read my blog.

Conyers's seat is a majority-black district that encompasses much of Detroit but also extends far into the suburbs. The Democratic stronghold - which the party's presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, swept by 60 points in 2016 - has attracted nine other candidates, but the field won't be settled until the April 24 filing deadline.

You really need to read my blog as it seems you have lack the legal acumen of the federal investigative process surrounding the integrity of the 2016 Michigan Primary and General Election.

Girl, we should do lunch.  I will catch you up to speed.

There will be two November elections taking place in the 13th District: one to fill the remainder of Conyers's term, which ends on Dec. 31, and the other to serve out the next two-year term for the seat starting on Jan. 1, 2019.

Michigan political strategists say there's a path for nonblack candidates like Tlaib in the race.

Tlaib, the daughter of Palestinian immigrants, represented southwest Detroit in the state legislature from 2009 to 2014, when she had to leave her seat because of term limits. As a state lawmaker, she's won elections representing a predominantly African-American and Latino district.

Labels, labels, labels.  Waiting for the scan codes for those predictive models!

While running for her last term, Tlaib said she knocked on close to 30,000 doors.

Now she plans to mount another aggressive canvassing operation for the House seat. Tlaib's campaign told The Hill that she raised more than $500,000 in the first fundraising quarter of 2018 and knocked on 12.5 percent of the doors in the district since launching in February.

Where the hell did you find that much money?  I will wait for your first FEC report, trust me.

But Tlaib isn't the only nonblack candidate seen as a strong contender. Strategists point to Westland Mayor Bill Wild, a white candidate and the only hopeful in the race from outside of Detroit, as a potential contender who could draw on suburban votes to surpass the rest of the field.

Label, label, label.

The primary has also sparked some family drama, with two candidates with the Conyers name running for the seat.

Conyers shocked political observers when he endorsed his son, John Conyers III, following his resignation. His son, who has no political experience and has split his time between Los Angeles and Detroit, officially jumped into the race in late January.

That'll pit him against his cousin, state Sen. Ian Conyers, who was elected to office in 2016 and has a much larger base of support.

While the Conyers name is still highly regarded in the district, strategists believe that two Conyers candidates in the race will ultimately split their vote while benefitting the other candidates.

"One of our residents said it beautifully: 'You shouldn't be able to inherit this seat, you have to earn it,' " Tlaib said.

But political observers also expect a strong showing from Detroit City Council President Brenda Jones, a black candidate who has drawn a powerful endorsement from Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan. Many see her as a leading contender who's expected to shore up most of the support from the business and labor communities.

Label, label, label.

"[Tlaib] is a dynamic campaigner," said Bill Ballenger, a former state GOP lawmaker who now runs the Ballenger Report news site. "She's going to be a major contender. It's conceivable she could win, but Brenda Jones has a leg up on her in that she has a much bigger base in the district than Tlaib has."

And Brenda Jones is endorsed by Mayor Mike Duggan.

Congress Emoluments Clause suit by New Mexico Political Report on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Penny Nance, Concerned Women For America, Says Nancy Pelosi Needs To Say His Name

One must always be conservative when it comes to mixing gin & tonic

Yes, yes, yes.

Penny says Nancy should say his name.

Nancy does not want to say his name.

I want Nancy to say his name.

I am quite sure there are many other individuals who want Nancy to say his name.

Let us be like Penny and make Nancy say his name.

Say his name, Nancy.

Or, perhaps Trump should drop that IG Report to assist Nancy in saying his name.

If Nancy Pelosi doesn't punish past congressional sexual abuse, she'll lose credibility

Congressmen used a hush fund to pay off sexual abuse accusers. If incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't out them, she'll damage her speakership.

Likely incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi meets with President Trump this morning and issues such as immigration and infrastructure, among others will be up for discussion. But when she takes the gavel next month there will be only one priority for her, and if she whiffs on it her speakership will lose authority and credibility for the rest of her term.

Literally a year ago — as the #MeToo era was erupting — the nation was waking up to news that a secret congressional "hush fund" had been used by Members of Congress to pay off accusers of sexual misconduct. Taxpayer money — yours and mine — was used to pay off these alleged victims. 

Many members of Congress, in both parties, pontificated and expressed outrage. Congressman Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., introduced a bill that called for publicizing the names of those who used the hush fund to pay for these so-called "settlements." Many in both parties co-sponsored his bill but it went nowhere and now DeSantis is gone, about to become the next governor of Florida.

Pelosi needs to take action, unlike Ryan

Such inaction is a stain on outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan's legacy. If incoming Speaker Pelosi does the same, it could ruin her.

If Pelosi doesn't move immediately to disclose the names of those in Congress who used this hush fund, she will be part of the biggest sexual misconduct scandal in history. Nobody knows how many congressman and Senators are involved, and if she is a willing participant to keep all of this a secret she will forfeit credibility on every other issue.

More: Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress

When will the Senate start holding congressional sexual harassers accountable?

I interviewed an executive in his underwear to get the job done

What we know already is devastating. We know congressmen John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Blake Fahrentold (R-Tex.) used this "hush fund" to settle with alleged victims. Both men have already left Congress.

Pelosi has been as outspoken as any leader in the Democratic Party, as any feminist leader and as any celebrity when it comes protecting women from male predators. She will now have the power to take meaningful and lasting action but she said nothing about the issue during the last few months of the campaign, and has said nothing about it since the election. 

Congress has been silent on hush fund

Nor have we heard a word from any of the newly elected incoming Democratic freshman congressional class — many of whom are women — since the election. The same goes for the women leaders who plan to seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2020.

So far all we've heard and seen from congressional leaders in both parties has been lip service about training going forward. The truth is what will actually put a stop to male predators in Congress will be publicizing the names of those for whom the public paid to protect.

A woman Speaker, and her party by extension, cannot be part of an old boys club/incumbent protection scandal.

A woman Speaker who continues to sweep this scandal under the rug, and her party by extension — the party of which she's has been a leader for many years — would render themselves a disgrace in the eyes of the American people.

Penny Nance is president and CEO of Concerned Women for America. Follow her on Twitter: @PYNance

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

U.S. Representative Gregory Meeks Calls For Conyers To Step Down From Judiciary

Gregory, my dear, did Lil' Miss Nancy and her minions get to you?

Does Imran have other things on you?

Are you wearing an orthopedic boot, yet?

You must be scared.

Are you going to retain Perkins Coie?

Oh Gregory!

You are so correct.

Anyone who has ever touched Mr. Conyers should be intensely investigated, and I mean everyone.

If anyone wishes to find out if they have already been put under Alice's looking glass, you can just enter your name in a basic google search, along with my name, or go to the "Go Find It" widget, in the right sidebar.  ===>

In the spirit of fuchsia, I must note that CNN failed to provide any investigative research into the credibility of U.S. Representative Gregory Meeks, which is why I have provided the gentlman's ethical background from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

And as for the Congressional Black Caucus, well, just be patient.  Your time is coming.

Congressional Black Caucus member: Conyers should step down as top Dem on House panel

Washington (CNN)Rep. Gregory Meeks, a New York Democrat and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said Wednesday that his colleague Rep. John Conyers of Michigan should leave his post as the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee as he is the subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation.

"No one is exempt from bad behavior, and I think that he's agreed and I clearly see where Leader (Nancy) Pelosi has said there will be an immediate ethics committee, a review," Meeks told CNN's John Berman and Poppy Harlow. "I really think that probably the appropriate thing right now is that he should step down as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and be subject to this ethics investigation."

Getting rid of John Conyers won't be easy

The House Ethics Committee announced on Tuesday that it had opened an investigation into allegations that Conyers, the longest-serving active member of the House, settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 after allegedly sexually harassing a staffer, according to an explosive report published by BuzzFeed News.

Conyers said he is "expressly and vehemently" denying any wrongdoing.

"In our country, we strive to honor this fundamental principle that all are entitled to due process," Conyers said in a statement. "In this case, I expressly and vehemently denied the allegations made against me, and continue to do so."

Pressed later in the interview, Meeks said that it would "not be appropriate" for Conyers to remain the top Democrat on the committee given the multiple allegations against him.

"If he defends himself and says and shows there is nothing there, then he could come back," he said. "But you can't, in my estimation, just in the scenario that we're in to be the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee at this time. I think that he should step down."

Reports of another allegation that Conyers had sexually harassed a former staffer emerged Tuesday, based on court documents filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in March 2017. The lawsuit, which the woman later dropped after an unsuccessful attempt to seal it, was first reported by BuzzFeed News.

Meeks' call for Conyers to step down from his committee post goes farther than members of House Democratic Leadership, who have not, so far, called for Meeks to abandon that role.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that "any credible allegation of sexual harassment must be investigated by the Ethics Committee." Similarly, Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, called the report "very disturbing" and said that an ethics investigation is an "appropriate next step."

Both Pelosi and Hoyer have also called for more sweeping reforms to overhaul the way in which sexual harassment is handled on the Hill, and support legislation sponsored by California Rep. Jackie Speier targeting the issue.

Neither Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York nor Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, two senior Democrats who also serve on the Judiciary Committee, have called on Conyers to leave his leadership position.

Asked Tuesday, Nadler said it was important to have a "proper investigation" into the allegations surrounding Conyers. In an interview on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront," he stopped short of calling on Conyers to resign and said to wait for more facts as the ethics probe unfolds.

"I think it's a little too early to say that," Nadler said of resignation. "Wait a little while before you make that conclusion."

Gregory Meeks (D-NY) - CREW's Most Corrupt Members of Congress by CREW on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Judiciary Jolly Jerry Nadler & Nancy Pelosi Do Not Want To #sayhisname - The Road To Impeachment

On this exciting episode of Cocktails & Popcorn, Judiciary Jolly Jerry and Nancy Pelosi do not want to #sayhisname.

Perhaps, Trump can assist in the healing of the DNC if he would stop obstructing justice and pull that IG Report from his backpocket.

Pelosi-Nadler clash over impeachment intensifies

Jolly Jerry & Nancy do not want to #sayhisname.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, two longtime allies, are clashing over whether to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump – a sign of how toxic the split over Trump has become for House Democrats.

Nadler has twice urged Pelosi in private to open a formal impeachment inquiry, but the speaker, backed by the majority of her leadership team and her caucus, has maintained that impeaching the president would backfire on Democrats without meaningful Republican support. And there is no sign that Trump’s GOP firewall is cracking.

Story Continued Below

Pelosi and Nadler, two veterans of the impeachment drama surrounding President Bill Clinton 20 years ago, appear to be drawing opposite lessons from that experience. And the divide between the two lawmakers is illustrative of what all Democrats are grappling with as they respond to Trump’s efforts to stonewall congressional investigations into his personal conduct, finances and policy moves.

“I think they are articulating the different impulses within the caucus, and also within each of us,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said of Pelosi and Nadler. “It’s not entirely clear what to do.”

“Put yourself in the position of somebody in the House of Representatives today,” added Raskin, a Judiciary Committee member who wants to launch an impeachment inquiry. “There are a million factors to deal with. And we’re dealing with the most lawless, corrupt presidency of our lifetime. So what is the right time to respond? It’s not entirely clear.”

Tuesday, though, will feature a key step that all Democrats can agree on: The full House will vote on empowering committee chairs to enforce subpoenas issued to top current and former Trump administration officials, including Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn.

The resolution will, in part, allow the Judiciary Committee to sue Barr and McGahn in federal court to secure former special counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted report and underlying evidence from his Russia investigation, as well as McGahn’s public testimony.

But a majority of Democratic members of Nadler’s committee favor impeaching Trump, which puts intense pressure on the chairman for more drastic action.

Pelosi and other top Democrats argue that most in their party don’t support such a move, especially with no significant GOP support. Even if the Democratic-controlled House voted to impeach Trump, the Republican-run Senate would probably acquit him, they argue, meaning that Trump would not only remain in office but that the move could potentially embolden the GOP base and result in the president’s reelection.

Nadler, meanwhile, has made the case to Pelosi that an impeachment inquiry would streamline their investigations under one committee and would strengthen Democrats’ hand in federal court over challenges to their subpoenas.

Nadler and Pelosi sparred over the issue during a private meeting last week. Nadler again pushed the speaker to support an impeachment inquiry, but she refused, saying she’d rather see Trump “in prison.”

Some Judiciary Committee members are hinting at a more serious divide between the two lawmakers. But senior Democratic aides consistently downplay any tension between them.

“I think Chairman Nadler has done a very good job, particularly considering the parameters under which he has to work,” said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), one of the caucus’s most fervent supporters of impeachment. “There are quite a few.”

Tuesday’s vote – the first enforcement mechanism to hit the House floor since Mueller’s report was released nearly two months ago – is unlikely to calm tensions, even as House Democrats continue to secure key victories in federal court and in their negotiations with the Justice Department over access to Mueller’s files.

That’s in part because Pelosi’s allies are using those wins as evidence that their current strategy is working – and that impeachment isn’t necessary yet.

“We’re winning as it relates to the strategy that we’re pursuing, and the fact that the Department of Justice has agreed to provide documents and allow inspection of a more unredacted version of the report means we should stay the course,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), a member of the Judiciary panel. He was referring to a the committee struck with the Justice Department over access to some of Mueller’s “key” underlying evidence about possible obstruction of justice by the president.

At the core of the conflict is a sharp disagreement between Pelosi and Nadler over the intensity and speed with which Democrats investigate Trump and how that decision will reverberate in next year’s election.

Pelosi speaks frequently about how she empowers her committee chairmen – allowing them to make decisions about what legislation they pursue and how they run their respective panels.

With Nadler’s panel, however, she has been much more personally involved in the committee’s decision-making process, according to multiple sources, even compared with panels such as Oversight and Intelligence, which are also pursuing potentially explosive investigations targeting Trump.

The speaker’s allies, though, assert that Pelosi has been hands-off with the Judiciary Committee except when it comes to her disagreement with Nadler over impeachment. Opening an impeachment inquiry, as Nadler has advocated privately to Pelosi, would be the equivalent of “jumping off a cliff,” according to a source close to the speaker.

The squabble has put a strain on what has generally been a cordial and respectful relationship.

They have served together in the House for nearly 30 years. Nadler, a New Yorker, backed Pelosi, who is from California, when she challenged Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), now the No. 2 Democrat, in their bitter battle to become House minority whip in 2001, a critical moment in her rise to the speaker’s chair. The alliances forged then still resonate today and creep into nearly all internal caucus politics.

Pelosi, in turn, stayed out of the race between Nadler and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a close ally of the speaker, to become the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee in 2017. Pelosi’s silence was interpreted as a gift to Nadler and a blessing for him to take over the gavel after the resignation of Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) amid a sexual harassment scandal.

In the seven weeks since Mueller’s findings were made public, House Democrats have been focused almost exclusively on battling the Trump administration over how much of the Mueller report lawmakers can view; when and whether Mueller testifies; the conditions of Barr’s testimony; and other process-related fights.



Those protracted legal battles were out of Nadler’s control, due in large part to the Trump administration’s unwillingness to comply with congressional subpoenas. Nadler addressed the administration’s recalcitrance during Monday’s hearing with Nixon White House counsel John Dean and former federal prosecutors.

“It is true that fact witnesses have been ordered by the White House not to appear before this committee,” Nadler said. “But we’ll get them.”

Still, Democrats on the committee have privately complained that the process battles do little to educate the public, and even Monday’s hearing with Dean barely made a splash. Instead, most news networks carried coverage of a fatal helicopter crash in New York City on Monday.

“Obviously that’s not going to be effective if they didn’t see that,” acknowledged Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a Judiciary Committee and leadership member who supports opening an impeachment inquiry.

“I’ve expressed my personal opinions to the speaker,” Lieu said. “It will be a decision that the speaker and the caucus makes. And I respect that decision. In the meantime, I’m going to hold these hearings [and] educate the American people about the report.”

Judiciary Committee Democrats largely remain united behind Nadler, saying privately that they recognize he is in an impossible position – caught between a majority of the panel’s Democratic members supporting an impeachment inquiry and the speaker remaining steadfastly opposed.

“To some extent they’re on the same page,” Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), a Judiciary member and Pelosi ally, said of the disagreement between the speaker and Nadler. “But the American people have to get there. And as of now, as Democrats, the White House has been able to distract and hide from the Mueller report because we have a president and an attorney general who are co-conspirators in depriving the American people of the real facts.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Former Conyers Staffers Come To The Defense

Former aides defend Conyers after harassment allegations

Washington (CNN)Twelve former female staffers of Rep. John Conyers say he "never behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner" in front of them as the Michigan Democrat faces an ethics investigation into sexual harassment allegations against him.

"While we do not pass judgment on the specific allegations reported in the press or the women who brought them, our experiences with Mr. Conyers were quite different than the image of him being portrayed in the media," the former staffers wrote in a joint statement that circulated on Sunday. "Mr. Conyers was a gentleman and never behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner in our presence. He was respectful, valued our opinions, challenged our thinking, and treated us as professionals."

Conyers, 88, faces a House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations that he sexually harassed or discriminated against members of his staff. Conyers has denied any wrongdoing but has indicated that he will cooperate with the ethics probe.

Earlier Sunday, Conyers said he would step aside as the top Democrat on the powerful House Judiciary Committee, but would fight the allegations.

"I very much look forward to vindicating myself and my family before the House Committee on Ethics," Conyers wrote Sunday in a letter to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

Pelosi said she supported his decision.

"Zero tolerance means consequences," Pelosi said in a statement. "Any credible accusation must be reviewed by the Ethics Committee expeditiously. We are at a watershed moment on this issue, and no matter how great an individual's legacy, it is not a license for harassment."

BuzzFeed News reported last week that Conyers settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 after allegedly sexually harassing a staffer. Court documents also revealed that a second former aide to Conyers accused him of sexual harassment.

New York Democratic Rep. Kathleen Rice has called on Conyers to resign his congressional seat over the allegations. Two other House Democrats, Reps. Gregory Meeks of New York and Raul Grijalva of Arizona, had called on Conyers to step aside from his judiciary post.

I will do a special honor of Raul Grijalva.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

John Schindler Former NSA Counterintelligence Officer Says Conyers Is A Russian Spy

John Schindler, former National Security Counterintelligence Officers says Conyers is a KGB super secret agent man from Russia.

Yup.  Schindler actually said that and it was actually published.

Strictly for purposes of preserving the historic record, of course, I have provided, below, background on John Schindler's NSA expertise in analyzing secret communications dealing with sex scandals and espionage.

Enjoy.

The Real John Conyers Scandal Has Nothing to Do With Sex

Our national panic regarding sexual harassment of women by powerful men has claimed its first scalp in the nation’s capital. As of now, Minnesota Democrat Al Franken is staying in the Senate, some embarrassing incidents notwithstanding, while Alabama Republican Roy Moore may get there yet, despite multiple reports of his dalliances with underage girls. Of course, the grabber-in-chief in the White House shows no signs of going anywhere either, at least until even worse videotapes appear.

Michigan Democrat John Conyers, however, has taken a direct hit and has stepped down from his House leadership roles, including as the ranking member of the powerful Judiciary Committee, in the wake of press reports which depict him as a serial harasser and worse. This is a stunning fall for the 27-term Congressman, at present the House of Representatives’ longest-serving member, who has been prominent on his party’s left wing for more than a half-century.

In other words, the 88-year-old Conyers is no average member of Congress. The results of the House Ethics Committee investigation of his relations with female staffers are not yet in, and let it be said that all Americans are innocent until proven guilty. However, the allegations against Conyers, if true, portray the esteemed veteran of the civil rights movement in a troubling light. For now, he’s professing his innocence and standing his ground, indicating he has no intention of resigning from the House, where he has served since 1965.

His defenders cite that the elderly Conyers grew up in a profoundly different age, and that he has not adapted to current sensitivities about sexual matters. That said, it probably didn’t help him that yesterday Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, brushed off allegations against Conyers with the statement that he “is an icon in our country.” The implication that there are different rules for icons didn’t sit well with some Americans—after all, Bill Cosby was a national icon too, until recently—and Pelosi’s soundbite seems certain to feature in Republican ads next year in advance of the midterm election.

Nevertheless, there’s considerable irony regarding how Conyers is being treated by fellow Democrats, given the party’s current obsession with Russian espionage and propaganda—at least when it involves Republicans. The so-called “resistance” to Donald Trump is all the rage right now among Democrats, particularly on the party’s left wing, of which Conyers has been a prominent member of since the mid-1960s. While Pelosi and other “resisters” denounce President Trump and Kremlin malfeasance non-stop these days, Conyers has been notably silent about Russian spy-games.

That’s because, whatever inappropriate things Conyers may (or may not) have done with female staffers, he’s unquestionably been uncomfortably pro-Moscow for decades. Cursory examination of Conyers’ words and actions reveal a politician who is, at best, a longstanding dupe of the Kremlin. Worst of all, this “secret” aspect to Conyers’ political life has been hiding in plain sight for years, something that polite people didn’t bring up at Georgetown soirées, yet which was known to anybody who can access Google.

However, in the current hothouse climate regarding Russian spies and lies in our nation’s capital, Conyers’ ties to the Kremlin need to be discussed. From the beginning of his political career, Conyers had close relations with prominent members of the Communist Party USA, and he was a longtime member of the National Lawyers Guild, a CPUSA-affiliated group, as well as a leader of its Detroit chapter. Conyers never made much effort to mask his associations with known CPUSA members, even after being elected to Congress. Keep in mind that, as proven by KGB files, the CPUSA was a wholly-owned Kremlin operation, clandestinely funded by Soviet spies, and operating under Moscow’s direction.

Conyers went further and associated with known KGB fronts. He was long active in the World Peace Council—which sounds like a Quaker-run group but was founded by the Kremlin at the beginning of the Cold War. The WPC followed the Moscow line religiously, serving as a conduit for KGB  against the West, regularly denouncing American “war-mongering” and “imperialism” while coordinating anti-NATO protests in many countries.

With the publication of the Mitrokhin archive in 1999, the KGB’s supervisory relationship to the WPC was made public, though it was obvious long before to anyone who wanted to see that the latter was a leading Kremlin front for espionage and propaganda. Not that Conyers was deterred from involvement with the WPC, and he helped establish its American chapter, the U.S. Peace Council. He addressed its inaugural meeting in Philadelphia in November 1979, alongside numerous KGB agents, including Romesh Chandra, a prominent Indian Communist who headed the WPC for decades and was a senior operative of the Soviet secret police.

Such public actions did not go undetected, and on occasion the press made noteof Conyers’ ties to the WPC and other Soviet fronts, particularly in the early 1980s, when KGB Active Measures against NATO reached their peak. It should be noted that Conyers was hardly the only left-wing Democrat in Washington who cultivated links to Kremlin spy-fronts during the Cold War.

American counterintelligence had questions, too. Investigating members of Congress was always a touchy issue for our counterspies, given the political sensitivities, but Conyers’ chumminess with the KGB was noted in our Intelligence Community. The benign take on Conyers’ questionable associations was that he was a mere dupe, a “useful idiot” to use the proper term. Others weren’t so sure, and when I asked a veteran IC counter-intelligencer who had checked out Conyers back in the 1980s, he responded with a wry smile: “Do you really think anybody’s that stupid?”

Moreover, this isn’t just a historical matter. Conyers has continued to follow the Moscow line on countless issues down to the present day. Back in 2010, when

WikiLeaks was busy dumping hundreds of thousands of stolen classified State Department files on the Internet, Conyers came to the defense of Julian Assange and his cyber-criminal gang, stating that WikiLeaks had committed no crimes. That was a remarkable thing for the then-chair of the House Judiciary Committee to say, particularly when the leadership of his own party—including President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—proffered a radically different take on the case.

Since WikiLeaks barely bothers to conceal its Kremlin links these days, questions abound regarding Conyers’ public defense of the group which did so much damage to the Democrats and their presidential nominee in 2016. Even as relations with Moscow have soured since Russia’s seizure of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine in early 2014, Conyers has continued to spout Kremlin propaganda, as he has done for decades.

In June 2015, Conyers went on a tirade against Ukraine on the floor of the House, denouncing Kyiv’s military as “neo-Nazi”—a slander that was quickly parroted by Kremlin mouthpieces online. He stated that Ukraine should not get anti-aircraft missiles from Washington, citing as evidence the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in July 2014, the murder of 299 innocents—without noting that it was Russians, not Ukrainians, who downed the civilian airliner. It comes as no surprise that the bill amendment before the House to block anti-air missiles for Ukraine that was sponsored by Conyers was arranged by the notorious pro-Kremlin lobbyist Paul Manafort—the very same swamp macher who’s now facing indictments over his shady ties to President Trump and the Russians.

Conyers’ decades of spouting unfiltered Kremlin propaganda is so notorious in Washington that last year the Huffington Post, nobody’s idea of a right-wing outlet, ran a piece on him entitled “Putin’s Man in Congress.” That charge seems fair, based on the evidence, and is something that needs public discussion, particularly as Washington prepares to root out Moscow’s secret spy-propaganda apparatus in our nation’s capital.

That dirty apparat has been at work for decades. Kremlin disinformation didn’t begin with Donald Trump, and any thorough investigation of Russian espionage will reveal plenty of collaborators in Washington, on both sides of the political aisle. Some of them will even be Democratic “icons.” If the “resistance” isn’t willing to confront the bipartisan nature of the Kremlin’s clandestine political warfare against our country, they need to get out of the amateur counterspy business before they do real damage to our democracy.

The Crazy Emails That Took Down NSA Spook John Schindler

John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he’s also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He’s published four books and is on Twitter at @20committee. 

Remember John Schindler, the conservative talking head, retired NSA spook, and Naval War College professor who briefly went incognito after screenshots of (what appear to be) his penis leaked onto the Internet? While he has since reappeared on Twitter—where he first drew attention for defending domestic spying and criticizing Edward Snowden—he has refused to comment on the mysterious emails, sent to the Naval War College by an unnamed blogger, that prompted the school to place him on leave, and his penis under official investigation.

NSA Spook-Turned-Twitter-Pundit Goes Dark After Dick Pic Surfaces

A well-known conservative pundit and secrecy expert who once worked as an NSA officer has deleted…

The emails sent to NWC, which Gawker obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, refer to Schindler’s habit of calling himself a “spy”; detail his correspondence with an unnamed woman (who apparently received his penis photo); and, in a lengthy missive, accuse Schindler of staging “cyber warfare” against his online enemies, using “thuggish tactics” to silence NSA critics, and violating various federal laws.

Each of the messages is heavily redacted, and the identities of their senders obscured, due to the ongoing investigation into Schindler’s conduct. But the last email is detailed (and nutty) enough to earn a closer reading, so we’ve embedded it below. You can read the rest here. Let us know if anything sticks out.

Schindler did not return a request for comment. On Thursday, a spokesperson for the Naval War College confirmed that he remains on administrative leave.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©