SPLC CEO Suddenly Develops Deep Respect For Attorney-Client Privilege After Jim Jordan Starts Asking Questions

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s interim president and CEO discovered Tuesday that the English language apparently contains no suitable words for “no” after House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan began asking inconvenient questions about the organization’s alleged extremist infiltration program.

Bryan Fair spent most of the hearing performing what legal experts are calling “Olympic-level verbal dodgeball,” repeatedly responding with some variation of “our counsel in the Middle District of Alabama will address that allegation” anytime Jordan asked whether the SPLC had, hypothetically speaking, funded activities that sounded suspiciously like the plot of a rejected FBI screenplay.

Jordan walked Fair through allegations laid out in a superseding federal indictment claiming the SPLC used donor cash to bankroll confidential “field sources” embedded in extremist groups. According to the indictment, those operatives allegedly did far more than quietly observe. They reportedly hosted rallies, expanded hate group chapters, recruited members, and even purchased materials for cross burnings. Because apparently “monitoring extremism” now comes with an event planning budget.

Fair declined to directly deny any of it.

“It seems to me if the answer is no, you could just say no,” Jordan told Fair after the latest round of interpretive legal theater.

Fair responded with the now-classic Washington defense strategy of saying absolutely nothing while using the maximum number of syllables possible.

The hearing became even more entertaining when Jordan rattled off a list of alleged shell companies with names sounding less like legitimate businesses and more like aliases used by cartoon villains trying to evade IRS audits: Fox Photography, North West Technologies, Tech Writers Group, Rare Books Warehouse, Imagery Ink, J&J Electronics, Center Investigative Agency, and Kelly’s Marine.

Jordan suggested the companies may have been used to funnel roughly $4 million to field operatives while conveniently obscuring the paper trail. Fair insisted any knowledge he had came through privileged conversations with attorneys, which critics noted is an impressive amount of legal confidentiality for someone who supposedly runs the organization.

Then came the awkward moment.

Jordan asked whether SPLC fundraising surged after the 2017 Charlottesville rally, where the indictment alleges one SPLC-paid source helped coordinate transportation for participants. Fair admitted donations skyrocketed, but quickly credited Donald Trump’s 2016 victory instead. Jordan pointed out the group’s fundraising reportedly exploded from $51 million to $133 million in a single year, which observers noted is quite the financial growth strategy for an organization dedicated to “fighting hate.”

Fair eventually volunteered one clear statement, explaining the program existed “to protect our staff and to protect the public.”

Americans everywhere breathed a sigh of relief knowing the safest way to fight extremism is apparently to organize it personally.

Jordan closed the hearing with one final question, asking Fair whether he knew the president of the National Socialist Party.

Fair responded exactly as viewers expected: “That’s an allegation in the indictment that will be responded to by counsel.”

At press time, SPLC officials were reportedly considering rebranding the organization as “Lawyers Without Direct Answers.”

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Jim Jordan opens inquiry into Jack Smith's "Latest sham indictment"

As summer came to an unofficial end on Labor Day, and the November presidential election looms large, the left is freaking out over their fear that Democrat candidate and current Vice President Kamala Harris is a garbage candidate and will somehow blow the election [no pun intended]. 

Last week Special Counsel Jack Smith filed yet a new indictment against former and possibly future President Trump regarding the Nancy Pelosi-botched January 6th clusterfrack [sic]. Several days after the filing, House Judiciary Committee Jim Jordan (R-OH) fired off a letter to the pencil-neck Attorney General Merrick Garland. Jordan was rightfully angry over the "latest sham indictment" and called Smith's move "Election interference." [H/T  Daily Wire]

If not that, then what is it?

As Jordan began by reminding, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered the Trump v. United States decision on July 1. The ruling established that the office of the president is immune from criminal prosecution. The Court's opinion explained the scope of presidential immunity and criticized Special Counsel Jack Smith for violating this Constitutional principle in his political prosecution of President Donald J. Trump, as Jordan noted.

Referring to Smith's updated indictment from August 27, Jordan expressed concerns that "Special Counsel Smith seems to have breached longstanding Department policy designed to safeguard our democratic processes. Consequently, the Committee needs to know whether you endorsed Special Counsel Smith’s indictment beforehand or if he is continuing to act with prosecutorial authority without your 'meaningful direction or supervision,'" his letter stated, once more referencing the Trump v. United States decision.

Jordan's letter specifically mentions a 60-day rule that advises against filing indictments immediately before a primary or general election. "Even though it isn't formally written into law, there is a broad consensus that the 60-day rule is essential for preserving the integrity of the electoral process," Jordan wrote, citing an op-ed from The Washington Post by Barack Obama's wingman, former Attorney General Eric Holder.

"Special Counsel Smith obtained the superseding indictment against President Trump just 10 days before early voting begins in some states," Jordan's letter continued, going on to comment on how this could affect the upcoming presidential election. "There can be little question that the superseding indictment has some effect on the election, especially coming after the Supreme Court’s opinion on presidential immunity cast significant doubt on Special Counsel Smith’s ability to prosecute the initial indictment."

The letter further criticizes the timing in relation to the Trump v. United States decision. Jordan continued. "In light of the Court’s opinion, Smith’s superseding indictment amounts to the initiation of a prosecutorial action by the Biden-Harris Administration against its opponent in the upcoming election. There is no persuasive argument why Special Counsel Smith could not wait until after the election to file this superseding indictment. It is therefore difficult to believe that the superseding indictment was filed now for any purpose other than to affect the outcome of the election," Jordan continued.

Jordan's letter asks for the following information and documents by September 13, going back from January 1, 2024 to the present:

1. All documents and communications between Main Justice, including but not limited to the Office of the Attorney General, and Special Counsel Smith’s office referring or relating to the superseding indictment filed against President Trump on August 27, 2024.

2. Did you personally approve the superseding indictment filed against President Trump on August 27, 2024? If so, please provide documentation sufficient to reflect your approval.

3. Did you evaluate the superseding indictment against President Trump in the context of the Department’s longstanding policy counseling against prosecutorial action so near an election? If so, please provide documentation sufficient to reflect your evaluation of these issues.

Jordan's letter also mentioned Judge Aileen Cannon, who in July tossed out Smith's classified documents case against Trump. Also last week, just the day before filing the superseding indictment, Smith appealed Cannon's move to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. [H/T Townhall.com]

There does not seem to be any doubt that Smith's move is desperate and politically motivated to prevent Donald Trump from seeking reelection. Allowing this to happen and by extension, jailing the former president, is nothing more than a banana republic type of move and the nation cannot allow this to happen.

Tweet

Meta Head Zuckerberg admits he went along with Biden-Harris admin censorship scheme

Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta [formerly Facebook] admitted in a letter that he was wrong and regrets that he went along with the Biden-Harris administration to basically pee on the U.S Constitution and the First Amendment by censoring Americans in a variety of subjects.

It's about time, Marky--what took you so long to grow a pair? Or are you really being sincere?

Facebook has been for years censoring its content, almost exclusively the content from conservatives. Zuckerberg's mea culpa is an insult and I don't trust him. His sudden regret comes after he and his company spent years fighting to hide the evidence of its hand-in-glove relationship with the Democrats to censor opposing views.

Thanks to the hard work of House Judiciary Committee Chairman  Jim Jordan (R-OH), Zuckerberg was forced to release incriminating documents and then admitted to what we knew for years. But at least he's "really, really sorry."

Do you believe him or do you think he's only sorry that he got caught?

Tweet

Trump makes incredible claim about DA Bragg's case on him

GOP presidential candidate and former President Donald J. Trump is not one to temper hyperbole. He said on Saturday that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has dropped the case against him regarding alleged campaign violations.

"I think they've already dropped the case," Trump told reporters after appearing at a campaign rally in Waco, Texas. "It's a fake case. Some fake cases, they have absolutely nothing," he claimed.

And Trump may be correct. Alvin Bragg seems to have his eyes set on bigger things than even his belly--like running for New York State Governor and maybe even the presidency one day. So it's a no brainer that this entire case against Trump is political, especially since Bragg bragged about getting Trump when he vied for the DA job.

Trump's campaign spokesman Steven Cheung was asked by Fox News Digital about the Trump claim about the case being dropped and said: "This has been dropped because everyone knows this was a partisan witch-hunt by a radical, leftist DA that sought to politically weaponize the Justice system to influence an election."

Last week Bragg's office was expect to issue an indictment for alleged hush-money payments that Trump supposedly made as a presidential candidate in 2016 to porn actress Stormy Daniels [whose real name is Stephanie Clifford] in 2016. Trump, who dubbed Daniels with the sobriquet "Horse Face" denied the claim.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee demand Bragg testify before Congress about the details of the probe, which was met with a harsh response on Saturday by Bragg who apparently does not want to be held accountable for his politically motivated actions.

The office seemed to say: "We evaluate cases in our jurisdiction as we see fit, based on facts that correspond with our truth, and evidence that supports our cause against whiteness." 

But they didn't come out and say it this way.

The office told Fox News Digital that Bragg "stands by" his previous pledge to publicly state the conclusion of the investigation, "whether we conclude our work without bringing charges, or move forward with an indictment."

Then it's on to the governorship in the near future.

Meanwhile, the case is still in limbo as we wait to see if it will go forward or prove Trump right . . . again.

Tweet

Chip Roy schools Jerry Nadler on guns and women

Nobody will ever accuse House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY) of being the smartest guy in the room, but if Brian Stelter and Michael Moore aren't in the room, Nadler might be accused of being the fattest.

The Democrats are desperate to push the anti-Second Amendment agenda in Congress but apparently know as much about guns and statistics as scorpions know about the Bible and algebra, as witnessed in the House debate of the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2021.

Big Jerry, as his friends call him, proved that he didn't know anything about guns, and said the quiet part out loud: he wanted to ban guns that were in common use for personal self-defense.

Guns in common use are protected under the Supreme Court decision in Heller, but Nadler acknowledged that he wants to ban guns that violate the decision. If the left manage to pass anything, you can bet it will go to the Supreme Court and the Court will look back and see the intent was to circumvent the Heller case.

Nadler also stepped in crap during the hearings when Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) took him to task after he tried to pull "facts" out of his nether regions. He said that guns increase the risk to women during domestic violence situations.

“The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide by women by 500%,” Big Jerry said, in a sophomoric attempt to justify why there should be no exceptions to the bill for domestic violence victims being able to protect themselves. “So, pass this amendment, and you’ll see an increase in domestic — in homicides of women by 500%.” 

This lie coming from the Party that cannot define what a woman is.

Jerry Nadler: "The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide [of] women by 500%…"@RepChipRoy: "Not if the woman holds it!" pic.twitter.com/JomihLfNrw

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 21, 2022

Chip Roy responded perfectly: “I would note that the chairman just said that the existence of a firearm — I think you might have said in the household, I’m not sure — increases the likelihood of violence by 500% or something of that nature,” Roy began. “And I’d say, well, not if the woman holds it.”

Bahdahbing!

Roy just took Nadler to the toolshed and taught him what a cattle prod is used for. Roy's point, of course, shows how a gun in the hands of a woman is a great equalizer, especially for women in domestic violence situations, not to mention sexual attacks. Jerry would deny women, whatever they are, the right to self-defense. But Roy also pointed out the real point of Nadler's argument was to ban all guns as the big guy failed to limit his so-called "facts" to merely "assault weapons."

“If you’re saying firearms generally, then the next step for the chairman is to limit all firearms — which, let’s get to the heart of it, we know that that is where our colleagues wish to go,” Roy correctly stated.

* * *

 Consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies.

* * *

If we learned one thing about Democrats, progressives and the left, we learned never to trust anything they say, especially if they promise you. Think abortion: "safe, rare and legal" became "a woman has the right to control her own body." 

Yes, unless you're talking about the other life inside her and her control over whether she wants to get a Covid vaccine. 

Tweet

Pelosi's conspiracy theorist Lt. Gen, Honore should be disqualified from Capitol security review

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee do not want to allow Speaker Pelosi to appoint Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré to lead the investigation into the Capitol riot that took place on January 6th. 

[H/T Fox News]

Based upon Honoré's "offensive" comments, he appears to be a conspiracy theorist whose thoughts takes precedence over information and facts. This should disqualify him, says the GOP members of the Committee.

In the letter to Pelosi, eight Republicans, including Rep. Matt Gaetz, (R-FL), and Jim Jordan (R-OH), ask for information about the decision-making process in selecting him.

"Although we are grateful for his service to our country, LTG Honoré has made many comments critical of U.S. Capitol Police officers and certain Members of Congress -- statements that call into question the supposed impartiality of his review," they say according to Fox News’ "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

"LTG Honoré is entitled to his personal opinions, but we are concerned that his selection will undermine the serious purpose of this review: to develop a fair and clear-eyed assessment of the systematic security and leadership failures concerning the events of January 6," they say all too politely.

Gaetz said on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that Honoré's comments "would disqualify him from even a jury pool on these questions and yet he’s in charge of this review."

Some of the unsubstantiated, prejudice things this lunatic said were that USCP officers were "asshats" for having him follow security protocols when he visited the Capitol. Had they not done so, he might have complained the security was too loose; when you prejudge an entity negatively, everything the entity does will be judged negatively.

Honoré also said, without a shred of evidence, that USCP officers "allowed their buddies in" to the building -- and that rioters had help from those inside the force and that 30 - 40% of USCP officers are "Trumpsters." If you recall, Donald Trump was the President of the United States, and even if this claim is true, [and here too, Honoré has not done a survey to determine the accuracy of his claim] this merely indicates Honoré's mindset and should make him ineligible to judge the situation.

"To call these remarks inflammatory is an understatement. These statements are deeply offensive and should be disqualifying for anyone to lead a serious and objective review of the Capitol’s security," the Congress members say.

Pelosi praised Honoré when she announced last month that he would head an investigation into the security situation at the Capitol. She likes him because he hates Trump and his supporters.

"The General is a respected leader with experience dealing with crises," she said on Jan. 15. "House Leadership has worked with General Honoré, seen up close and personal his excellent leadership at the time of Katrina, particularly Mr. Clyburn was the head of our Katrina task force. So, he and I and others know full well how fortunate we are that the General has accepted, is willing to do this."

Honoré had already raised concern about his suitability after comments aimed at Republicans. He described Sen. Josh Hawley, (R-MO), as "downright crazy" and said he should be "run out of DC," leading Hawley to conclude Honoré was unsuitable [and highly biased].

"This is somebody who has no business, no business, leading a security review," he told Carlson.

Honoré apparently hates Republicans and this has blinded him to the point where he cannot make rationale decisions. He said that USCP should put Rep. Lauren Boebert's "stupid ass on the no-fly list." What kind of "leader" talks like that? 

The GOP lawmakers asked Pelosi if she knew of Honoré's controversial comments and whether her office asked him to delete statements from his social media.

"The American people and the Congress deserve full and unfettered answers about what happened on January 6 and in the days leading up to it," they write. "We have serious reservations that LTG Honore is the right person to provide those answers."

But when all is said and done, Honoré will probably get the appointment because Democrats want to divide and conquer while pretending they want to unify.

Please consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against the China virus.

Tweet

BLM woman nominated to House Judiciary: says she don't need no law degree

She has been nominated by the currently serving President-elect Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., to the House Judiciary Committee. Cori "Boom-Boom" Bush (D-MO) pushed back at the idea that being on a judiciary committee would be best suited for a person with an actual law degree, but Bush don't play that. She says that her lived experiences "will drive [my] work."

In other words, she has almost the same experience as a jail house lawyer who learned law in the prison library.

As a registered nurse and a Black Lives Matter Marxist, she has all the tools she needs to deal with legal matters and the U.S. Constitution. She says that “no degree can teach you what it feels like to experience an officer’s boot stomping your head.”

Is she trying to convince us that her head has been stomped on by a cop's boot? She doesn't even seem to know that cops don't usually wear boots on the job. 

The House Judiciary Committee has 41 members, and the majority of them have studied law. Admittedly, however, the committee has no formal requirement that its members be lawyers, but you might think that would be a good idea, just like you'd want your airline pilot to actually have a license to operate the plane you're seated in.

Bush defeated long-time Missouri Congressman William Lacy Clay Jr. (D) in a primary upset in August, and signaled in a victory speech to voters that moderation and compromise weren’t in the cards for the future of the district’s representation.

Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats [an oxymoron], praised Bush at the time as the newest member of “the squad,” the group of far-left anti-Semitic progressive women of variegated color who were elected in 2018 to serve in highly Democratic districts. 

The squad includes the foul-mouth Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D_MA) and the seriously Honorable Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

Bush declared that she was ready to hold police officers “accountable” once she entered Congress, as reported by The New York Times.

“If you didn’t understand what happened, what was birthed right here in St. Louis, Missouri, in St. Louis County, in Ferguson, we’re about to show you,” threatened Bush.

Justice Democrats [not a joke, as Biden would say] alluded to this pledge while celebrating Bush’s nomination to the House Judiciary Committee on Friday.

Six years ago police officers maced @CoriBush in Ferguson as she helped spark a global movement called #BlackLivesMatter. 
Now she’ll be holding police departments accountable as a member of the House Judiciary Committee. pic.twitter.com/xtGbtzcA77
— Justice Democrats (@justicedems) December 18, 2020

So based on this tweet, one can expect Bush's politics to be Marxist and will handcuff law enforcement in the name of justice.

“Every time I step into that committee room, I will bring with me the power of my lived experience,” said Bush in a statement. “It is a power that comes from the pain of being a survivor of sexual abuse and domestic violence, or having been unhoused, stomped by the police, and forced to live paycheck-to-paycheck. But above all else, I will bring the stories of the people of St. Louis and fight for the change we need in Missouri’s First Congressional District.”

Yes, she is a victim and victims know better than anyone else what it's like to be allowed to destroy private property or attack people on the basis of their color and level of their personal success.

If you think Joe Biden is a moderate, you're not thinking. 

C'mon, man, gimme a break. You know you want to follow Brain Flushings--it's free and worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a liberal sheds a tear. C'mon, check out the ads. Christmas is coming.

Tweet

BREAKING: Dems will take formal steps on impeachment

The House Judiciary Committee will vote next week on a resolution delineating the procedures it will use for investigating President Trump and deciding whether to move ahead with impeachment theatrics.

"The vote, which is expected to occur on Wednesday, will lay out the ground rules for conducting hearings now that the committee has publicly announced it is considering recommending articles of impeachment against Trump," the Corrupted News Network [CNN] reported. "It is expected to follow the precedent set in 1974 over the committee's procedures during then-President Richard Nixon's impeachment proceedings."

The committee is headed by Rep. Jerry "The Eyebrow" Nadler (D-NY),  who was a devout Trump-hater long before Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election and created a shortage of antidepressants across the nation.

CNN noted that the resolution is expected to allow future House Judiciary hearings to be conducted in ways different than normal congressional hearings because the Democrat-controlled committee is considering impeachment. The resolution, which CNN cheered, was "a major step," is also expected to give Nadler extra power to call hearings at the different committee levels in connection with "its impeachment deliberations."

This power play by the left strategically comes at a time when their socialist front-runners for the 2020 election have started to debate each other and try to move into the front spot for the nomination.

Politico noted that Nadler had declared in August that his committee was already involved in impeachment proceedings which created widespread confusion since no formal vote had been taken as Nadler has no idea what he's doing as his hatred for Trump has blinded him.

"Though the language of the resolution is still in flux, some sources said it could incorporate elements of traditional impeachment probes, such as offering access to the president's attorneys or providing for more time to question witnesses," Politico reported. "There was discussion among some Democrats on Friday’s call about the strength of the language in the resolution, according to sources briefed on the call."

But whatever the language turns out to be, you can bet that should it get voted on by the Democratic majority House, the Senate is never going to pass it. This is nothing more than a political ploy to hurt Trump's chances in the election.



Please consider following this blog and feel free to click on the ads on this page. It costs nothing, and may just save your life. Or not. But seriously, please check out the ads as this is my source of generating revenue. And you can also see my blog on the Times of Israel.





Tweet

Federal judge orders portions of Mueller report unredacted & made public

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has ordered portions of the special counsel Robert Mueller’s report to be unredacted and made public in the criminal case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Sullivan issued the limited order on Thursday and it pertains to portions of the report relating to Flynn are redacted and would be made public under the order.

This is the first time a federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to make public portions of a report the agency had kept secret.

After almost two years, Mueller  finally concluded his investigation in March. Attorney General William P. Barr released a redacted version of Mueller’s report in April but the Democrats want the report to be totally unredacted, which is against the law. Several members of the House Judicial Committee, led by Jerry "Eyebrows" Nadler, want the report fully unredacted but that is not going to happen and is just a distraction by his party.

Gen. Flynn is awaiting sentence after admitting to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

Kindly consider following Brain Flushings and please visit the ads on these pages. Thank you.

Tweet

Nadler angry at McCarthy saying: "I can find my butt with both hands"

The following is satire.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy believes that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler does not have what it takes "to handle the gavel and he cannot even control his eyebrow or find his butt with both hands." This statement comes the day after Nadler and fellow socialists voted to hold AG William Barr in contempt of Congress.

“If you listen to it, the question continues to be raised that Nadler can’t even handle the gavel,” McCarthy told real reporters and Vinny Bagadonuts. “Not only how he dealt with the last committee hearing, it comes into doubt regardless of what the issue is, whether he’s capable of being chairman. In fact, last week I saw him trying to get into the women's bathroom.”

McCarthy then added: “He was asking in a subpoena for Attorney General Barr to break the law or else he would hold him in contempt for not breaking the law."

After voting to hold Barr in contempt, the New York Democrat, in an uncharacteristic moment of honesty, told reporters that he and his fellow Democrats “actually enjoy” holding the attorney general in contempt for not turning over the entire fully unredacted Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report and its underlying evidence, and felt they “needed to do so to distract from real issues.”

McCarthy said that Nadler did not even take the time to read the nearly completely unredacted report the Department of Justice provided, which he has the right to read. Nadler, in another uncharacteristic moment of honesty admitted that he has an eye doctor appointment and would find it difficult to read with the spectacles he currently uses. Also, his eyebrows sometimes obstruct his vision.

The California Republican pointed out that 98.5 percent of the report is available to view overall, and 99.9 percent of Vol. II is unredacted, which addresses whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice.

Nadler then googled the word 'unredacted.'

“I think it goes to the character of who Nadler is: a Trump-hating New York politician who lost a ton of weight and now thinks he's Adonis, when, in fact, he's more like Arnold Stang.

McCarthy further noted that the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee at least had the professionalism to stay through Wednesday’s proceedings, in contrast to Nadler, who in 2012 walked off the House floor refusing to even vote on whether then-Attorney General Eric Holder should be held in contempt of Congress. Nadler claimed that he had taken a water pill and desperately had to pee, which was a lie.

The New York leftist tweeted at the time, “Just joined the #walkout of the House chamber to protest the shameful, politically-motivated GOP vote holding AG Holder in contempt.”


Kindly consider following Brain Flushings and please visit the ads on these pages. Thank you.




Tweet

Cohen goes whole hog on chicken stunt

Rep Steve Cohen (D-TN) spoke with MSNBC about  the chicken stunt he pulled on the House floor. He said he planned it the previous night, pondering how best he could make a fool of himself and maybe in the process get a few laughs, and chicken came to mind.

Cohen bought the bucket of greasy dead fowl the previous night and when he gobbled the bird down, it was cold and yucky--he didn't like it and said that it was not "wonderful."

The purpose of his gobbling the chicken down during the House Judiciary Committee hearing was to take a swipe at Attorney General William Barr, who was not in attendance [to Cohen's relief]. 

Cohen responded to his critics of the somewhat disgusting display and said the move was an attempt at "levity." But there's nothing funny about seeing a guy eating chicken with his hands and an open mouth.

The best part was the ceramic chicken Cohen brought along for the show. He mocked Barr for being "too chicken" for not showing at the hearing, which brought raucous laughter on the House floor--just kidding.

The joke bombed. 

Most notably, Jimmy Kimmel mocked the stunt and warned Democrats that using this kind of “sick burns” will cost them the presidential election in 2020. [From Kimmel's show to G-d's 5K Smart TV.]

"Wow, what a sick burn that is," Kimmel said sarcastically to his audience. "Trump's gonna win again with stuff like that, isn't he?"

Kindly consider following Brain Flushings and please visit the ads on these pages. Thank you.

Tweet

FBI's Strzok 'smug,' 'defiant' and a toad in House interview

FBI adulterer Peter Strzok "laughed off" questions in a closed-door congressional interview this week. He was also described as "smug," but admitted he regrets sending anti-Trump texts, [meaning he regrets getting caught sending anti-Trump texts to his average-looking paramour], congressional sources told Fox News.

Strzok spoke behind closed doors [reminiscent of how he first would meet up with Lisa Page at a hotel]. He was interviewed before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday in his first congressional appearance regarding revelations of a boat-load of anti-Trump texts he exchanged with Lisa Page, a married woman and FBI colleague with whom he was having an illicit affair.

One congressional source said that "Strzok was smug, defiant, and laughed off a lot of questions." This may be due to a pending or future book deal.

The source also said that Strzok refused to answer some questions on the advice of counsel, in spite of him bragging that he would not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.

Another source told Fox News that Strzok regretted sending the texts, but that makes sense because it got him kicked off the Russia probe.

A recent inspector general report chastised him and others for the anti-Trump texts and Strzok was escorted from his FBI office and lost his security clearance.

Strzok is fighting back after President Trump tweeted that Strzok "refused to answer many questions." His lawyer, Aitan Goelman countered Trump's claim explaining that Strzok "abided by his legal responsibility to follow the instructions of the FBI counsel, who sought to avoid the disclosure of information related to the Russia investigation."

Trump should stay out of this, I believe.

"It should come as no surprise that President Trump, who appears desperate to undermine the Special Counsel's investigation, is again viciously attacking Pete [Strzok] for playing by the rules," Goelman said in a statement. He noted that his client "wants full transparency around the examination of his work."

Perhaps they should question his work by asking where did Strzok and Page find the time on the job to text some 50,000 times?

What an arrogant creep . . . I'm sure his wife agrees.


Tweet

BREAKING: Conyers gets tagged by another woman

The story broke yesterday--Dem. Rep. John Conyers was accused of sexual harassment back in 2015 when he settled a harassment suit. According to affidavits, Conyers had paid taxpayer money to fly women in Washington D.C. to meet with him in hotel rooms. It is highly unlikely that he met the women there to discuss politics or play checkers. The related documents were initially provided by Mike Cernovich to BuzzFeed News.

Cernovich is an independent journalist and tweeted Sunday: "Ranking Democrat on major committee accused of several harassment by multiple women. Huge scandal. Developing . . . " he tweeted.

BuzzFeed reported: 

Michigan Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat and the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives, settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 with a former employee who alleged she was fired because she would not "succumb to [his] sexual advances."

The documents from the complaint include 4 signed affidavits, 3 of them notarized, from former staff members who allege that Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sexual favors, contacting and transporting other women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, caressing their hands sexually, and rubbing their legs and backs in public. Four people involved with the case verified the authenticity of the documents.

It was also reported by BuzzFeed that staffers were given the task of flying women in for Conyers using Congressional resources. One affidavit from a former female employee states she was tasked with flying in women for Conyers.

"One of my duties while working for Rep. Conyers was to keep a list of women that I assume he was having affairs with and call them at his request and, if necessary, have them flown in using Congressional resources," her affidavit said.

Conyers' victims were paid a settlement in exchange for their silence out of taxpayer money.

Just as an aside, Conyers' wife is also no angel. As the former Detroit City Council President, Monica Conyers was sentenced to 37 months in prison for bribery charges in March 2010.

Amazingly, as this post was being written, another woman came forward with more allegations about Conyers sexual misconduct. She is a former staffer who decided to abandon her settlement talks in order to come forward.



Tweet

It's Always Racist to the Left

Rep. Karen Bass, (D-CA) is on the House Judiciary Committee. When the non-indictment verdict was in on Officer Darren Wilson regarding the shooting of Michael Brown, Bass said in a statement that it "continues a trend of injustice that has rightfully created an environment of anger and concern in Ferguson, Missouri and across the United States."

Rep. Karen Bass (Duh-CA)

The House Judiciary Committee member then added: "Ferguson officials botched this case from the beginning when they left Michael Brown's body on the street for over four hours after he was killed. They were mean-spirited when they leaked information to the media to assassinate Michael Brown's character. The Ferguson Police Department violated the Constitutional rights of the Ferguson community when they attacked and tear gassed lawful protesters." Then this wise politician said that the grand jury "attacked justice by not holding Officer Wilson accountable for his actions." 

She would "continue to insist" that Holder's DoJ  conduct its own investigation to see if Ferguson PD "violated Michael Brown's civil rights."

How does she know that there was an injustice committed? Did she actually see the grand jury evidence? Or is it that she feels that an injustice was committed?

Did she say the same about O.J.'s trial when he went free? 

It's a damn shame when a kid gets killed in the streets. It happens all the time in black neighborhoods. In fact, most black kids who are killed, are killed by other black kids. We're talking over 90 percent of the time.

The evidence (now that's a word liberals hate) showed that Michael Brown robbed a convenience store, was high, and acted aggressively toward Officer Wilson, based on forensic evidence. He was not a wonderful boy on his way to the prom--he was looking for trouble.

Officer Wilson had never fired his weapon in anger but he did so this time in self-defense, according to the evidence. He also had the courage to testify in front of the grand jury--something quite unheard of due to the fact that it usually leads to a trial.

This was never about civil rights--it was about a crime. The "protesters" were less outraged over Michael Brown's death than they were hyped about their chances to mess things up, have some fun, and get some free stuff.

The people who benefited most from this tragic event were Al Sharpton and the looters. Even the Muslims got into the act in the hope of recruiting people of color to join their ranks, I suspect. But I don't know that for a fact, so I'm only speculating and will admit that.

But one thing I know is that the losers in all this were those with small businesses in Ferguson. In fact, Michael Brown's step-father could be seen jumping up and down on the hood of a car screaming for the crowd to "burn the bitch down."

So you wonder from where Michael Brown got his anger? Guess.



Tweet