Republicans In Congress Are Now Tearing At The Fabric Of The Constitution And Undermining Congress As An Institution Every Bit As Much As Trump

The New Yorker's Susan Glaser interviewed Adam Schiff on Thursday. She asked him if he hates Señor T. "No," he replied, "but I do hate what he is doing to the country." Glaser only had a few minutes and as Schiff was being called away she asked him what had been the most memorable testimony of the hearings, a "cancer on the presidency" moment like John Dean's Watergate testimony.

Schiff said, “sometimes it’s not the big things” but smaller, revealing comments that resonated. One was from the former special envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, who, in a conversation with one of Zelensky’s advisers, in September, urged the new Ukrainian administration not to enact victor’s justice and investigate his defeated predecessor. The Zelensky adviser responded, in effect, “Oh, you mean like you want us to do with the Bidens and the Clintons?” To Schiff, it was a moment “pointing out the utter hypocrisy” of Trump’s scheme, in which America was now “urging other countries not to engage in politically motivated investigations, while asking for politically motivated investigations.”

The other conversation that Schiff cited was Sondland’s memorable encounter with David Holmes, a diplomat in the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. Holmes overheard Sondland talking on the phone with Trump, who asked if Zelensky would pursue the investigations he wanted. After the call, Holmes asked Sondland, “Does the President give a shit about Ukraine?” As Holmes testified, the answer was no, he only cares about “the big stuff.” Well, Holmes pointed out, there is big stuff happening in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, but Sondland said no, that was not what he meant. Trump only cared about matters that concerned him, like the investigations. “That says it all,” Schiff told me. “The President doesn’t give a shit about what’s good for our country, what’s good for Ukraine. It’s all about what’s in it for him personally and for his reëlection campaign.” In that small moment in an obscure diplomat’s testimony, Schiff reflected, was the impeachment case in all its brazen simplicity. “That is a perfect summary,” he said, “of this whole scheme.”

Until recently, Michigan libertarian Justin Amash was a conservative Republican. Now he's a conservative independent caucusing with their party. He told CNN yesterday that he wants to hear all the evidence before making a final decision on impeachment but, as of noe, he is ready to vote for three articles of impeachment: obstruction of Congress, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. That doesn't count as "bipartisan."

Yesterday Vox published a chat reporter Sean Illing had with former Republican Congressman David Jolly (FL) about what's happened to his party. "Republicans in Congress," Jolly said, are now "tearing at the fabric of the Constitution every bit as much as Donald Trump" and "undermining the institution of Congress every bit as much as Trump... I think we just have to recognize how culturally broken our politics is. There is real animosity between the two sides that gets reinforced due to gerrymandered districts that insulate members from accountability, and we have a media environment that funnels partisan news to target audiences."

When Illing asked him when his former colleagues still in Congress say to him in private, Jolly said "I can’t tell you how many Republican members of Congress have told me, 'I’m just trying to keep my head down and not get noticed.' They see all the excitement stirred up by people like Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes but at least half the caucus wants to stay the hell out of the media. They’re not looking to make a name through this, they’re looking to survive this. I struggle with whether some of their behaviors are an intentional decision on their part to engage in either misdirection, or to overlook the facts because they have a fealty to the president or because they want to put a stake in the ground in right-wing media or because it just works in their districts. Or are some of them just duped into it by following the leader? I honestly don’t know. It’s probably a mix of all of the above."

Asked why not even a Republican who seems normal, like Will Hurd, is willing to vote to impeach Trump, Jolly's response was what you'd expect: "It’s hard to get into someone else’s mind. I was surprised that we haven’t seen Hurd or someone like Hurd lead the narrative, 'It’s wrong, but not impeachable.' His closing comments in the hearing a couple weeks conflated the 'wrong, but not impeachable' argument with the claim that the allegations against Trump aren’t proven. That’s different. I don’t know if Hurd has future political ambitions, but his legacy is being cemented now. If you say it was wrong but not impeachable, that’s a legitimate national conversation. You can run for office in the future and that argument could stand the test of time because it at least acknowledges what most of the country knows, namely that what Trump did is obvious and wrong. But if you stay with not proven, it’s as though Republicans have decided to simply overlook the truth and look the other way and that’s where I think it will have long-term consequences for Hurd and for the party at large.

Jolly said watching Elise Stefanik, who has carefully crafted an image as a moderate but has no turned into a raving Trumpist imbecile, "has been interesting. And I think she’s doing this very intentionally. When she said to Fiona Hill, for example, or whoever it was, 'Can’t a president fire an ambassador for any reason?' And Hill says, 'Yes,' and Stefanik says, 'A-ha,' then she goes to her press guy and says, 'I’m glad we all agree the president has the authority to do it.' Well, it overlooks the fact that the corrupt conspiracy behind it could still be impeachable. And she knows that. Of course she knows that. And when Gym Jordan (R-OH) says, 'We don’t know the whistleblower’s identity,' well, it doesn’t matter because we have the testimony of everybody else and he knows that. This is where I can’ tell if this is just intentional misdirection or a case of blindly following the leader... I think this is what the party is. I don’t think we will see a reversal the day Trump leaves office. I’m curious who follows Trump because the politics aren’t going to change so dramatically. I don’t think it’s Mike Pence’s party when Trump’s gone. Anyone who wants to win in this party will have to appease the Trumpist base one way or the other. And this whole impeachment saga is showing us that it’s not just Trump and Trumpism, it’s also Congress. I mean, Republicans in Congress right now are tearing at the fabric of the Constitution every bit as much as Donald Trump’s actions, because this is now their responsibility. It’s not their responsibility to defend Trump, but that’s what they’re prioritizing. And they’re undermining the institution of Congress every bit as much as Trump... I think the Lindsey Graham we’re seeing today is the real Lindsey Graham. This is a political opportunist who will flop with the winds and do whatever it takes to serve his own self-interest. That’s who he is... Trump has exposed a lot about who we are as a country and who Republicans are as a party. But the partisanship problem is less about the people in the party and more about the structural forces driving hyper-partisan decision-making. The big three for me are gerrymandering, closed primaries, and big money. All of this puts so much pressure on people to conform or compromise. If we unrigged the system, if we had competitive districts with open primaries and public financing, you’d see people behaving very differently because there would be a completely different reward structure. Right now the only way to get reelected is to act like a hyper-partisan. As long as that’s the case, we won’t get value-driven decision-making."

So... which candidate do Democratic primary voters thing would be best to take on and rid the country of Trump? A new Ipsos poll for Reuters shows the horse-race looking like this:

• Status Quo Joe- 26%
• Bernie- 19%

• Elizabeth- 13%
• Mayo- 8%
• Bloomberg- 5%
• Yang- 3%
• Klobuchar- 2%
• Booker- 2%

But that isn't what I found most valuable in the polling. Let's look, instead, how Democratic primary voters responded when asked about which candidate who best handle the most important issues of the day:

• Immigration

• Bernie- 25%
• Status Quo Joe- 22%
• Elizabeth- 12%
• Mayo- 7%
• Booker- 5%

• Healthcare

• Bernie- 33%
• Status Quo Joe- 21%
• Elizabeth- 15%
• Mayo- 7% • Booker- 3%

• The environment

• Bernie- 25%
• Status Quo Joe- 17%
• Elizabeth- 15%
• Mayo- 10%
• Booker- 4%

• The economy and jobs

• Status Quo Joe- 25%
• Bernie- 24%
• Elizabeth- 16%
• Mayo- 8%
• Booker- 4%

Why Doesn't Gwen Graham Just Switch Parties And Run As A "Moderate" Republican-- Which Is What She's Always Been?

Bipartisan love-- And #MeToo Graham

Gwen Graham is eating Patrick Murphy's lunch... again. When they served in Congress together, briefly thankfully, Murphy was always the second worst Florida Democrat-- in a delegation filled with garbage like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Alcee Hastings and Corrine Brown, currently serving in a federal penitentiary on basic corruption charges. Murphy (a New Dem) and Graham (a Blue Dog) never rose beyond their "F" ProgressivePunch ratings, not ever. Murphy came up with a superficial gimmick torun as a team with one of the MSNBC Republicans, former congressman David Jolly-- still a Republican with all that baggage-- and a week later Gwen Graham's floundering gubernatorial campaign doesn't just steal the concept, she steals Jolly as well. Murphy's left on the dock sucking his thumb-- or Nicholas Mastroianni's... thumbs... unless Graham picks him as her running mate! (Murphy, not Mastroianni.)

Graham's first reaction to Murphy's proposal-- before he vaulted thread of her among her conservative Democratic base-- was insist that a bipartisan ticket wasn't legal in Florida. Marc Caputo had the story early Monday morning.

“I see my lieutenant governor selection as someone who’s going to be right by my side helping me get this state back on the right path,” Graham told the podcast’s host, Fernand Amandi. “And so Patrick would certainly fit that definition, as would David, as would all the other candidates for governor on the Democratic ticket at the moment. So it’s really going to be for me a thorough analysis of who can bring the most to help make the biggest difference in the state of Florida.”

Gillum’s campaign took note of Graham’s comments, pointing out that she’s now running as a progressive but had successfully run as a “very conservative Democrat” in a GOP-leaning Tallahassee-based House seat in 2014.

“It’s beyond frustrating that the self-described ‘very conservative’ Gwen Graham is already considering splitting the ticket to run with the GOP, especially with an energized Democratic base ready to vote Republicans out,” said one of Gillum’s top liberal surrogates, Orlando Democratic state Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith. “This is exactly why we need Andrew Gillum-- the only unapologetic progressive running. Democrats will win by authentically standing up for our values-- not by becoming Republicans!”

Graham’s comments come as an outside group supporting African-American candidates, The Collective super PAC, announced it would spent as much as $782,000 on an ad campaign questioning Graham’s progressive bonafides. Graham has called the ad misleading and wants it taken down.

...While Graham’s centrist [Belwayspeak for "right-wing"] voting record might be a problem in a Democratic primary, her supporters say it makes her a better general election candidate in a swing state like Florida. And that’s where Jolly could be an advantage.

Being relatively well-known among Democratic political junkies because of his frequent appearances on MSNBC bashing President Donald Trump, Jolly’s addition to a centrist ticket could even be a plus in a primary, according to a recent survey conducted by Murphy’s pollster.

Almost as soon as the news broke that Murphy was considering a bid with Jolly, Graham’s campaign and her surrogates pushed back on the notion of a bipartisan ticket by claiming it wasn’t legal because of state laws requiring membership in a political party for a year before announcing a bid.

“They could not run as Democrats-- you have to be registered as a D for over year; Jolly is a Republican. They would have to run without a party-- not even sure that is legal. Do some work,” Don Hinkle, a Tallahassee attorney and Graham supporter, huffed on Twitter.

Hinkle noted that the statute concerning the pick of a gubernatorial candidate’s running mate mentions a “written statement of political party affiliation.” Graham’s campaign surrogates also spread the word that a bipartisan ticket wasn’t lawful.

But Florida election-law attorney Jason B. Blank, also a Democrat, said the law doesn’t specify that a gubernatorial candidate and his or her running mate have to be members of the same party.

“A bipartisan ticket is not expressly forbidden by Florida law,” Blank said. “I have found no prohibition in Florida statute or in the Florida constitution.”

And now that Graham has said Jolly could be a pick for her, she sees no prohibition either.

As the Democratic governor of another state told me this morning, laughing, "This is what candidates do when they don’t know what to do." Meanwhile Quentin James from the Collective SuperPAC, did an expose of Graham's hysterical slander against his organization for Monday night's Miami Herald Their ad, which is driving Graham bonkers, is below. "Instead of responding to the content of the advertisement," he points out, "Graham and establishment Democrats spent an entire week attacking my organization for highlighting her conservative voting record and her choice to stand with GOP leaders over President Obama."

Graham falsely labeled our organization a “dark” money group even though The Collective Super PAC reports its contributions and expenditures monthly to the Federal Elections Commission. All 13,000 individual contributions from more than 6,000 individuals can be found at FEC.gov. A host of groups of similar size and structure have worked on behalf of Gwen Graham throughout her career and were given a hospitable welcome. Now, because we’re simply seeking accountability, we’re being accused of doing something suspicious, illegal or unethical.


...And in true fashion-- and during the same week no less-- Graham has proven us right: She is considering standing with a Republican in 2018. Politico reports that, “Graham is considering Republican David Jolly as a Florida gubernatorial running mate.” It boggles the mind that she would even contemplate choosing a GOP running mate in the midst of a Democratic primary, but this is exactly what our advertisement points to-- Graham is not the progressive she claims to be.

Instead of launching baseless attacks on our organization, Graham and her allies should inform Floridians why she stood against President Obama 52 percent of the time, why she trashed Obamacare, why she voted with the big banks, why she voted to approve the Keystone XL pipeline-- twice-- and why she’s considering a Republican running mate?

Patrick Murphy And David Jolly Want To Insert Third Way Into The Florida Governor's Race

Patrick Murphy's papa bought him a congressional seat in the West Palm area (FL-18) in 2012. It was incredibly close but Murphy had a perfect foil-- lunatic fringe neo-fascist Allen West. Even Murphy looked almost like a lesser of two evils. Murphy's father started a PAC, American Sunrise, and financed his ne'rer-do-well son with $118,578. Sensing thew kind of DINO they love, the DCCC put in another $548,517. The final score was 166,257 (50.3%) to 164,353 (49.7%). Murphy went on to be lazy, incompetent backbencher with no achievements at all except to raise Wall Street cash by backing the banksters (along with Republicans and his fellow corrupt New Dems) on the House Financial Services Committee. In 2016 Schumer and Reid picked him to run for the U.S. Senate and Rubio beat him 52-44%. He drew 4,122,088 votes while Hillary Clinton was getting 4,504,975 votes on the same day. Nearly 400,000 Democratic voters decided to not cast a ballot for Murphy. Maybe his "F" rating by Progressive Punch helps explain why.

There is a lively election to replace Rick Scott as governor now. And Murphy is back, rearing his ugly drunken heard again. Now he's the "bipartisan candidate," offering to run on a ticket with with former Congressman David Jolly, who was ousted in 2016 by flip-floppy conservative Charlie Crist from his Pinellas County seat.

There are already 4 serious Democrats in the race, a female version of Murphy, DINO Gwen Graham, plus two other wretched conservaDems, former Miami Beach mayor Philip Levine and random rich businessman Christopher King, and one progressive, Tallahassee mayor Andrew Gillum. (There are also a dozen of so Republicans running for their party's nomination, though the top two are mainstream establishment conservative Adam Putnam and neo-fascist Trumpist Ron DeSantis.)

Monday evening Alex Leary broke the news in the Tampa Bay Times that Murphy and Jolly had put together a DINO/RINO ruse to attract attention. Their theory of the race is that a "split ticket idea recognizes growing dissatisfaction with the polarization of both parties and a possible third way."

"Working across the aisle was a hallmark of my two terms in Congress, and the relationships I formed with members of both parties were invaluable," Murphy said at the outset of the town-hall tour last summer. "I look forward to joining my former colleague as we share our perspectives on ways we must work together to improve our broken political system."

Jolly added, "Even in times of great disagreement there are ways of finding common ground, there are opportunities for bipartisan leadership to solve some of our country's toughest issues."

Geoff Burgan, Gillum's communications director, had a riotous response: "We welcome anyone who wants to talk about Florida’s future. The contrast in vision and background between the three millionaires running against Andrew Gillum couldn’t be more clear." Meanwhile, one of Murphy's former congressional colleagues laughed and told me that "it's sad but true: being unprincipled and unscrupulous, zero accomplishments to your name, and standing for nothing except self-promotion, now qualifies as 'bipartisan.'" Another of his former colleagues (from the House Financial Services Committee) referred to him as "a smarmy jerk-boy" and that was really the only think I can repeat about what she had to say about Murphy.

Florida Republican David Jolly: "Is the Republic Safer If Democrats Take Over The House In 2018?"

One of the worst of the 2016 Democratic freshmen-- worst in terms of his GOP-aligned voting record-- is Charlie Crist, former Republican, former governor of Florida, current terrible congressman from St Petersburg. He won last year by beating incumbent David Jolly 184,693 (51,9%) to 171,149 (48.1%). Each raised and spent around $2,000,000 on their campaigns, although the DCCC and their aligned House Majority PAC dumped another $2.5 million into the race, while there was no counter-balance from the NRCC for Jolly. Meanwhile, Crist immediately joined the Blue Dogs and New Dems, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, and quickly earned an overall "F" from ProgressivePunch for his decidedly right-of-center voting record. Charlie Crist now has the worst vote score of any Democratic freshman-- 43.10-- and the only Democrats with worse scores-- in order of bad to worse-- are Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) and Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), 3 Democrats who Ryan can always depend on to support the Republican agenda in nearly everything. I don't think Jolly is seriously considering a rematch in FL-13. Crist, who spends virtually all his time sucking up to corporate donors and lobbyists, has already raised $1,625,562.44 for 2018.

Meanwhile, Jolly has become a regular MSNBC contributor. Last night be was on Lawrence O'Donnell's show, the highlight of which was when he admitted that the country would be better off if the Democrats were to win back the House in 2018. "The Republican Party," he said, "never really recovered and found their footing from the emergence of the Tea Party, from the emergence of the likes of Sarah Palin, that has now manifested in the likes of Steve Bannon and Donald Trump. What is different now is that we have a president who’s known to be unstable. We have a president who’s known to be risky when it comes to matters of national security... I’ll be honest with you: Personally, as a Republican, in the past few weeks I’ve wondered, 'Is the Republic safer if Democrats take over the House in 2018?'" It wouldn't surprise me if Jolly winds up in Kenosha at some point during 2018, campaigning for Randy Bryce!

Nor is Jolly the only one with thoughts like that. Early this morning, CNN released a poll by SSR. When asked, "If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your Congressional district," 54% of registered voters say Democrats and just 38% say Republicans. 98% of Democrats favor Democrats while only 88% of Republicans say they prefer a Republican. More Independents also say they will vote for a Democrat.

It looks to me that at this point the only thing that could hold back the Democratic wave is the venal and well-practiced incompetence of the DCCC, an organization that embodies the concept of habitual failure. And they're up to their losing tricks again-- picking conservative GOP-lite candidates in race after race across the country, flying in the race of the progressive energy that has swept the nation. Yesterday, I spoke with Dr. Matt Heinz, a progressive running against centrist Republican Martha McSally in Arizona's ultimate swing district, AZ-02 (Tucson). After Pelosi and DCCC chairman Ben Ray Lujan decided ultra conservative New Dem Ann Kirkpatrick (from northern Arizona) should be the candidate against McSally, many in the Tucson area are left wondering if the Democratic Party is worth supporting at all. Heinz: "Only Southern Arizonans can choose who represents them, and Ann Kirkpatrick's record against DACA kids, against clean energy, and in favor of the NRA, assault weapons and high-capacity magazines will prove problematic. Too much hangs in the balance in this election."

Jolly Probably Can't Be Reelected In His Florida House Seat-- ANd The NRCC Hopes He Loses

As we mentioned yesterday, you'd have to be terribly naive to imagine Rubio wasn't running for reelection. David Jolly's exit from Florida's U.S. Senate primary is just another indication that it's a done deal. The NRCC doesn't like Jolly-- who exposed their predatory fundraising tactics on 60 Minutes-- but he really is the only shot the GOP has told hold that recently much bluer swing district against Republican-Democrat hybrid Charlie Crist. Jolly claims he can win the seat again by focusing on local issues.

Jolly likely won't have the same help from national Republicans in trying to defeat Crist as he did in 2014 when he beat Democrat Alex Sink in a special election to win the seat. The National Republican Congressional Committee made clear on Friday that it played no role in getting Jolly to run for re-election.

"The NRCC was not included in his 'deliberations' and has not had any discussions with David about him running for re-election. We do not-- and will not-- comment about commitments for financial support or anything else," said Katie Martin, a spokeswoman for the NRCC.

Jolly has irritated the NRCC by touting his Stop Act, which would bar candidates from personally seeking campaign donations. He was featured in an April story on 60 Minutes on CBS, which used footage from hidden cameras to show the tiny call offices congressmen use to solicit donations in between meetings.

Asked how close he anticipated working with the group that he called out on national TV, Jolly said the ball was in the NRCC's court.

"I will let the NRCC make a decision as it chooses to," Jolly said. "My mission with the Stop Act … was never intended to take on the party. I intended to take on the amount of time it takes members of Congress to raise money for their own election."

Pinellas County Republicans have been pushing Jolly for months to run for re-election in the 13th Congressional District, seeing him as their best shot to beat Crist in November.

But that could be a tall order, according to the Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report, a Washington, D.C.-based newsletter that analyzes congressional races. Nathan Gonzales said even with Jolly in the race, he still has the 13th District as a "safe Democratic" district. Gonzales said Jolly will be challenged running without NRCC support in a district that under its new configuration President Barack Obama carried by 10 percentage points in 2012.

Though Jolly is out of the Senate race, it doesn't mean Rubio has a clear path yet, should he re-enter the contest.

Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera and U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis have said they do not intend to run against Rubio. But real estate developer Carlos Beruff and Orlando businessman Todd Wilcox have already filed papers to run and have said they are prepared to take on Rubio.

The winner of the Republican primary will likely face either U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Jupiter, or U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Orlando, who are battling in the Aug. 30 Democratic primary.

Even though many Florida Democrats have not embraced Crist, it will be hard for Jolly to run in what's now a very blue seat, especially in a presidential year. His voting record can be used to pummel him out of contention. For example, on Thursday, when anti-immigration extremists Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Steve King (R-IA) offered amendments to a defense spending bill that would keep undocumented immigrants out of the military, both were defeated by all the House Democrats plus 30 (Gosar's amendment) and 33 (King's amendment) House Republicans. Republicans who try billing themselves as "moderate" or "mainstream" voted against the amendments. Jolly voted for both of them, not an issue likely to play well for him in Pinellas County-- and not one Crist is likely to go by unnoticed.

Jolly has a 13.33 ProgressivePunch lifetime crucial vote score, pretty abysmal even for a Republican-- and not a score that can be easily passed off as "moderate." He's been wrong-- at least for his district-- on nearly every important issue that's come before Congress since he was first elected. Even teabaggers like Ted Yoho (R-FL) and Raúl Labrador (R-ID) have less extremist vote scores-- and he's certainly not in the same category as fellow Florida Republican Carlos Curbelo (21.90) who's been consciously working to pass himself off as a mainstream type.

Grayson: "Money Is The Original Sin Of Politics And Governance"

Campaign money is very bipartisan and is also the root of power for the congressional leadership. It takes a special kind of crooked mind-- a Rahm Emanuel, a Mitch McConnell, a John Boehner, a Chuck Schumer, a Steny Hoyer, a Debbie Wasserman Schultz-- to suck up to the corrupt sources of cash and then use it to buy influence from your colleagues without those kinds of inclinations but with the same all-encompassing need to raise ungodly sums of money for reelection.

Jolly, a former lobbyist himself, told the CBS News audience this week that to chase the money-changers out of the temples of government the American people are going to have to get genuinely angry, something he contends will happen "when they learn that you have a part time Congress in a full-time world, spending more time shaking down the American people for money than doing their job."

His appearance on 60 Minutes, which CBS has conveniently expunged from YouTube, infuriated the congressional leadership of both parties-- and the NRCC is pushing back against Jolly hard, accusing him of lying "when he told O’Donnell that he was told at a meeting shortly after being elected that he needed to raise $18,000 every day."

"Simply put, this meeting never happened,” [NRCC Executive Director Rob] Simms writes. “It is a work of fiction. Had the reporter or producer of the story bothered to verify this claim, they would have been told as much.”

The letter was made public in a story written by Politico Friday afternoon.

Jolly’s congressional office denies Simms statement outright, and they say they have the exact time and date when Jolly was told by “party leadership” the directive that he was going to have to raise $18,000 per day.

“In response to the NRCC’s broadside to the credibility of Rep. David Jolly, and in response to the Executive Director’s bold assertion that a meeting with party leadership directing Rep. Jolly to raise $18,000 per day did not occur, we can confirm the date was April 3, 2014, the time was 5:30 p.m., the location was the NRCC’s Political Conference Room on the Second Floor,” writes Preston Rudie, Jolly’s communications director, in a statement to FloridaPolitics.com. “Out of respect for those involved, Rep. Jolly has intentionally left out names of participants since the beginning of this story, but if the NRCC wishes to escalate their denial, we are happy to provide additional information regarding the meeting.”

Simms takes several shots at Jolly in his letter to CBS News, writing that the NRCC raised over $2 million in his special election victory over Democrat Alex Sink in March 2014, “significantly more than the congressman raised and spent on his own behalf.”

And he makes explicit what some of Jolly’s GOP senate opponents have said about The Stop Act since he first introduced it three months ago-- that it’s purely a publicity stunt to cover over the fact that he is struggling to compete financially with some of his other opponents in fundraising.

The Stop Act, which has virtually no chance of passing for the very reasons Jolly introduced it-- money = power = more money = more power = congressional garbage like Steve Israel, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Steny Hoyer-- would prohibit federal officeholders from directly soliciting political contributions. The bill has 8 co-sponsors:

• John Mica (R-FL)
• Rich Nugent (R-FL)
• Walter Jones (R-NC)
• Sean Duffy (R-WI)
• Reid Ribble (R-WI)
• Rick Nolan (D-MN)
• Brendan Boyle (D-PA)
• Alan Grayson (D-FL)

Grayson is the big deal on that list because, unlike Jolly and unlike the others on the list, he knows how to mobilize members across party lines and in the face of opposition from the party leadership to pass legislation. If Grayson-- who is running against Jolly for the open Florida Senate seat and crushed him in the race's first debate last week-- really gets into putting his energy behind passing the bill, he can get it done... even if it would face certain death in the Senate.

Grayson and Jolly

The Establishment Plot To Insert Paul Ryan As The Republican Party Presidential Nominee

Few of the growing number of Republicans opposing Trumpf say their opposition is rooted in what's good for the country. It's about what's good for the fucked-up political party they share with him-- albeit uneasily-- that spawned him in the first place. I don't recall ever seeing so many elected officials from a party saying they will not support a candidate if he's their party's official nominee. Miami-Dade walking dead freshman Carlos Curbelo comes right out and says he "wouldn’t support Donald Trump for president if he were our nominee. I would support any reasonable idea to find a better nominee." That's the brokered convention idea we've been talking about for the past two days in which the GOP will seek to thwart their own bigoted, ignorant base and sell them Paul Ryan.

Another Florida Congressman, David Jolly, who represents the Pinellas County district but finds it too blue-leaning now and is giving it up to run for the Rubio Senate seat, said that he has "broad disagreement with Donald Trump. If he is our nominee, I think he loses, I think Republicans lose the Senate. He puts the House at risk and sends the party into the wilderness for the next decade... If there is a mechanism to make sure somebody other than Donald Trump wins the nomination, I think that is a good thing for Republicans." Again, "good for Republicans." What about America? Do any of them care?

Establishment goon, Steve Chabot, who represents a severely gerrymandered district that allows him to win in Cincinnati-- remember Obama beat Romney in Hamilton County 208,508 (52%) to 188,653 (47%) and Sherrod Brown beat Josh Mandel there 208,611 (53%) to 171,718 (44%), while the state legislature redrew the district to include blood red/all white Warren County northeast of the city, where Romney took 69% and Mandel took 65%-- thinks the GOP establishment can trick the idiot Trumpf followers. He advocates feigning "respect" for them while doing what the establishment feels is best for the party. "Whatever it is that makes that more likely to happen, I’m for it. I don’t know if it’s a brokered convention or not. But it would be unrealistic for us not to at least have that in the back of our minds that that is a distinct possibility this time."

Many of the Republicans in Congress-- Chabot and Luke Messer (R-IN) are two examples-- are already laying the groundwork for what amounts to an Establishment coup d'etat against their own base in favor of Ryan. The editorial board of Ryan's hometown newspaper, the Janesville Gazette was setting it up Friday, much the way establishment editorial boards will be doing all over the country:

If Donald Trump defects and runs as an independent because leading Republicans won't accept this egomaniac as their presidential nominee, so be it.

The sooner the better.

So far, he has denigrated women, Hispanics and those with disabilities. On Monday, he fanned the flames of fear in suggesting we ban Muslims from entering our country.

Let's see, are we missing anyone? Is there any group Trump hasn't disparaged?

Seemingly every time he opens his mouth, he stoops to a new low, and his poll numbers rise. Too many Americans who are fed up with politics as usual and Washington gridlock appreciate Trump as the ultimate outsider, the anti-establishment candidate who's willing to say what's on his mind, regardless the law or consequences. It matters not whether he can unilaterally act and fulfill his promises. It's disturbing that Trump's hateful positions are embraced by so many.

New polls show Trump is backed by twice as many Republican voters as his nearest competitors. Yet every fresh statement from this bombastic “carnival barker”-- as one Gazette letter writer put it this week-- leaves Republicans one step closer to handing Hillary Clinton the keys to the White House. That's because Trump's comments further cast Republicans as an exclusive rather than inclusive party.

Republicans can blame themselves. Other candidates, feeling poll envy, have been too tempted to join in this rhetorical cesspool, this caldron of poor taste in which Trump says whatever outrageous thing will fuel media and public attention, regardless of accuracy and credibility.

Blame the national media for playing into Trump's hands. As Charles Haynes of the Religious Freedom Center pointed out in a column in Thursday's Gazette, CNN makes “breaking news” of every Trump move and comment. Trump gets more airtime on network evening news programs than the entire Democratic field.

Into this fray steps a voice of relative reason in House Speaker Paul Ryan of Janesville. On Tuesday, he urged fellow Republicans to steer clear of Trump's Muslim message.

...If anyone can unite and save the Republican Party, it might be Ryan. While he didn't want the speaker's role, he answered the call to duty. And while he has taken a tough tone with President Obama, in a few short weeks he also has forged bipartisanship too seldom seen in Washington. He helped usher through a five-year transportation bill and a replacement for the No Child Left Behind education law.

On Dec. 3, in his first major address as speaker, Ryan again advocated conservative, free-market solutions to America's ills. He pledged to craft a plan “to replace every word of Obamacare,” as well as rewrite and simplify the tax code and propose a “bold, pro-growth agenda.”

If only presidential candidates would follow Ryan's lead and outline a meaningful and constructive reform agenda rather than join Trump in verbal assaults and the rhetorical gutter, the GOP might have a chance to win next November.

This morning on ABC-TV's This Week, Dr. Ben reiterated that if the party bosses try to fix the convention in favor of an insider-- no one is mentioning the beloved Ryan by name you'll notice-- he would quit the Republican race. Asked about the GOP establishment's brokered convention plot, he said "one of the reasons that I got into this is because I heard the frustration in the people who are so tired of back-room deals, of subterfuge, of dishonesty... if that is the case, then you know I’m out of here."

If, as many Republicans believe, Trumpf is a Bill Clinton false flag operation, the Clintons may well be hoist on their own petard by Hillary winding up having to run against Ryan. Of course the newest polling from Iowa could put a spanner in the Republican establishment's plans to insert Ryan as the candidate without him having to compete for the lunatic fringe base voters. I kind of think Cruz would be able to make mincemeat out of Ryan if this whole thing doesn't get shut down.

In The Florida Senate Race, Conservatives David Jolly And Patrick Murphy Are Wall Street's Two Peas In A Pod

We've said it before but others are catching on now too: if Florida Democrats vote to nominate conservative New Dem Patrick Murphy in March, they will have essentially no substantive choice in November. Murphy has far more in common politically with lkely GOP nominee, David Jolly, than he does with progressive Alan Grayson. And Murphy and Jolly are pals or, as the National Journal put it, "close friends and fre­quent le­gis­lat­ive al­lies dur­ing their short time in Con­gress, spon­sor­ing more than a dozen of piece of le­gis­la­tion to­geth­er since Jolly was elec­ted in early 2014, dur­ing Murphy’s first term."

Jolly admits that he thinks he and Murphy, a "former" Republican himself, who votes with the GOP on crucial issues far more than almost any Democrat in the House "ap­proach Con­gress and gov­ern­ing the same way, there’s a nat­ur­al af­fin­ity there."

Ac­cord­ing to Quor­um Ana­lyt­ics, no mem­ber of Con­gress-- Demo­crat or Re­pub­lic­an-- has co­sponsored more of Jolly’s bills than Murphy, while Jolly has signed onto more of Murphy’s bills than any oth­er mem­ber this Con­gress. While none of those bills passed, they let Murphy and Jolly tout bi­par­tis­an co­oper­a­tion on en­vir­on­ment­al and vet­er­ans is­sues, among oth­ers.

Along with fresh­man Reps. Car­los Cur­belo (a Re­pub­lic­an) and Gwen Gra­ham (a Demo­crat), Jolly and Murphy are part of an in­form­al group that meets monthly, away from the con­gres­sion­al din­ing hall, to dis­cuss is­sues im­port­ant to Flor­ida.

Gwen Graham-- the extreme Blue Dog and one of the only "Democrats" to vote more often with the GOP than Murphy himself... what a foursome of anti-progressive fanatics!

Yesterday, Mitch Perry, writing for the SaintPetersBlog, wrote that a Democratic Establishment arm controlled by Chuck Schumer "is firmly behind Murphy, believing the centrist-leaning Democrat has a better chance of winning the open seat next year than his most significant party opponent, Congressman Alan Grayson." Jolly agrees and is constantly on the attack against Grayson, while making nice with ideological-twin Murphy.

That prompted Florida Politics to ask Jolly if he has some sort of non-aggression pact with Murphy?

“If you look at the other side of the aisle, the area of greatest disagreement is clearly with Alan Grayson,” Jolly said on Monday, laughing at the question. That disagreement revolves around Jolly’s advocacy for his “Freedom Card” legislation, which would remove regional and provider restrictions on where veterans can access care, allowing them to use federal benefits to access private care. Although it opens a door for the privatization of VA services, Jolly is insistent that’s not the intent, saying that nearly all the veterans he has spoken with want to keep the Department of Veterans Affairs vital and robust as is.

“Alan Grayson has chosen to attack me for trying to shut down the VA, which I have said I do not support,” Jolly says. “Alan Grayson is now suggesting he doesn’t trust veterans with true choice.”

In a recent fundraising email to supporters, Grayson wrote that “My GOP opponent David Jolly has a plan to gut the Veterans Administration, but he doesn’t want you to know it. And he sure doesn’t want me to tell you about it.” Grayson also characterizes Jolly’s bill as legislation “which privatizes the Veterans Administration’s healthcare system, forcing taxpayers to pay for healthcare outside that system.”

“Why would Alan Grayson come out against my proposal to give veterans a true choice of where they receive health care?” asks Jolly. “Unless he is taking the statist, progressive mentality of putting the bureacracy and the government before the veterans, and so I am calling him out on that,” he said earlier this week.

“I’m going to continue to hammer him on it,” Jolly says, adding that he won’t stop until Grayson comes around on his bill and/or distances himself from a comment that Hillary Clinton made last month on Rachel Maddow’s show, where she suggestedthat the VA scandal was slightly overblown (Since then Clinton has appeared to back away from that statement, and on Veterans Day last week unveiled a proposal that allows for the government to contract with the private sector for surgical, mental health and substance abuse services, and for times when the VA is unable to offer timely care).

“In other words, Jolly and Murphy have agreed not criticize each other,” says Kevin Franck, a spokesman for Grayson’s senate campaign. “David Jolly has admitted that he has a ‘natural affinity’ for former Republican Patrick Murphy and that he and Murphy have the same approach to governing. While Rep. Grayson has spoken out about David Jolly’s dangerous plan to privatize the VA, Patrick Murphy has been silent.  I guess dismantling the VA is just another example of an issue on which Patrick Murphy and David Jolly agree.”

The Patrick Murphy campaign did not respond to our request for comment.

Not responding? Maybe he was too busy scooping up more money from Wall Street. In fact, the Financial Sector has given more money to Murphy than any other House Democrat this cycle, by far, and more money than any House Republicans other than Boehner and McCarthy, even more than they've given Paul Ryan. Democrats in Florida need to ask themselves why Wall Street is so desperate to get Patrick Murphy into the U.S. Senate-- and why Chuck Schemer is helping them with that goal. Democrats running for the U.S. Senate worth supporting, like Alan Grayson, can be found at this page.

Should Florida Democrats wonder why Wall St is giving more money to Patrick Murphy than to Paul Ryan?

If Florida Voters Want Another Senator Like Marco Rubio They Can Elect David Jolly Or Patrick Murphy

It must be frustrating for Alan Grayson, in his run for the open Florida Senate seat that Rubio is giving up-- see the clip of Grayson above explaining Rubio's dreadful Senate record to Chris Hayes-- to have Wall Street's Senator, Chuck Schumer, pushing Wall Street's favorite candidate in the primary, "former" Republican Patrick Murphy. Murphy may be a dullard-- he was recently named among the least effect members the House-- but Schumer is as shrewd and manipulative as he is loaded down with bankster cash. Between his bro-mance with Schumer and his deep family roots in the GOP, Murphy knows how to blatantly lie to voters.

Like Rubio, Murphy is also lazy and doesn't like doing any work. His biggest campaign contributors are from the Finance Sector (who gave him an astronomical and unprecedented $2,260,848 in just 3 years). Rubio has been out cozying up to big donors instead of doing any work in the Senate-- and work in Congress means working on committees. Ironically, last week, Murphy played hooky from the House Financial Services Committee, the committee where he regularly serves Wall Street interests and kicks his Florida middle class constituents to the curb, but when it came to 13 important votes last Wednesday, he disappeared. The markups were so important that they started Tuesday and went into Wednesday but it looked like Patrick, like Rubio, was out kissing up to potential contributors instead of doing the work Florida taxpayers pay him to do. I called and e-mailed Murphy's office to ask why he missed those 13 votes and, of course, couldn't get an answer.

Another Democrat on the committee told me, in confidence, that whether or not Murphy was at a fundraiser, he probably didn't want to vote because his normal routine of voting with the Republicans for the Wall Street agenda-- while very remunerative-- could cause him problems with Florida voters. And, it's true, I've noticed that since he got into a primary fight with Grayson, his normally Republican voting record has turned slightly more Democratic. I guess Schumer told him to play up to Democrats for a little while.

This morning I got a fundraising e-mail from his campaign making ridiculous claims in the vein of having "championed the middle class and fought to expand Medicare, strengthen Social Security, defend women’s rights, and protect the environment against climate change." Much of that is just flat out false. He didn't just vote against the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus budgets that do attempt to expand Medicare and strengthen Social Security, he even voted against the official Democratic Party budget, which attempts to fight back against GOP attempts to weaken Social Security and Medicare! 31 right-wing Blue Dogs and New Dems voted against the official Democrat budget with Murphy and 10 of them were defeated or forced from office in the next election. Instead, Murphy thinks he should be promoted!

And as for Murphy's absurd claim to be protecting the environment, not only did he vote 6 times for the Keystone XL Pipeline-- including for a far right-wing scheme to remove President Obama from decision-making capacity (one of the only Democrats to go so extreme)-- he was also one of the only Democrats to join his Republican polluter buddies in favor of drilling off Florida's coast! No wonder he refuses to debate, Grayson-- he's petrified of being called out on his unending liars about his record.

In the end the pathetic Republican shill for Wall Street was reduced in his fundraising e-mail to whining that he’s "a Floridian, through and through, born and raised in Florida," referring to Grayson having not been born in Florida. OK, Patrick isn't lying about that so kudos to Patrick. Only problem is that almost 2/3s of Floridians weren't born in the state but moved there because they preferred living there. Does Murphy think that 64% of the people who live in his state are somehow not as good as he is?

He also claimed he's the "most electable," meaning he can get Republicans and Republican-leaning independents to vote for him. That's an interesting argument but it doesn't hold any water. The Republicans are likely to nominate a David Jolly, who is only slightly less conservative than Murphy is-- so it will be a turn-off/lesser-of-two-evils election for Democrats, many of whom just won't vote, while conservatives will look at the two candidates and pick the actual Republican instead of the former Republican who they are likely to figure out is a transactional opportunist-- and completely beholden to the hated Chuck Schumer.

UPDATE: And Speaking Of Jolly, Since It's Veteran's Day

I don't know how many insipid congressional e-mails I got today from members who never served babbling on about their well wishes for those who did. Alan Grayson sent a very different kind of Veteran's Day e-mail, some of which I've relocated below:

My GOP opponent David Jolly has a plan to gut the Veterans Administration, but he doesn’t want you to know it. And he sure doesn’t want me to tell you about it.

In July, Jolly introduced H.R. 3183, which privatizes the Veterans Administration’s healthcare system, forcing taxpayers to pay for healthcare outside that system. As is the Tea Party custom these days, Jolly gave it the Orwellian title of the "Veterans Healthcare Freedom Act." (If he introduced a bill that would triple homelessness, Jolly would call it the "Freedom to Sleep Under a Bridge Act.")

Jolly couldn’t get anyone in Florida to report on it, but he did get the right-wing Boston Herald, formerly owned by Rupert Murdoch, to do some stenography on it. Then he got an invitation to the Boston Herald’s radio show. He talked extensively about his privatization bill, extolling the bill’s "Freedom Card," which (judging from Jolly’s description) would magically transform veteran care into medical paradise. Then this Q&A transpired:

Boston Herald: "[Instead of privatization,] some people would like to see the VA just dismantled on federal level, and just provided in the 50 states. So every state where a soldier comes from, that’s where he goes or she goes, to get their healthcare. They feel like it’s just more manageable, you know, to do it in a more smaller [sic] scale. . . . Could that be another solution to fixing the VA, basically dismantling it on the federal level, and bringing it back to the state level?"

David Jolly: "You know, it may be, because government never gets into services and reduces cost and reduces size. It always increases costs and increases inefficiency."

So Jolly wants to dismantle the VA, but he’s agnostic about how to do it: (1) privatize; or (2) devolve to the states.

I called out Jolly on that, because dismantling the VA would be a disaster for veterans. That’s why thousands of us signed our petition to tell Jolly that we won’t allow him to gut veterans benefits. (Jolly’s BFF, my Democratic Primary opponent Patrick Murphy, was silent.) Here is Jolly’s utterly evasive response:

"An attack by Alan Grayson is a badge of honor for a conservative." And: "I won’t dignify his particular charges with a response." And I’m "unreasonable."

We’re seeing a lot of this strategy from GOP candidates this year: deny, decry, and lie.

If it’s "unreasonable" to stand up to vicious Republican attempts to gut veterans benefits, then I guess I am guilty as charged. Because our troops deserve first-class care, both in the field of battle, and then at home-- we promised it to them, and they’ve earned it. No one has the right to try to take that away, even David "I Know All About Veterans Because I Once Worked For One" Jolly. You tell me if that’s unreasonable.

You can help keep unreasonable conservatives like Patrick Murphy and David Jolly out of the Senate by helping elect an unflinching progressive-- Alan Grayson, here.

Grayson On The New McCarthyism: You're Not Supposed To Use Taxpayer Funds For A Political Witch Hunt

Sensibly, the New York Times is now calling for Congress to shut down the Benghazi Committee, as have many Members of Congress, including Rules Committee ranking member Louise Slaughter. Rep. Alan Grayson of Orlando went one step further and filed an ethics complaint today against Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Benghazi Committee chairman Trey Gowdy. Yesterday's Times editorial demanded that if the GOP refuses to disband the committee, they at least rename it "the Inquisition of Hillary Rodham Clinton" committee, although I think MSNBC's Morning Joe already has that name copywritten.

Lawmakers have long abused their investigative authority for political purposes. But the effort to find Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the Libya attacks, was personally responsible for the deaths has lost any semblance of credibility. It’s become an insult to the memory of four slain Americans.

The deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and his colleagues have been exhaustively investigated by several other congressional committees and an independent panel of experts commissioned by the Department of State. The reviews found systemic failings at the State Department. But they found no evidence that Mrs. Clinton was directly responsible for the security lapses, which, of course, is the goal of the Republicans who want to derail her presidential bid. The possibility that all those investigators have somehow missed a crucial, damning piece of evidence seems negligible.

Led by Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a former federal prosecutor, the Benghazi committee has trudged on, summoning a seemingly endless list of witnesses who have offered little new substantive information about the attacks. Since it was impaneled in May 2014, the committee has spent more than critical congressional committees, including the House Intelligence and Veterans’ Affairs Committees, which have oversight over bureaucracies with multibillion-dollar budgets.

“There’s nothing to justify the committee’s long duration or expense,” said Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California who sits on the committee and has called for it to be disbanded. “We have nothing to tell the families and nothing to tell the American people.

Mrs. Clinton is scheduled to testify before the committee on Oct. 22. The hearing will give Republicans another chance to attack the credibility and trustworthiness of the leading Democratic presidential candidate. It will do nothing to make American embassies abroad safer or help the relatives of the four killed in Libya.

The hearing should be the last salvo for a committee that has accomplished nothing. If the Republicans insist on keeping the process alive, the Democrats should stop participating in this charade.

With the exception of 7 right-wing Democrats who vote with the GOP as their default position-- only three of whom, Patrick Murphy (FL), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Collin Peterson (MN), are still in Congress-- all Democrats knew this was a charade from day one. Idiotically, Murphy now claims that he was 100% confident the committee would vindicate Clinton. Yesterday's Washington Post reported that Trey Gowdy is still conspiring with Murphy and the two other creeps:

When people tell the story of Clinton, Benghazi and the Republican Congress, Gowdy will be a central figure-- maybe a protagonist or antagonist, depending on your point of view. The reality, of course, is blurred. But McCarthy’s comment allowed Democrats to say with new authority what they have argued all along: that the panel is a political tool for Republicans to undermine Clinton. Gowdy says he will strive to correct the record, not only on the left but within his own party, when Clinton comes to before his panel on Oct. 22.

“There were seven Democrats that voted to form the Benghazi Committee, and I have talked to some of the ones who are still in the House because what Kevin said put them in an incredibly bad position,” Gowdy said.” I told them, ‘I want you to tell the people who are criticizing you for taking a chance on us to watch on the 22nd. If they think she’s being treated unfairly they can take it out on you. But that’s not what they are going to see.'”

Grayson, you may recall, has been an outspoken opponent of the Benghazi Committee from the day it was proposed. Last year we had even suggested to Pelosi that she appoint him-- and only him-- as the sole Democratic member so that he could make the Republicans rue the day they had ever come up with this routine. "As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I have read every email, every brief, and every classified memo about the tragic events in Benghazi," he said. "There is not one scintilla of evidence that anyone in the State Department, from entry-level employees to Secretary Clinton herself, took any action that put lives at risk, or covered up anything." At one Foreign Affairs hearing, Congressman Grayson referred to Benghazi as "the scandal that never was." Today he reiterated that the Committee "has been a political dog-and-pony show for its entire 17-month history. It has been clear even to casual observers that the purpose of the committee was never to investigate the tragic death of four Americans in a terrorist attack; it was to attack Hillary Clinton. I am asking OCE to investigate how Reps. McCarthy and Gowdy misused $4.5 million of taxpayer money in an unscrupulous attempt to torpedo Secretary Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President."

Today Grayson called McCarthy's Benghazi comments "a callous admission that demands an investigation," and referred to the committee as a "Stalinesque showtrial," part of the Republican Party's "new McCarthyism." Eeveryone but Murphy, Sinema and Peterson already knew the committee’s only real objective was to hurt Hillary Clinton politically, which is certainly what McCarthy (Kevin, not Joe) implied.



This is the full letter Grayson sent to David Skaggs at the Office of Congressional Ethics:

Dear Mr. Skaggs:

Pursuant to Rule 3(a) of the Office of Congressional Ethics Rules for the Conduct of Investigations, this letter constitutes a complaint against Representatives Kevin McCarthy and Harold “Trey” Gowdy for flagrant violations of 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a) and the regulations implementing that statute by the House Committee on Administration, in the Committees' Congressional Handbook.  Specifically, Representatives Kevin McCarthy and Trey Gowdy violated federal law and House rules by using official funds appropriated to the Select Committee on Benghazi to pay political or campaign-related expenses.

Federal law requires that appropriated funds may only be used for the purposes for which they were appropriated.   House Administration Committee regulations implement this law by requiring that: "Committee funds may only be used to support the conduct of official business of the committee.  Committee funds may not be used to defray any personal, political or campaign-related expenses . . . ."  The House Ethics Manual stresses that this general prohibition against the use of official resources for campaign or political purposes "applies not only to any Member campaign for re-election, but rather to any campaign or political undertaking" (emphasis in original).   The prohibition applies to "campaigns for the Presidency" and it applies "whether the Member is a candidate or is merely seeking to support or assist (or oppose) a candidate in such a campaign."

House Resolution No. 567 established the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi (the “Select Committee on Benghazi”) for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the attacks on United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.   The resolution specified that the operations of the Select Committee on Benghazi "shall be paid out of applicable accounts of the House of Representatives" (which are appropriated funds), and required that these appropriated funds "be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House Administration."   Accordingly, no funds appropriated to the Select Committee on Benghazi may be used for political or campaign-related purposes, and specifically (as noted supra) not to “oppose a candidate in . . . a campaign.”

Representative Kevin McCarthy and Trey Gowdy have violated federal law and House rules by using funds appropriated to the Select Committee on Benghazi to oppose the Presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton.  On September 29, 2015, Representative McCarthy appeared on The Sean Hannity Show on Fox News, and he stated that the true purpose of the Select Committee on Benghazi was not to investigate the tragic death of four Americans killed during the terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Libya, but rather to drive down the poll numbers of Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.  Specifically, Representative McCarthy stated that: "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?  We put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? ‘Cause she is untrustable. But no one would’ve known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen."   This is a clear and unequivocal misuse of appropriated funds for political purposes, which is prohibited by the regulations of the Committee on House Administration.

Congressman Gowdy is the Chair of the Benghazi Committee.  He has dragged out the work of the Committee for 17 months already, a period longer than Congress investigated Watergate. According to public reports, the Committee hasn’t held a single hearing since January.  Congressman Gowdy evidently has dragged out the work of the Committee so that it would coincide with the Democratic Presidential Primary race.  In the meantime, the Committee under Gowdy’s leadership has subpoenaed State Department employees and others close to former Secretary Clinton, in an apparent effort to generate anti-Clinton information and disinformation.

Accordingly, the Office of Congressional Ethics should conduct a complete investigation regarding the extent to which Representative McCarthy, Representative Gowdy and others unknown illegally used appropriated funds for political or campaign-related purposes.

I understand that 18 U.S.C. § 1001 applies to the information that I am providing.  To the best of my ability, I affirm that the evidence submitted was not obtained in violation of any law, rule or regulation.

UPDATE: No Lessons Learned In Crazytown

Apparently the Republicanos haven't learned their lesson-- even if doofus-Democrat Patrick Murphy has-- to stop wasting taxpayer money on their partisan ideological flights of fantasy. Deranged North Carolina Christmas tree farmer Virginia Foxx proposed starting a special witch hunt committtee against Planned Parenthood yesterday. Yes, another of their idiotic Select Committees! It passed 242 to 184. Two wretched Republicans-disguised-as-Democrats, Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) and Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL), crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP, as they almost always do. The only Republican voting with the Democrats was David Jolly, who appears to be more frightened of the general election voters in Florida than of the Republican primary voters. Jolly's aiming for the GOP nomination for the open Marco Rubio Senate seat. His Tea Party opponent, Ron DeSantis, will be trying to use this vote against him in the Republican primary. But Floridians are broadly pro-Choice and pro-Planned Parenthood, so Jolly was willing to take the chance of alienating the extremists, few of whom were going to vote for him anyway.

UPDATE #2: McCarthy Drops Speaker Bid

Right after Grayson filed his ethics complaint against McCarthy, McCarthy withdrew from his quest for the Speakership. Grayson: "When Democrats with guts stand up to corrupt Republicans, we get results. This is a victory against the new McCarthyism and the Republican witch-hunt against Hillary Clinton... Kevin McCarthy and Trey Gowdy broke federal law and violated House rules by using taxpayer money to try to bring down a Democratic presidential candidate and they should be held accountable. I will continue to fight this unethical and illegal Stalinesque show trial."

Or did McCarthy drop out because Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Freedom Caucus psychopath was threatening to expose his affair with Renee Ellmers (R-NC), which wasn't much of a secret inside the Beltway anyway but hadn't filtered back to the voters in either congressional district.

The affair is something of an open secret in Washington, D.C. Reporters at other publications, lobbyists, congressional staffers of both parties all know about it. One staffer for a congressman describes it as the “biggest open secret” in D.C. A lobbyist describes Ellmers as a “social climber who has ingratiated herself” with McCarthy.

House leadership also knows about the affair. Speaker John Boehner reportedly told McCarthy to stop the affair once McCarthy was elected Majority Leader says a well placed congressional staffer. At least one leadership staffer doesn’t think the affair ended. “They are unusually close,” says the staffer who insists that the affair is going on. “It’s weird if he’s not fucking her.”

The source is Got News, which is run by right-wing extremist Charles Johnson, whose reporting is usually found at Drudge and the Blaze. Yesterday he got a cease and desist order for writing about the Ellmers-McCarthy affair. This is getting really ugly. Is the House GOP officially in turmoil?