Skip to content

John Boehner Talks Turkey (No, Literally)

Thanksgiving is tomorrow, and what better way to celebrate it than listening to Speaker of the House John Boehner talk about how he prepares his Thanksgiving turkey?

But the most interesting part of the video Boehner put out today isn’t his special turkey brine or that he looks incredibly relaxed. No, it’s the Food Network show-style footage spliced in during the video:

You can watch Boehner talk turkey here:

[h/t Daily Dot]
[image via screengrab]

– –

Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

Article source:

John Boehner Shares His Secret Turkey Recipe

Just in time for Thanksgiving, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has revealed his secret turkey recipe that he calls the “Boehner brine.”

“I decided a number of years ago that I would try to brine a turkey. I found a recipe somewhere online and tinkered with it over a period of about five years, until I settled in on my current brine,” he said in a minute-long video released on Tuesday that offers glimpses of the apron-clad Republican congressman at home in his kitchen in West Chester, Ohio.

But what makes the Boehner brine so special?

“I take about 8 quarts of water, half a dozen bay leaves, kosher salt, a little palmful of peppercorns, take a big head of garlic, cut it in half. And the real secret: 16 ounces of pure maple syrup,” he told the camera. Boehner details his refrigeration technique, covering the turkey and letting it sit for 24 hours before putting it in the oven.

“Now I only cook my bird to about 160 [degrees] max, take it out, put foil over it, and let it sit for at least an hour. It’s the resting time that really works.”

Although Boehner’s method doesn’t quite meet USDA safety standards for internal temperature, those who know their way around a turkey confirm that Boehner has the right idea.

“In terms of the cooking process, he basically nails every detail,” said Huffington Post Executive Food Editor Kristen Aiken.

“John Boehner has clearly spent a LOT of time thinking about brine, down to the dirty details,” Aiken continued. “He starts off with a classic brine — Kosher salt (NICE, because iodized is for sissies), bay leaves, peppercorns — but he really proves his good intentions with the addition of ‘puuuure maple syrup.’”

“From cooking it breast-down and flipping it over, to never letting the temperature rise above 160 degrees and letting the bird rest, Boehner’s technique is by the book,” Aiken said.

You can read the full recipe for Boehner brine, along with recipes for his other Thanksgiving favorites like creamed spinach, on the website. There, you’ll also find “related posts” about Benghazi and how the EPA is crushing business.

Article source:

Conservatives: Don’t Let Obama Give State of the Union Address

A series of political commenters, led by the editor of the National Review, have a new idea for Speaker John Boehner: refuse to invite President Obama from the State of the Union address. 

The thinking behind this proposal is that it would aptly demonstrate the level of GOP discontentment with the president, in case he doesn’t already know. Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review, told The New York Times Tuesday night that if he were John Boehner “I’d say to the president: ‘Send us your State of the Union in writing. You’re not welcome in our chamber.’”

Last week, the conservative website Breitbart suggested suggested Boehner do the same “so that the elected representatives of the people do not have to listen to, or applaud, a man who is violating his oath of office and governing as a tyrant.” Meanwhile, unnamed congressional Republicans are privately considering yanking the State of the Union welcome mat, according to Politico.

While the plan legally checks out—the Constitution simply requires that “from time to time” the president let Congress know what’s going on—the optics would be problematic. “I know many see this as a great idea, but I don’t get it,” Noah Rothman at the conservative Hot Air tweeted. “Look petty, invite bad press, accomplish… What exactly?”

Major conservative groups likely aren’t impressed either. Heritage Action—which is pushing Congress to send Obama an appropriations bill defunding the order, even though he’d likely veto said bill—is, at best, indifferent to the idea.

“Rolling back the policy is the important focus and everything else may well be good as long as it doesn’t distract from the actual hard work of rolling back what he did,” Dan Holler, the communications director for Heritage Action, told Bloomberg Politics.

“Where I do think it would be harmful for the Republican party is if they allow that to be their only response,” he added. 

To be clear, this isn’t something Speaker john Boehner has endorsed, or even publicly talked about. Instead, it reads like another doomed political tactic—like impeachment or a government shutdown—that he’ll likely ignore. That may not be so be easy, however.

“Republicans broadly and conservatives specifically are looking for a way to register opposition to what the president did last week in terms of executive action on immigration,” Holler said. “And to the extent that [refusing to invite Obama] falls into that bucket I suspect we’ll hear a lot about it.”

State of the Union viewership has fallen throughout Obama’s presidency—only 33.3 million people watched his 2013 address, the lowest audience for the address since Bill Clinton’s in 2000.

“I don’t think anyone is under the impression that a State of the Union … fundamentally changes the political playing field,” Holler said.

Given that the major networks declined to air the immigration announcement, Obama might get more attention if he was snubbed.

Article source:

Cheaters Never Win – Winners Never Cheat? A Close Look At November 4th

nikki haley sc

This will be my last mid-term general election contribution. At least in my state of South Carolina, it ain’t pretty.

“Sheheen (Vincent, an attorney) is a liberal trial lawyer whose sole mission is to carry the flag for Obama.” That’s the line incumbent Governor Nikki Haley repeats ad infinitum to every crowd gathering and media interview in the state and it matters not that she’s arguably the most blundering and disingenuous governor in the country, though indicted Texan, Rick Perry, might give her a run for her money. .

The right-wing mind control consultants have done a masterful job in reducing consideration of their extremist’s candidates to its lowest common denominator. Pick a word or phrase of little or no meaning and application and use the propagandists, bought and paid for, right-wing media to stuff this tripe down the throats of people who view facts and research as dirty words.

A trial lawyer is who you turn to if you lose a leg to an improperly maintained machine within one of those union-hating, tax-avoidance, multi-national, multi-billionaire companies “headquartered” on an obscure island in the Mediterranean and manned by a guy in khakis and a “Go Tide” t-shirt. A trial lawyer is your source of justice for being the victim of medical malpractice where a horrific mistake can cost you half your thinking processes or, tragically, your life, after which legal action is taken up by your survivors. That may be the case with Joan Rivers for example.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been at the forefront of savaging even the tiniest morsel of fairness for the underdog in our legal system with their laughable misnomer, “Tort Reform.” Haley continues to be an enthusiastic member of ALEC dating back to her days in the state legislature.

Her Department of Social Services (DSS) has been justifiably pilloried by Sheheen. In a recent three-year period under Haley, the turnover rate for caseworkers in DSS was 65% according to a Legislative Audit Council Report. Over a four-year-period, county director turnover was 58%. When a child dies under questionable circumstances, DSS is legally bound to turn over that fact to the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED). A total of 152 Haley-era cases did not follow that mandate.

I’ve pretty well covered Haley’s other governing deficits in prior submissions and they’re a never-ending cycle. Right-wing local voters don’t care. She remains, in every legitimate poll, ahead by double-digits.

Then there’s a guy named Cole in State House District 32. People are dying as a direct result of massive, decades-long pollution in 32. Not a word during the Cole campaign. Sadly, little is heard on the subject from the incumbent either. This Democrat should be screaming from the highest rooftops; he’s not. A lot of it is money. The Democrat has raised a little over $3,000, Cole $68,000, mostly from PAC after PAC after PAC. Cole still has $58K lying around; the Democrat, $162.00. Like the District 32 Democratic challenger, other state Democrats candidates are out-funded by huge margins. With his money, tight-lipped indifference to his districts deadly pollution, notwithstanding, the current seat-holder will win by about a 70-30 count.

I use these examples because in virtually all red states, there will be similar disgusting parallels and similar disgusting results. Thank goodness for T-Rav for comic relief in South Carolina.

The Democrats might snag a few more governorships and there may be a Congressional seat or two that changes hands in favor of the good guys and gals, but, make no mistake, the house remains an impenetrable Republican fortress blocking everything demanded of the vox populi. The Senate will be in Republican hands as well, though by a skinny margin. Just enough combined votes to pass some horrible legislation in concert with the House.

So why shouldn’t I be terrified of what’s coming out of the Congressional sewer system? Because, it doesn’t make any difference. We have a superhero in the White House, VETOMAN!!! The purchased press and the most radical Congress in recent memory can whine and propagandize to their heart’s content, VETOMAN will save the day.

For those who care about facts, meaning Democrats (Republicans, you may continue your fact-challenged slumber), here’s how a veto works. There must be a 2/3rds vote in both chambers to override a presidential veto. Here are the numbers required for that to happen. The House must have 290 of it’s members voting in favor of the veto to override. A number they might theoretically reach depending on Blue Dogs, but I doubt it ever happens. In the Senate, the number to override is a practical near-impossibility; 67. Most polling has the Republicans controlling 52 Senate seats, give or take a seat or two. Including Independents, there’s no way right-wingers are going to dig up the differential.

So, even if the Democratic Congressional losses pile up, there’s nothing to fear other than more gridlock and loony Republican legislation, right? Well, I guess I’m contradicting myself, but yes, there is plenty to fear. Not from the fed DC Congress, but from the real homes of the uber-extremists…state legislatures, where the most damage to the citizenry can occur.

States, with South Carolina being the perfect exemplar, will pass anything that counters the president’s agenda. No decent wages, continued serial lying about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) accompanied by attempts to repeal all or part of it, bowing and scraping before tax-avoidance, pathetic pay multi-nationals, pro, yes, PRO-pollution legislation and little to no regulations. Like Kardashian nitwittery, the list goes on and on.

Those are my predictions for the 2014, November 4th general election. I don’t pretend to be a master of prognostication. I’d love to be wrong. A McConnell defeat would certainly be tasty. One thing Democratic leadership is doing in my state and I assume yours, is putting on a full-court GOTV press. If the party can Get Out The Votes, there can be some major surprises, and, in truth, there are still plenty of close races to be won.

My overarching strategy remains. Take a deep breath November 5th and start planning for a tremendous revival in 2016. Give yourself a month or two to rest, then, get busy.

Speaking of GOTV – VOTE!!!

Article source:

The Ferguson Grand Jury Decision — A Social Pearl Harbor

ferguson fire

December 7, 1941, the date of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is not the only ” horrific event that can be characterized, as it was at the time by President Roosevelt, as “A date which will live in infamy.”

Add Monday, November 24th, to that infamous roster. That’s the date of America’s own social Pearl Harbor. A day that gave permission for a law enforcement officer to empty his gun into the body of a “scary” black kid, Michael Brown, who allegedly wouldn’t stop walking down the street toward Darren Wilson.

An August 9th store video of an initial criminal act by Brown shows him entering a convenience store, reaching into a bin of small packaged cigars or cigarillos and grabbing about $50 worth, handing some of the loot off to an accomplice. The pair then proceeds to walk directly to the door without paying. The owner of the store (or clerk; it’s not clear), a man of slight build, attempts to hold the door shut and is easily pushed aside by Brown, who then takes a couple of menacing steps towards the man before casually exiting. I saw the entire episode on video, as can you here. Brown did not brandish a weapon because he had no weapon to brandish.

Even progressives like me must concede that this was a menacing confrontation for the convenience store clerk or proprietor. Brown was a 280 pound 18-year-old who appeared to outweigh this fellow by a good 150 pounds. He also had a partner with him. It was, in all honesty, a frightening episode for the victim. No question Brown deserved to be arrested. Any objective observer will attest to that. There is also no question that Brown did not deserve the deadly and totally unnecessary response that followed.

Wearing a readily identifiable red cap and white tee, Brown was an easy guy to spot. He and his partner, 22-year-old Dorian Johnson, were subsequently spotted walking in the middle of a street about ten minutes after the fact of the store theft. Darren Wilson, a 28-year-old white police officer, drove up and told them to get on the sidewalk. Wilson was following up on the convenience store incident. According to Johnson, in an interview with MSNBC, they complied. Wilson started to drive away but (maybe realizing Brown was his suspect),suddenly threw his car in reverse and, again, according to Johnson, had some sort of verbal beef with Brown that turned physical. They apparently scuffled after Johnson claimed the officer grabbed Brown by the neck. At this point, Brown was shot, but not seriously wounded.

Both men started to run and Brown was shot a second time. He then turned around, hands in the air and said “I don’t have a gun. Stop shooting.” At this point Wilson approached Brown and fired more shots, killing him. That’s Johnson’s story. The official version varies considerably, not only from the partner’s version, but from most eyewitness accounts.

It took hours from the release of the grand jury decision to the final public revelation of what that decision determined. There were five options; first or second-degree murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter or a return of no indictment, No True Bill in legalese. The latter prevailed.

When the St. Louis County Prosecutor, Democrat Robert McCulloch, finally faced the media, the outcome was a foregone conclusion. CNN reported that had an indictment been handed down, Wilson would have immediately been told to surrender to authorities. His people told a CNN reporter that he hadn’t been asked to surrender, so the reporter surmised correctly that Wilson would face no charges. Good reporting.

Prosecutor McCulloch is a familiar face in St. Louis County circles. He’s in his 7th term, having been initially elected in 1991. There’s really only one thing you need know about Robert McCulloch. He’ll lie…like a dog. In 2000, two unarmed black men were shot to death by two undercover police officers in a fast-food parking lot in Berkeley, Missouri.

The officers told a McCulloch grand jury at the time that the victims drove their car at them. McCulloch repeated the line to the media. They escaped indictment. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter, in examining grand jury tapes that McCulloch had provided revealed that only 3 of 13 officers testified that the car was moving at all. These men were killed in cold blood after being shot at 21 times. A federal investigation verified the true story, but nonetheless also declined to press charges as the armed undercovers convinced the feds they “feared for their safety.”

The press conference was a farce. McCulloch spent the lion’s share of his time calling virtually every witness a liar. He kept saying the physical evidence refuted the witnesses. He didn’t give a clue as to what the “physical evidence” was. He said some witnesses said Brown was shot in the back, when three separate autopsies clearly showed he was shot in the front only. And he’s right. A private autopsy by the Brown family also found all bullet wounds in the front. So??? He was clearly shot. Two bullets found his head, a couple of others pierced his chest, plus a couple of graze wounds. An estimated 12 rounds were fired.

Here’s some questions reasonable people would ask. Let’s assume Brown is, indeed, somewhat of a desperado. Twelve rounds? Wouldn’t officer Wilson be carrying defensive weaponry beyond a gun (and by the way, for most officers, a knife)? What else was he packing? A Taser is designed to disable the bad guy at a distance; a stun gun up close and personal. There’s also pepper spray, and various batons. Surely Wilson had one or more of these alternatives.

If you’ve ever watched the TV show “Cops,” you’re aware that the typical ‘cop’ runs into similar situations every shift or two, especially with drunks. One too many and even your most meek accountant is swinging on the guy with the badge. Domestic violence calls are every bit as iffy and dangerous. And doesn’t Wilson have the first minute of self-defense training?

There was absolutely no reason to kill Michael Brown. As a media person, I took many a ‘cop ride’ and watched numerous incidents the equal to or worse than Michael Brown. Once, a stolen car was reported and the one-officer car I was in gave chase after it zipped around us at about the same time we heard the report on the police radio. We cornered it on a side street and the young, buff driver (car thief) fled. The cop, not as young or buff, gave chase. I didn’t know whether I would add to liability concerns or not, but thought “what the hell.” As I approached, the suspect was already cuffed and subdued.

Another time, I was downing a few when the village bully and idiot drunkenly started knocking people off their bar stools. As I headed for Duane (you know who you are), a smallish cop ran by me and got knocked down for his trouble as well. He got up and wrestled this goofball to the floor and cuffed him.

I’ve just begun the process of reading the grand jury testimony and evidence and will have another contribution soon. I’m also hitting Twitter again.

Article source:

What John Boehner’s brine recipe really needs is more dirt pudding

Post Contributor Badge

This commenter is a Washington Post contributor. Post contributors aren’t staff, but may write articles or columns. In some cases, contributors are sources or experts quoted in a story.

Article source:

Attorney For Michael Brown’s Family States That The "Process Needs To Be …


Attorneys representing slain teenager Michael Brown, along with Reverend Al Sharpton, held a press conference in St. Louis, Missouri, Tuesday to discuss Monday night’s announcement that Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson will not be indicted in Brown’s death. Wilson shot and killed Brown on August 9th, leading to months of protests in and around Ferguson. After St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced the grand jury decision Monday night, protests in Ferguson turned into violent rioting, with numerous buildings razed to the ground by Tuesday morning.

Benjamin Crump, one of the family’s attorneys, started off the press conference by addressing the way McCulloch announced the grand jury decision, how McCulloch presented evidence to the grand jury and the prosecutor’s close relationship with local law enforcement. When discussing how the legal system continuously seems to not work when it comes to men of color being killed by police officers, Crump said, “The process is broken. The process needs to be indicted.”

Below is Crump’s portion of the press conference, courtesy of MSNBC:



Crump pointed out that he and others had “strenuously objected” to McCulloch handling this case due to his “symbiotic relationship with police” back in August. The attorney said that the family’s other lawyers, Anthony Gray and Darryl Parks, had predicted back then that this would be the end result if McCulloch was allowed to continue as the prosecutor. Per the evidence from the grand jury was dumped on media late Monday evening, Crump highlighted that it was apparent that McCulloch didn’t even bother cross-examining Wilson when he came in to testify, even though it was supposed to be McCulloch’s job to try to gain an indictment and fight for the victim in this case.

It isn’t just the attorneys and close associates of Michael Brown’s family that feel McCulloch and his office deliberately sabotaged the grand jury hearing so as to allow Wilson to walk. On CNN Tuesday morning, legal analyst Sunny Hostin lambasted McCulloch’s handling of the case after she had a chance to look at the evidence. Specifically, she criticized how Wilson’s testimony was handled by prosecutors. She claimed that he was treated with “kid gloves” and that many of Wilson’s statements should have been torn apart in cross-examination.

“It appeared to be… very fanciful. When a prosecutor has a prospective target, a suspect, a defendant — a prospective defendant — inside of the grand jury, that’s the prosecutor’s chance to cross-examine that person. These prosecutors treated Darren Wilson with such kid gloves. Their questions were all softballs, he wasn’t challenged, he wasn’t pressed. It was just unbelievable to me the way they treated him.”

After another CNN legal analyst, former George Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara, said that the forensic evidence seemed to favor Wilson’s testimony and superseded any inconsistencies in his statements, Hostin shot back at O’Mara, claiming that no witnesses actually corroborated key elements of Wilson’s testimony, specifically that Wilson told Brown to get down on the ground.

“The other witnesses that came forward said that they didn’t hear him say that. So again, I found his testimony to have not been tested by the prosecutor, which is highly unusual. He wasn’t cross-examined, he was treated with kid gloves in front of the grand jury. And I found his testimony to be fanciful and not credible.”

Below is video of the segment, courtesy of Raw Story:


Article source:

Right-Wing Newspapers; Their Version And The True Version


In many ways today’s newspaper industry is like some Rube Goldberg contraption gone terribly awry. A collection of pay websites, digital and, oh yes, the actual print product. Newspapers change hands more often than Larry King exchanges wedding vows and, just like a King marriage, many are teetering on the edge of extinction.

Most of what passes for newspapers these days are embarrassingly partisan rags and feature, above all else, totally irresponsible right-wing opinion detritus hardly worth a second glance. U.S. dailies are little more than Republican propaganda sheets.

My local offering, the Spartanburg Herald Journal, is buried in yet another hot-potato exchange of ownership. It seems to be an every couple of years or so occurrence, locally and around the country. One Worcester, Massachusetts paper changed ownership 3 times in 16 months.

No matter the owner, the content stays true to the extremist line. Let me give you a flavor of what I’m stuck with as my primary local reading matter. Let’s start with three recent representative editorial page cartoons. We begin with a Dana Summers by-lined insult showing the president inking in the word “stupid” between the ‘the’ and ‘People’ in the “We the People…” preamble of the Constitution. The next cartoon acquired from the Sacramento Bee depicts a tree trunk (representing tree-hugging environmentalists) stuffed into the end of a pipe. The word “extremism” is etched into the tree trunk, and “jobs” printed on the pipe.

The last cartoon is the second Dana Summers contribution via the Tribune Content Agency. It’s titled “Porous Borders.” A bulldozer driven by the president has crashed through two fences. One marked “Separation of”, the other “Powers.” Summers conveniently ignores the fact that five days before the appearance of his partisan inking, the Senate failed to end the Democrats blockage of the Republican lawmakers favorite project, the Keystone XL pipeline. Included in that bill, Congress would usurp White House (executive) authority over the project. So, what Summers has misleadingly done is lay the onus of a proposed Legislative branch interference on the Executive branch.

Right-wing propagandists, George Will, Walter Williams, Michelle Malkin, Cal Thomas, Charles Krauthammer and Paul Greenberg (he describes the Affordable Care Act as an “elaborate gizmo”) show up all the time. Occasionally the paper will feature an obscure partisan from a distant land like Texas, as was the case with Cynthia Allen, a columnist with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The only criteria for such an appearance is a column ripping Obama or any other high-profile Democrat. Her contribution was the familiar renouncing of the Affordable Care Act. To wit, in her words: “In fact, the opacity employed in drafting, passing and then marketing the law is one of the reasons why cynicism about Obamacare remains so high.” Propaganda catnip to the huge litter of Southern racists, Obama-baiting pussycats.

Clarence Page, a reasonable and objective progressive moderate will sneak in from time to time just to balance out the boatload of his opposite number.

As for Letters to the Editor, I have managed to get a few of my contributions printed in that space. Congressional Representative golden boy, Trey Gowdy, is off-limits however. Criticisms of Gowdy of even the most minor stripe rarely make it into Letters to the Editor.

The real censor is a local column by a guy who will allow awesomely misleading and deceptive right-wing contributions and refuse to print rebuttals of same. I should know; it’s happened to me over and over.

One of my rebuttals that was deep-sixed addressed a November 11th column by a writer who informed readers that according to a study by an academic, Dr. Martin Fiebert, from Southern California University, “men are victims of domestic violence at greater rates than women.” The good PhD surveyed more than 300 studies on domestic violence and found that women were more aggressive than men, especially within lesbian relationships.

Supposedly women’s physical viciousness is hidden by supporters of the Violence Against Women Act so VAWA programs can continue to be funded.

Knowing my chances for publication of a refutation were near zero, I nonetheless sent in hundreds of words in opposition after researching this obviously bogus take on what the studies and numbers were really about. Here is my response in one block as the column is not written in paragraphs:

“To read a November 11th column from a fellow from Gaffney, that suggests that women are like a pack of wild dogs just waiting to commit “violence” on their unsuspecting male prey (WAP! POW!) was eye-opening to say the least. Of course these women were characterized as feminists, apparently a goodly number mired in the “violence” of female/female relationships. Darn those liberal lesbians! The core premise was that contrary to women being the victims of violence, “The truth is that men are victims of domestic violence at greater rates than women.” The writer attributed his “facts” to an assessment by a Dr. Martin Fiebert at Southern California University of more than 300 studies of domestic violence. The PhD supposedly concluded that women were more aggressive (violent) than men. Erroneous fact number 1: Fiebert was a faculty member of Cal State Long Beach at the time of the study. Erroneous-fact number 2: There were not 300 studies on domestic violence. The breakdown included, 117 scholarly investigations, 94 empirical studies and 23 reviews and/or analysis. There are also a couple critical caveats here that change the whole tenor of the story. The academic inquiries were conducted 15 years ago. Many references date back to the mid-1980’s. The basic group that was studied might be of interest as well; college kids, even high school students. There were exceptions, but a number of those cases examined involved dating and/or boyfriend/girlfriend experiences. Yes, the male was occasionally smacked on the kisser, and likely for the same reason, but rarely was there physical injury. When struck by a man, there was the strong likelihood of injury to the female victim. Fiebert admitted that most of the female “violence” was, by definition, of the emotional kind; yelling, screaming and demeaning words. My challenge to our Gaffney friend; give us the latest domestic physical violence facts from last year, or even the last decade. And for your next piece, please include the salient facts of the dates of the studies and the primary subjects. Otherwise, it would be wise to update your research. If it’s objective, the conclusions will be the reverse of what you would have us believe. All domestic violence is concerning, but to deal with the problem, objectivity is a must.”

This response failed to pass the muster for publication. This is outright censorship, obviously blessed by the high-ups at the paper. Whenever I send something in, I’m told to source everything, right down to the last comma. And yet, if it’s misleading, deceptive right-wing pap, it goes sailing through, usually as the lead contribution.

Now you know what it’s like to live in a land of Republican make believe. You also know why people vote as foolishly as they do since the media makes damn sure that only extremists are given opinion columns. Real facts are rarely in evidence.

Talk radio is even worse!

Article source:

John Boehner’s Foes in Health Care Suit? Scalia and Bork.

Your (Article, Chart, Blog) was successfully saved to your folder My Default Folder

Don’t forget you can visit My Briefcase to manage your folders at any time.

Article source:

John Boehner Forges Ahead on the House Benghazi Probe

When the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee released, via a classic Friday evening news dump, the declassified final report of its bipartisan inquiry into the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack, Speaker John Boehner’s office was silent.

The findings were surprising only for how much they appeared to vindicate the Obama administration on several hotly-debated questions about the before, during, and aftermath of September 11, 2012, when four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed at U.S. facilities in Libya. There was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks, the committee concluded, nor was there an order for U.S. forces to “stand down” or a denial of air support for the consulate. “Based on the testimony and the documents we reviewed, we concluded that all the CIA officers in Benghazi were heroes,” Mike Rogers, the GOP chairman of the panel, and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, the top Democrat, said in a joint statement accompanying the report. “Their actions saved lives.”

Just about the only immediate response to the 37-page report came from Democrats, who proclaimed the conclusions to be a definitive debunking of the many “conspiracy theories” that Republicans have offered in the two years since the attack. Well, Boehner finally did respond to the Intelligence Committee report, four days later, on Tuesday afternoon. He did so not with a statement commending the panel or accepting its findings, but with an announcement that he was reappointing Chairman Trey Gowdy and the other Republican members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi that he formed that year.

“Two years later, the American people still have far too many questions about what happened that night – and why.  That’s why I will reappoint Rep. Trey Gowdy and the Republican members of the House Select Committee to investigate the events in Benghazi in the 114th Congress.  I look forward to the definitive report Chairman Gowdy and the Select Committee will present to the American people.”

Gowdy’s select committee held just one public hearing in the six months since the House voted to form the panel in May, and Boehner has long said that he expected the committee’s work to last beyond the 113th Congress, which ends in January. The House will actually have to re-vote to create the panel anew, since it is not a permanent part of the chamber’s structure. Yet the timing of Boehner’s announcement was as telling as anything, serving notice that whatever the conclusions of the Intelligence Committee, the House is nowhere close to finished with the story.

Rogers, the GOP intelligence chairman, is leaving Congress to become a radio host, while Gowdy is seen as a conservative straight-shooter with a bright future in the House. Jamal Ware, a spokesman for Gowdy’s inquiry, said the select committee received the classified version of the intelligence report “months ago” and that it would incorporate it in its own “final, definitive accounting” of the Benghazi attack. A harsh critic of the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi, Senator Lindsey Graham, was far less charitable: “I think the report is full of crap,” he said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. Graham went on to say it was “a bunch of garbage” to conclude that no one in the Obama administration lied about what happened in Libya.

Confronted with the criticism from Graham and other Republicans, Rogers spokeswoman Susan Phalen pointed out that his report exonerates only the intelligence community, not the entire administration. “Many unanswered questions remain about the State Department and White House actions,” Phalen said.  ”Everyone should read the report before jumping to conclusions.”

Article source: