Senator Johnson (WI) and Republican mockery

I don’t understand what happened to Senator Johnson since he became a Senator. He has drunk Republican Kool Aid of some kind.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ron-johnson-just-dropped-a-ridiculous-conspiracy-theory-at-the-senate-capitol-attack-hearing/ar-BB1dWKGP

Obviously, Sen. Johnson has become a shill and will repeat every stupid thing he hears or reads. He obviously didn’t watch the videos or doesn’t believe them.

But here’s the point: Yes, there were agents provocateur at the Capitol who violently attacked the police and invaded the building and sought out RINOs and Democrat leadership; however, they were TRUMP provocateurs and not Antifa or others.

It will take the FBI more time, and it will likely take Congress a while, to formally connect the dots that President Trump , on or about December 28th, met with organizers of the rally and Republican leadership to discuss the possibility of disrupting the Electoral College, that President Trump approved the speakers for the January 5th rally AND that he spoke with Roger Stone about the role the Oathkeepers might play in disrupting the Electoral College vote.

Of course, there’s no evidence of this conspiracy yet. It’s just me connecting the dots I see. Which makes me wonder if the current mockery of a congressional commission isn’t Sen. Ron Johnson saving his own butt. I’m wondering if maybe he was in that fateful meeting on or about December 28th and his current actions are him trying to protect himself and the Republican leaders.

Or maybe I am just giving him too much credit.

Sen. Ron Johnson- Naked and Unafraid (cough) in Oz

“This will get me in trouble, but I don’t care,” Johnson said. He argued that “groups of agitators” are to blame for the Capitol riot and not “tens of thousands of Trump supporters.”

“The group of people that supported Trump, the hundreds of thousands of people who attended those Trump rallies, those are the people that love this country,” Johnson told Weber. “They never would have done what happened on Jan. 6. That is a group of people that love freedom; that’s a group of people we need to unify and keep on our side.”

The woke Senator from Wisconsin is laying it all on the line, isn’t he? I mean , really, do you think he might pick up a brain while he is in the Land of Oz?

So, let’s begin by re-asserting what everyone else knew on January 6th and in the thousands of videos seen after that but NOW Sen. Johnson also knows this:

a) Of the tens of thousands of MAGA supporters in Washington on January 6th, a few hundred actually invaded the Capitol building while tens of thousands stood outside of it.

b) That invasionary element disrupted the Electoral College vote count and forced Senators to take shelter. They broke windows, broke doors, beat police officers, sprayed tear gas, and violently forced their way into the building. They stole mementos as trophies of their incursion.

c) That element was prepared to take prisoners and was shouting hang Mike Pence and seeking out Nancy Pelosi and AOC and any RINOs they could find.

d) The President ginned up his base and they believed they were acting on instructions from President Trump to “Stop the Steal”.

e) The President did nothing for two hours except rub his hands in glee as he watched everything unfold on TV.

With a medal of courage from the lion in Oz, Sen. Johnson doesn’t care if you know the truth that the people who committed this disruption are the ones who were inside the Capitol Building and not outside of it. NOW Sen. Johnson says it was just some agitators carrying Trump flags, shouting Trump slogans, and stopping the steal but they were not really MAGA supporters.

Sen. Johnson says this even though there is a photo of Roger Stone (dear friend of Pres. Trump) and six Oath Keepers (far-right anti-government militia) together in Washington that day.

Sen, Johnson goes on to say that this “insurrection” was no big deal. (I hope he finds a brain soon.) AND blames the House Managers for cheating on the delivery of evidence.

Johnson said in the interview that the videos were “highly selectively edited” and that the trial lacked due process. He also questioned whether the group was truly an “armed” insurrection.

“When you hear the word ‘armed,’ don’t you think of firearms? Here’s the questions I would have liked to ask — how many firearms were confiscated? How many shots were fired? I’m only aware of one, and I’ll defend that law enforcement officer for taking that shot, it was a tragedy, but I think there was only one,” Johnson said. “If that was a planned armed insurrection, man, you had really a bunch of idiots.”

(Due Process? More evidence that Sen Johnson doesn’t have a brain. There is no due process in an impeachment. It is not a criminal trial! Sheesh. Maybe he should read Mark Twain: “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”)

So now Senator Johnson is claiming this just didn’t live up to the claim of being a planned armed insurrection! This is how Senator Johnson lies. He lies by conflation: mixing two things up and then saying: See? It doesn’t measure up!

I think Senator Johnson doesn’t measure up as a Senator for the United States of America. He falls woefully short because he lacks a brain and he lacks courage.

I don’t think he has a heart either. To the best of my knowledge, Senator Johnson has not expressed his empathy to his colleagues who were emotionally impacted by the days events. Nor to the families who lost their loved ones on that day.

Maybe Senator Johnson should ease on down that yellow-brick Republican road in 2022 and let a better American take his place. Or else fly his monkey-ass back into the sky.

p.s. Aren’t you getting a little tired of Republicans saying that it is all a fraud and the Dems are making things up? I am.

Kudo to Sen. Ron Johnson

Here is why:

“On Monday, Jan. 6, I am filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to make Congress live by the letter of the health-care law it imposed on the rest of America. By arranging for me and other members of Congress and their staffs to receive benefits intentionally ruled out by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration has exceeded its legal authority.

The president and his congressional supporters have also broken their promise to the American people that ObamaCare was going to be so good that they would participate in it just like everyone else. In truth, many members of Congress feel entitled to an exemption from the harsh realities of the law they helped jam down Americans’ throats in 2010. Unlike millions of their countrymen who have lost coverage and must now purchase insurance through an exchange, members and their staffs will receive an employer contribution to help pay for their new plans.

It is clear that this special treatment, via a ruling by the president’s Office of Personnel Management, was deliberately excluded in the law. During the drafting, debate and passage of ObamaCare, the issue of how the law should affect members of Congress and their staffs was repeatedly addressed. Even a cursory reading of the legislative history clearly shows the intent of Congress was to ensure that members and staff would no longer be eligible for their current coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan.

The law states that as of Jan. 1, 2014, the only health-insurance plans that members of Congress and their staffs can be offered by the federal government are plans “created under” ObamaCare or “offered through an Exchange” established under ObamaCare.

Furthermore, allowing the federal government to make an employer contribution to help pay for insurance coverage was explicitly considered, debated and rejected. In doing so, Congress established that the only subsidy available to them would be the same income-based subsidy available to every other eligible American accessing insurance through an exchange. This was the confidence-building covenant supporters of the law made to reassure skeptics that ObamaCare would live up to its billing. They wanted to appear eager to avail themselves of the law’s benefits and be more than willing to subject themselves to the exact same rules, regulations and requirements as their constituents.

Eager, that is, until they began to understand what they had actually done to themselves. For instance, by agreeing to go through an exchange they cut themselves off from the option of paying for health care with pretax dollars, the way many Americans will continue to do through employer-supplied plans. That’s when they went running to President Obama for relief. The president supplied it via the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which issued a convoluted ruling in October 2013 that ignores the clear intent and language of the law. After groping for a pretext, OPM essentially declared the federal government a small employer—magically qualifying members of Congress for coverage through a Small Business Health Options Program, exchanges where employers can buy insurance for their employees.

Neat trick, huh? Except that in issuing the ruling, OPM exceeded its statutory jurisdiction and legal authority. In directing OPM to do so, President Obama once again chose political expediency instead of faithfully executing the law—even one of his own making. If the president wants to change the law, he needs to come to Congress to have them change it with legislation, not by presidential fiat or decree.

The legal basis for our lawsuit (which I will file with a staff member, Brooke Ericson, as the other plaintiff) includes the fact that the OPM ruling forces me, as a member of Congress, to engage in activity that I believe violates the law. It also potentially alienates members of Congress from their constituents, since those constituents are witnessing members of Congress blatantly giving themselves and their staff special treatment.

Republicans have tried to overturn this special treatment with legislation that was passed by the House on Sept. 29, but blocked in the Senate. Amendments have also been offered to Senate bills, but Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to allow a vote on any of them.

I believe that I have not only legal standing but an obligation to go to court to overturn this unlawful executive overreach, end the injustice, and provide a long overdue check on an executive that recognizes fewer and fewer constitutional restraints.”

************************

ReasonableCitizen says “Hear!Hear!”

Sen. Johnson’s Questions for Sec’y Clinton

Sec’y Clinton artfully avoids pointing finger towards the intelligence summary given to Susan Rice and consequently avoids pointing finger towards White House in this exchange. Senator Johnson says that Sec’y Clinton is making excuses when she says that she did not want to interfere with the investigation. Read below.

Senator Johnson : Thank you Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary, I’d like to join my colleagues in thanking you for your services sincerely, and also appreciate the fact that you’re here testifying and glad that you’re looking in good health.

 Were you fully aware in real time – and again I realize how big your job is and everything is erupting in the Middle East at this time – were you full aware of these 20 incidents that were reported in the ARB in real time?

 Secretary Clinton : I was aware of the ones that were brought to my attention. They were part of our ongoing discussion about the deteriorating threat environment in eastern Libya. We certainly were very conscious of them. I was assured by our security professionals that repairs were under way, additional security upgrades had taken place.

 Johnson : Thank you. Did you see personally the cable on I believe it was August 12th, specifically asking for reinforcements for the security detail that was going to be evacuating or leaving in August? Did you see that personally?

Clinton : No sir.

 Johnson : Okay, when you see the ARB, it strikes me how certain the people were that the attacks started at 9:40 Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to, or have you ever spoken to the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?

 Clinton : I‘ve spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation.

 Johnson : How many people were evacuated from Libya?

Clinton : Then numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends.

Johnson : Approximately?

Clinton : Approximately, 25-30.

Johnson : Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?

Clinton : There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli, which I think you’re talking about Washington right?

 Johnson : The point I’m making is a very simple phone call to these individuals would’ve ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. This attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time and it was an assault. I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault, but I’m going back to Ambassador Rice five days later going to Sunday shows and what I would say is purposefully misleading the American public. Why wasn’t that known? And again I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing, but why weren’t we transparent to that point in time?

 Clinton : Well first of all Senator, I would say that the once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was number one taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS agent at Walter Reid seriously injured, getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not, I think this is accurate sir, I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows, and you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of you know misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the —

Johnson : But Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could’ve been easily, easily obtained?

Clinton : But Senator again—

Johnson : Within hours, if not days?

Clinton : Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—

Johnson : I realize that a good excuse.

 Clinton : Well no it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorist, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown—

Johnson : No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that – an assault sprang out of that – and that was easily ascertained that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

 Clinton : With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again Senator. Now honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process I understand going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear it is from my perspective less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on the meantime.

Johnson : Okay, thank you Madame Secretary.

The real issue is:  why the cavalry did not come and why the US military is not used to protect its embassies.

And perhaps Sen. Johnson needs to be reminded that Susan Rice does not work for State Department but reports to the President. He should ask Obama.