Showing posts with label senators. Show all posts
Showing posts with label senators. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Senator Menendez Guilty Of Bribery And Corruption


From The New York Times

Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey was convicted on all counts in a sweeping scheme to sell his office to foreign powers and crooked businessmen in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, a luxury car and bars of solid gold.

A jury of 12 New Yorkers convicted him on charges including honest services wire fraud, bribery and extortion — 16 counts in all. Their verdict makes Mr. Menendez, a Democrat whose term expires at year’s end, only the seventh sitting U.S. senator to be convicted of a federal crime. Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, called on Mr. Menendez to resign minutes after the verdict was read.

Saturday, April 09, 2022

GOP Asked A Question That They Can't Answer


The Republicans tried to trip up Ketanji Brown Jackson by asking her to define a "woman". She didn't fall into their silly trap. But when asked to define it themselves, the GOP senators couldn't do it!

The following is from Ja'han Jones at MSNBC.com:

Of all the questions asked of Judge (soon-to-be Justice, hooray!) Ketanji Brown Jackson during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, one of the most ridiculous ones came — unsurprisingly — from Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. 

Blackburn asked Jackson if she could “provide a definition for the word ‘woman.’” The question was a clear attempt to push some of the transphobic rhetoric that’s become common in the conservative movement. 

But Jackson didn’t take the bait. 

That line of questioning had me wondering, though: How does one — especially Blackburn — answer that question? There’s enough information readily available online for even the layman to know the definition isn’t nearly as simple as someone's genitalia or their ability to give birth. Some women are born without either. 

Nonetheless, the conservative movement celebrated the question as though it were some kind of “gotcha” moment — as though Jackson were a simpleton for not answering it. But as HuffPost discoveredthis week, many Republicans themselves can’t accurately define what a woman is. The outlet asked Blackburn and several other GOPers for their definitions, and the answers are hilariously bad. 

Blackburn said a woman is someone with “two X chromosomes.” Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas took the same route, arguing that chromosomes define a woman.

Wrong. Some women are born without two X chromosomes while some men are born with two

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said a woman is, simply, “my wife.” Not sure whether he meant all women on Earth are his wife or that his wife is the only woman on Earth.

Either way: wrong. 

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said a woman is “an adult female of the human species,” but good luck defining “female” without running into the same issues you find in defining “woman.” 

Wrong. 

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri claimed a woman is “someone who can give birth to a child” and “someone who has a uterus.”

Wrong. 

Asked whether a woman who has a hysterectomy is still a woman, Hawley said he didn’t know. I sure hope the women in his family never have to undergo such a procedure and face his judgment. 

Regardless: wrong.

The true answer to this complex question is that “woman” is a rather nebulous word without a clear definition — that’s why the concept of gender fluidity exists. But Republicans are set on turning back the clock to a bygone era of simple-minded gender politics, and they’re happy to remain ignorant, even if it means they look like fools parading as geniuses.

Thursday, August 05, 2021

Ron Johnson Is A Prolific Liar And Conspiracy Theorist

There are a lot of bad Republicans in the United States Senate, and all of them are willing to lie to get what they want.

But Ron Johnson of Wisconsin may be the worst of all of them. There is nothing that he's not willing to lie about, and he's a big spreader of conspiracy theories.

Here's how Steve Been of MSNBC.com describes Johnson's dedication to spreading misinformation:

It was nearly five months ago when the New York Times profiled Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), noting that the far-right senator "has become the Republican Party's foremost amplifier of conspiracy theories and disinformation." The article added that Johnson is now "an all-access purveyor of misinformation on serious issues such as the pandemic and the legitimacy of American democracy."

On a nearly daily basis, the Wisconsin Republican proves the thesis true.

As we've discussed, when it comes to assessing Johnson's propensity for peddling nonsense, it's generally wise to rely on separate categories. The senator has, for example, repeatedly made ridiculous and potentially dangerous comments about COVID-19, vaccines, and the threats posed by the pandemic. He's also been cavalier about his indifference to an FBI warning that he was "a target of Russian disinformation" during the last election cycle.

He's also denied ever having "talked about the election being stolen," despite ample evidence pointing in the opposite direction. There's also the problem, of course, of the senator relying on ugly rhetoricabout immigration when discussing what he sees as efforts to "remake the demographics of America."

But Johnson's ideas about the Jan. 6 attack are especially striking. . . .

While discussing the Capitol attack with event attendees, Johnson said, "I don't say this publicly, but are you watching what's happening in Michigan? ... So you think the FBI had fully infiltrated the militias in Michigan, but they don't know squat about what was happening on January 6th or what was happening with these groups? I'd say there is way more to the story."

The reference to Michigan militias was a likely reference to last year's alleged kidnapping plot targeting Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), involving right-wing radicals whose group had been infiltrated by undercover law-enforcement officials.

By Johnson's reasoning, if the FBI knew what the alleged would-be kidnappers in Michigan were up to, then it stands to reason that the FBI must've had secret knowledge of the Jan. 6 attack, too. Why? Just because.

Though this certainly dovetails with assorted Republican conspiracy theories about the assault on the Capitol, with some fringe lawmakers suggesting last month that federal law enforcement may have even been involved with organizing the pro-Trump riot.

As is usually the case, the missing ingredient is evidence. The right certainly likes the idea of shifting blame away from the insurrectionist rioters, but the conservative conspiracy theorists have nothing but their own satisfying hunches to work with.

What's more, with Johnson, it's part of a larger pattern. Circling back to our earlier coverage, it was in May when the Wisconsinite arguedthat the violent riot was a largely "peaceful protest," which was obviously absurd. Two months earlier, he insisted there "was no violence" on the north side of the Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack -- a claim that was quickly discredited.

Two weeks earlier, the senator praised the rioters' patriotism and boasted that he was never concerned for his safety on Jan. 6 -- though he added he would've felt differently if the mob was made up of Black Lives Matter protesters.

That came on the heels of Johnson appearing at a Senate hearing, reading an item from a right-wing blog, and peddling the ridiculous idea that the pro-Trump forces that launched the attack on the Capitol secretly included "fake Trump protesters."

Before that, the Wisconsinite falsely argued that armed insurrectionists may not have actually been armed, reality notwithstanding.

But what's especially interesting about this new reporting is the fact that Johnson apparently didn't know his comments would reach the public. Indeed, he literally told the group, in reference to his FBI ideas, "I don't say this publicly."

Some may wonder at times whether assorted GOP conspiracy theorists actually believe what they say. It's possible they know better, but peddle foolishness because it bolsters fundraising, rallies the base, and helps raise the conspiracy theorists' public profile.

But it appears that Ron Johnson, whom Republicans put in charge of the Senate Homeland Security Committee for six years, genuinely believes his own strange ideas.

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Real Choice Of GOP Senators - Honor Your Oath Or Violate It

The impeachment trial of Donald Trump has begun. The evidence against him is overwhelming, but many Republican senators will likely vote to acquit him.

They see the choice they have as being loyal to Trump or not being loyal to him. But they are wrong. 

They took an oath when they became a senator, and took another as they sat down for this impeachment trial. The real choice they must make is whether to honor the oaths they took or violate those oaths.

Here is just a part of an excellent article by Greg Sargent in The Washington Post:

As Donald Trump’s impeachment trial gets underway, the choice GOP senators face is being wildly mischaracterized. We keep hearing that they must choose between sticking with the former president or opposing him — between showing “loyalty” to Trump or not showing loyalty to him. . . .

But that isn’t the choice GOP senators actually face, and describing this choice accurately is of paramount importance.

The real choice they face is not between sticking with Trump or going against him. Rather, it’s between sticking with Trump or remaining faithful to their oath of office, which requires them to defend the Constitution against those who would undermine or destroy it, and to the oath of impartiality they take as impeachment jurors.

Trump tried to overthrow U.S. democracy to keep himself in power illegitimately, first through corrupt legal efforts, then through nakedly extralegal means, and then by inciting intimidation and violence to disrupt the constitutionally designated process for securing the peaceful conclusion of free and fair elections.

Trump fully intended to subvert the constitutional process designating how our elections unfold, and intended this every step of the way. GOP senators cannot remain “loyal” to Trump without breaking their oaths to execute their public positions faithfully. . . .

Acquitting Trump means declaring that these known facts do not point to high crimes and misdemeanors.

Senators take an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution.” When serving as impeachment jurors, they take another oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution.”

Corey Brettschneider, a constitutional scholar who focuses on the role of oaths of office in the constitutional scheme, says these two oaths complement one another.

“That second oath doesn’t replace the first,” Brettschneider tells me. “It clarifies it.”

In acting as jurors, Brettschneider says, senators are supposed to answer “the specific question” of whether the president is guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“Trump tried to subvert a free and fair election by spreading disinformation, trying to force public officials to overturn the results and riling his supporters up to attack the Capitol,” Brettschneider continued. “That is about as paradigmatic a high crime as one can get.”

When senators are in the role of jurors, Brettschneider continues, the two oaths interlock to set the terms of their “constitutional duty,” which precludes operating out of “partisan loyalty to a president.”

In other words, it’s either the former or the latter. The choice is not just about whether they are going to be “loyal” to Trump or not. That idea actually undersells the extraordinary dereliction of duty GOP senators will be committing if and when they vote to acquit.

Friday, March 20, 2020

Sen. Ron Johnson - Portrait Of An Uncaring Republican

“Getting coronavirus is not a death sentence except for maybe no more than 3.4 percent of our population… probably far less. We don’t shut down our economy because tens of thousands of people die on the highways.”

Those are the words of Senator Ron Johnson -- the Republican senator from Wisconsin. Frankly, I am shocked by his attitude. Does he really not care that we could lose 3.4% of the population?

Maybe he failed math in school. But in a nation of 330 million people, 3.4% of the population is not "tens of thousands" -- it is 11.2 million people. If we lost only 1%, it would be 3.3 million people.

I'll give Johnson the benefit of the doubt, and figure he was talking about only those who actually contracted the disease. If half the the population got the disease, the death toll would be about about 5.61 million at 3.4%, and 1.65 million for 1%.

Say only 25% of the population got the virus (which is very likely), that would still be 2.8 million deaths at 3.4% and 825,000 deaths at 1%.

Those are still NOT ACCEPTABLE FIGURES, and I can't believe a U.S. senator (any senator) would believe they were.

Saturday, October 19, 2019

Poll Shows Popularity Of The Senators In Their Home State

The following is from the Morning Consult Poll. They surveyed 533,985 registered voters in all of the fifty states between July 1st and September 30th. The results show the popularity of each senator in his/her home state.











Saturday, July 20, 2019

The Popularity Of Each Senator In His/Her Home State

The charts below are from the Morning Consult Poll. It shows the approval and disapproval of each U.S. Senator in his or her home state. They questioned 487,234 registered voters in the 50 states between April 1st and June 30th. The margin of error varies from state to state (depending on population and amount of voters questioned). The range is from 1 point to 8 points.






Wednesday, December 12, 2018

An Open Letter To The Senate From Former Senators

The following open letter to the current United States Senate is from 44 former senators (of both political parties). They are trying to appeal to the better nature of current senators to put the country and the Constitution first in these dangerous times.

They write:

Dear Senate colleagues,

As former members of the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans, it is our shared view that we are entering a dangerous period, and we feel an obligation to speak up about serious challenges to the rule of law, the Constitution, our governing institutions and our national security.

We are on the eve of the conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation and the House’s commencement of investigations of the president and his administration. The likely convergence of these two events will occur at a time when simmering regional conflicts and global power confrontations continue to threaten our security, economy and geopolitical stability.

It is a time, like other critical junctures in our history, when our nation must engage at every level with strategic precision and the hand of both the president and the Senate.

We are at an inflection point in which the foundational principles of our democracy and our national security interests are at stake, and the rule of law and the ability of our institutions to function freely and independently must be upheld.

During our service in the Senate, at times we were allies and at other times opponents, but never enemies. We all took an oath swearing allegiance to the Constitution. Whatever united or divided us, we did not veer from our unwavering and shared commitment to placing our country, democracy and national interest above all else.

At other critical moments in our history, when constitutional crises have threatened our foundations, it has been the Senate that has stood in defense of our democracy. Today is once again such a time.

Regardless of party affiliation, ideological leanings or geography, as former members of this great body, we urge current and future senators to be steadfast and zealous guardians of our democracy by ensuring that partisanship or self-interest not replace national interest.

Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Bill Bradley(D-N.J.), Richard Bryan (D-Nev.), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), Max Cleland (D-Ga.), William Cohen (R-Maine), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Al D’Amato (R-N.Y.), John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), David Durenberger (R-Minn.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Wyche Fowler (D-Ga.), Bob Graham (D-Fla.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Gary Hart (D-Colo.), Bennett Johnston (D-La.), Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Paul Kirk (D-Mass.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), Larry Pressler (R-S.D.), David Pryor (D-Ark.), Don Riegle (D-Mich.), Chuck Robb (D-Va.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.), Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), John W. Warner (R-Va.), Lowell Weicker (I-Conn.), Tim Wirth (D-Colo.)

Friday, April 13, 2018

Net Job Approval Rating Of All 100 Senators

The charts below show the job approval ratings of each of the 100 senators. The net approval rating is figured by subtracting disapproval percentage from the approval percentage. These figures are from a Morning Consult Poll done January through March in all 50 states of 275,358 adults. The margin of error is between 1 and 6 points (depending on the number of people questioned in the state).

NOTE -- The numbers for each senator shows only the view of people in his/her own state -- and do not represent the national view.





Friday, February 16, 2018

NRA Gave These Nine Senators Over $22 Million


From ReverbPress:

Here’s the chart which shows the lobbying group’s spending on their nine favorite Senators broken down by direct campaign contributions, independent spending (PACs and other groups), and independent spending against their opponents. For details, move your mouse over the parts of the chart that interest you. As the small and barely-visible slivers of blue show, the NRA pays very little in direct campaign contributions.

The lion’s share of the direct and indirect contributions from the NRA — a total of $22,596,399 — went to just nine senators:

  • Mitch McConnell (R-KY): $1,262,189
  • Roy Blunt (R-MO): $1,433,952
  • Pat Roberts (R-KS): $1,584,153
  • Tom Cotton (R-AR): $1,968,714
  • David Perdue (R-GA): $1,997,512
  • Bill Cassidy (R-LA): $2,867,074
  • Joni Ernst (R-IA): $3,124,773
  • Cory Gardner (R-CO): $3,939,199
  • Thom Tillis (R-NC): $4,418,833
  • Wednesday, October 25, 2017

    Trump Has Attacked 1 In 5 Senate Republicans

    (Caricature of Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

    Donald Trump likes to think of himself as a great negotiator. That is not even close to the truth. The truth is that his only "negotiating" tools are bullying, threatening, and attacking others. That has somewhat worked for him in his business life, and I think he thought he could use those same tactics in Washington to get what he wanted. He was wrong.

    The truth is that the members of Congress don't work for him. They are supposed to be working for the American people. Trump has tried bullying and attacking Congress, and has gotten absolutely nothing done legislatively. And the craziest thing is that he has used the same bullying and attacking and threatening tactics against members of his own political party -- especially Republicans in the Senate (who rule that body with a razor-thin majority).

    Trump still doesn't seem to understand that attacking his own party is not the way to a winning agenda (especially since Democrats are unified in opposing his odious agenda). So far, Trump has attacked 11 of the 52 GOP senators -- about 21%! Here (from CNN) is a list of the Republican senators that Trump has attacked:

    Bob Corker (Tennessee)

    Ted Cruz (Texas)

    Jeff Flake (Arizona)

    Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)

    Dean Heller (Nevada)

    John McCain (Arizona)

    Mitch McConnell (Kentucky)

    * Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)

    Rand Paul (Kentucky)

    * Marco Rubio (Florida)

    Ben Sasse (Nebraska)

    Wednesday, July 12, 2017

    The Popularity Of Each Senator (In Their Own State)







    These charts are from a recent survey by the Morning Consult Poll. They questioned 141,400 registered United States voters about whether they approved or disapproved of the senators in their own state. The survey was done between April 1st and June 18th. The margin of error for each state is on the right in the charts.

    A note of caution. These numbers only show how popular each senator is in his or her own state. Their popularity in the country as a whole could be far different.

    Wednesday, April 12, 2017

    The Popularity Of U.S. Senators (In Their Home State)







    The charts above are from a newly-released Morning Consult Poll. It was done between January and March of this year and questioned 85,000 respondents is the 50 states.

    One should be careful in stating the popularity of these senators in the nation as a whole. Each senator was rated only by the residents of his/her own state -- not the nation as a whole. For instance, the most popular senator in this poll was Bernie Sanders (at 75% approval), but that is only the opinion of people in his state of Vermont. I seriously doubt he would be rated anywhere near that high in the entire nation.

    In fact, I think the popularity of every senator would be lower on a national basis. It would be interesting to see how each senator is rated nationally though.