22 Dems voted to censure Rashida Tlaib, but what was their real motivation?
Earlier this week, Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) was officially censured by the House for, in the words of Rich McCormick (R-Ga.), who sponsored the resolution, “promoting false narratives regarding the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and for calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.”
Although there was a push by Democrats to kill the censure resolution, 22 Democrats voted in favor of the disciplinary measure.
Although this may seem like a win, Sara Gonzales isn’t all that enthused, calling the censure a mere “slap on the wrist.”
Further, she’s not convinced that the 22 Democrats who voted in favor of the rebuke did so for the right reasons.
On October 17, Tlaib tweeted:
Not only is the information false – the strike was quickly shown to have been conducted by Palestinian militants, not Israel – but Tlaib also put the blame on Joe Biden.
“That was not the only time she … [doubled] down on blaming Joe Biden,” adds Sara, who thinks that’s the real reason “Democrats are on board” with the censure.
“You can’t speak ill of the dementia patient in chief,” she mocks.
Glenn Beck’s head researcher, former military analyst Jason Buttrill, however, isn’t so sure Tlaib’s vituperations against Biden were the motivating factor behind the 22 Dems who voted to censure her.
“I think this has seriously opened some eyes,” he says optimistically, adding that the conflict between Israel and Hamas “has forced masks to come off on certain people” – Rashida Tlaib being perhaps the most obvious one (along with Ilhan Omar, of course).
“Sometimes in horrible situations, you can eventually get to some good towards the end,” he says, “and maybe the good, at least, you know, with the global left [is] it'll force those radicals completely out of the picture.”
We certainly hope you’re right, Jason.
Want more from 'The News & Why It Matters'?
To enjoy more roundtable rundowns of the top stories of the day, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com
By the looks of it, Pelosi's head of security put the Oath Keepers in prison with FALSE TESTIMONY
Investigative journalist and Blaze Media contributor Steve Baker has reviewed thousands of hours of video footage from the Capitol on January 6 — and it’s starting to pay off.
Baker has found that the Capitol Police agent assigned to the protective detail of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears to have given false testimony regarding his whereabouts during a key encounter with members of the Oath Keepers.
“We have a high-ranking Capitol Police special agent with that designation who was the head of Nancy Pelosi’s security detail, who was brought in specifically to corroborate the testimony of another Capitol Police officer,” Baker tells Sara Gonzales.
That Capitol Police officer had a “shaky testimony himself,” he adds.
“They essentially created a script for him and put him in a place with a tale to tell that never happened, because he was a half a mile away in another part of the building, in the tunnels, when this event that he was supposed to be an eyewitness to took place. And it’s just no more complicated than that,” Baker explains.
Baker had noticed early on in a trial related to January 6 that Judge Mehta and the federal prosecutor, lead assistant U.S. attorney Jeffrey Nestler, had an “interesting dynamic between them.”
“There was an obvious attempt to suppress some evidence, and the evidence that was being suppressed was the potential release of two FBI interviews,” Baker says.
Baker explains that one officer previously claimed his encounter with the Oath Keepers was positive and that they had protected him.
"Except that when they started putting together the case against the Oath Keepers, that had to be changed. So they brought him in for a second interview about four months later. That testimony was not only changed to a contentious encounter with the Oath Keepers, but then they also created another event, in another part of the building, to say that he misremembered and that he was confusing the two,” Baker tells Gonzales.
Baker says that because there was potential for the testimony to leak, they brought in another high-ranking officer with more credibility.
“He came in and basically read from a script, because there’s no way that this guy just of his own accord risked himself by committing perjury in a trial for the benefit of somebody he barely knew,” Baker says.
Baker believes that because of this information, the “trial itself should be declared a mistrial” and “the sentences should be vacated.”
“The overriding aspect that’s happening in these January 6 trials is a chilling of speech. It is an evisceration of the First Amendment, and not only that but due process,” he adds.
Want more from The News & Why It Matters?
To enjoy more roundtable rundowns of the top stories of the day, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.