Tags
This evening:
Tom Scocca @tomscocca
You go to Hell with the soul you have, not the soul you might want or wish to have at a later time
6:46 PM · Jun 30, 2021
Epitaph
30 Wednesday Jun 2021
Posted in social media
Monthly Archives: June 2021
H.Res. 503 – we know where they stand
30 Wednesday Jun 2021
Posted in social media
Tags
Capitol breach, Congress, Emanuel Cleaver, H.Res. 503, Insurrection, investigation, select committee, social media, Twitter
Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D) [2019 file photo].
Congressman Cleaver Votes To Establish Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol
Jun 30, 2021 Press Release
After Senate Republicans Blocked a Bipartisan Commission to Investigate the January Insurrection, The House of Representatives Today Passed a Resolution to Create a Select Committee Focused On The Attack(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-MO) voted for H. Res. 503, a resolution establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. The House Select Committee comes following Senate Republicans’ successful effort to obstruct a bipartisan commission, modeled after the 9/11 commission and passed by the House of Representatives with bipartisan support, to investigate the insurrection that occurred on January 6th.
“January 6, 2021, was one of the darkest days in American history. It is absolutely imperative that Congress conduct a proper investigation into the root causes of the insurrection, the lapses in security, and what we need to do moving forward to ensure another travesty of that nature never occurs again,” said Congressman Cleaver. “When the House of Representatives passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill—negotiated in good faith by the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee—to establish a bipartisan 9/11-style commission, I was hopeful we could cut through tribalistic politics to provide answers to the American people. Despite attempts from select Senate Republicans to obstruct this desperately needed investigation, I’m proud of the House of Representatives for refusing to simply move on. The American public deserves to know the truth about that tragic day—and with this Select Committee, we’re going to give it to them.”
The Select Committee will be comprised of 13 Members of Congress, five of whom shall be appointed after consultation with Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. The Committee will be charged with investigating and reporting the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6th domestic terror attack on the U.S. Capitol Complex, including the organization and execution of the attack, law enforcement and military preparation for and response to the attack, and other factors.
Upon concluding the investigation, the Select Committee will issue a final report to Congress with findings, results, and legislative recommendations.
[….]
The vote in the House:
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 197
H RES 503 YEA-AND-NAY 30-Jun-2021 3:45 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol—- YEAS 222 —
Bush
Cleaver—- NAYS 190 —
Graves (MO)
Hartzler
Long
Luetkemeyer
Smith (MO)
Wagner—- NOT VOTING 19 —
Yes, we do.
Previously:
H.Res. 503 – Kevin McCarthy’s (r) and Mitch McConnell’s (r) malpractice (June 28, 2021)
They get no credit for finally doing what they should have done in the first place
30 Wednesday Jun 2021
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House
During the latest regular legislative session the right wingnut controlled Missouri General Assembly failed to continue the legislation enabling the previously non-controversial Federal Reimbursement Allowance [FRA] program for Missouri.
There is a looming deadline for legislation to implement the program before it impacts Medicaid and forces cuts in other general revenue funded areas.
Governor Mike Parson (r) called a special session of the General Assembly in an attempt to deal with the mess.
Today in the Missouri House:
House Communications @MOHOUSECOMM
The House has truly agreed to and finally passed SB 1 (Extends the sunset on certain health care provider federal reimbursement allowances and modifies provisions relating to certain family planning health care services) with a vote of 140-13. #moleg
[….]
1:24 PM · Jun 30, 2021
You know, finally doing the right thing.
Now the governor has to sign it.
Previously:
“The buck stops…somewhere over there” (June 22, 2021)
On the mark (June 22, 2021)
Now what? (June 22, 2021)
Denny Hoskins (r): sleeping through school as an aspirational model for life (June 23, 2021)
If you take the health care out of Medicaid, is it still Medicaid? (June 25, 2021)
It’s taking long enough (June 26, 2021)
HR 3005: better late than never
30 Wednesday Jun 2021
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
Confederates, Congress, Dred Scott, HR 3005, lost cause, Roger Brooke Taney, statues, U.S. Capitol
The only Confederate flag that ever mattered was a white rag on a stick.
Chairs and table – surrender to end the Civil War on April 9, 1865, at Wilmer McLean’s home in Appomattox Court House, Virginia. National Museum of American History.
Congress is finally getting around to the process of removing statues of individuals which celebrate the lost cause from the U.S. Capitol.
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 196
H R 3005 YEA-AND-NAY 29-Jun-2021 7:24 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Directing the Joint Committee on the Library to replace certain statues in the United States Capitol[….]
—- YEAS 285 —
Bush
Cleaver
Wagner—- NAYS 120 —
Graves (MO)
Hartzler
Luetkemeyer
Smith (MO)—- NOT VOTING 26 —
Long
Vicky Hartzler (r) [2016 file photo].
Blaine Luetkemeyer (r) [2014 file photo].
Billy Long (r) [2013 file photo].
Missouri, of course.
The resolution:
117th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3005To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol with a bust of Thurgood Marshall to be obtained by the Joint Committee on the Library and to remove certain statues from areas of the United States Capitol which are accessible to the public, to remove all statues of individuals who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from display in the United States Capitol, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 7, 2021
Mr. Hoyer (for himself, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Clyburn, Mrs. Beatty, Ms. Bass, Mr. Brown, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Malinowski, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Mfume, Ms. Norton, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Trone, and Mr. Sarbanes) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House AdministrationA BILL
To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol with a bust of Thurgood Marshall to be obtained by the Joint Committee on the Library and to remove certain statues from areas of the United States Capitol which are accessible to the public, to remove all statues of individuals who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from display in the United States Capitol, and for other purposes.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF BUST OF ROGER BROOKE TANEY WITH BUST OF THURGOOD MARSHALL.
(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:
(1) While sitting in the United States Capitol, the Supreme Court issued the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision on March 6, 1857. Written by Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, whose bust sits inside the entrance to the Old Supreme Court Chamber in the United States Capitol, this opinion declared that African Americans were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts. This decision further declared that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories.
(2) Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s authorship of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the effects of which would only be overturned years later by the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, renders a bust of his likeness unsuitable for the honor of display to the many visitors to the United States Capitol.
(3) As Frederick Douglass said of this decision in May 1857, “This infamous decision of the Slaveholding wing of the Supreme Court maintains that slaves are within the contemplation of the Constitution of the United States, property; that slaves are property in the same sense that horses, sheep, and swine are property; that the old doctrine that slavery is a creature of local law is false; that the right of the slaveholder to his slave does not depend upon the local law, but is secured wherever the Constitution of the United States extends; that Congress has no right to prohibit slavery anywhere; that slavery may go in safety anywhere under the star-spangled banner; that colored persons of African descent have no rights that white men are bound to respect; that colored men of African descent are not and cannot be citizens of the United States.”.
(4) While the removal of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s bust from the United States Capitol does not relieve the Congress of the historical wrongs it committed to protect the institution of slavery, it expresses Congress’s recognition of one of the most notorious wrongs to have ever taken place in one of its rooms, that of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s Dred Scott v. Sandford decision.
(b) Removal Of Bust Of Roger Brooke Taney.—Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Joint Committee on the Library shall remove the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol.
(c) Replacement With Bust Of Thurgood Marshall.—
(1) OBTAINING BUST.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Joint Committee on the Library shall enter into an agreement to obtain a bust of Thurgood Marshall, under such terms and conditions as the Joint Committee considers appropriate consistent with applicable law.
(2) PLACEMENT.—The Joint Committee on the Library shall place the bust obtained under paragraph (1) in the location in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol where the bust of Roger Brooke Taney was located prior to removal by the Architect of the Capitol under subsection (b).
SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS AND REMOVAL PROCEDURES FOR STATUES IN NATIONAL STATUARY HALL.
(a) Requirements.—Section 1814 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 2131) is amended by inserting “(other than persons who served voluntarily in the military forces or government of the Confederate States of America or in the military forces or government of a State while the State was in rebellion against the United States)” after “military services”.
(b) Statue Removal Procedures.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—
(A) IDENTIFICATION BY ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL.—The Architect of the Capitol shall identify all statues on display in the United States Capitol that do not meet the requirements of section 1814 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 2131), as amended by subsection (a).
(B) REMOVAL BY JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY.—The Joint Committee on the Library shall arrange for the removal of each statue identified by the Architect of the Capitol under subparagraph (A) from any area of the United States Capitol which is accessible to the public by not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) RETURN OF STATUES.—A statue which is removed under this subsection and which was provided for display by a State shall be returned to the State, and the ownership of the statue transferred to the State, if the State so requests and agrees to pay any costs related to the transportation of the statue to the State.
(3) REPLACEMENT OF STATUES.—A State that has a statue removed under this subsection may replace such statue in accordance with the requirements and procedures of section 1814 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 2131) and section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 U.S.C. 2132).
(c) Storage.—The Architect of the Capitol shall keep any statue removed under this section in storage pending the return of the statue to the State.
SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN OTHER STATUES AND BUSTS.
(a) Confederate Statues And Busts.—
(1) REMOVAL.—Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Joint Committee on the Library, together with the Curator of the House of Representatives or the Curator of the Senate (as the case may be), shall remove all Confederate statues and Confederate busts from any area of the United States Capitol which is accessible to the public.
(2) DEFINITIONS.—
(A) CONFEDERATE STATUE.—In this subsection, the term “Confederate statue” means a statue which was provided by a State for display in the United States Capitol that depicts—
(i) any individual who served voluntarily at any time as a member of the Armed Forces of the Confederate States of America or of the military of a State while the State was in open rebellion against the United States; or
(ii) any individual who served as an official of the Government of the Confederate States of America or as an official of a State while the State was in open rebellion against the United States.
(B) CONFEDERATE BUST.—In this subsection, the term “Confederate bust” means a bust which depicts an individual described in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A).
(b) Other Statues.—Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Joint Committee on the Library shall remove the statue of Charles Brantley Aycock, the statue of John Caldwell Calhoun, and the statue of James Paul Clarke from any area of the United State Capitol which is accessible to the public.
(c) Storage.—The Architect of the Capitol shall keep any statue or bust removed under this section in storage.
(d) Exclusion Of Statues Subject To Other Removal Procedures.—This subsection does not apply with respect to any statue which is subject to removal under section 2.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act, and any amounts so appropriated shall remain available until expended.
The statues can best reside in museum exhibits alongside a replica of the surrender dishrag and replicas of the furniture from Wilmer McLean’s house. For the appropriate context.
The Heavens open, the light begins to shine on the darkness
29 Tuesday Jun 2021
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
Elad Gross, for the win, missouri, Missouri Sunshine Law, Missouri Supreme Court, public records, RSMo 610, transparency
It isn’t called “the Missouri Sunshine Law” for nothing.
Elad Gross (D) [2020 file photo].
Today the Missouri Supreme Court said [pdf]:
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
en bancELAD GROSS, Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL PARSON, et al., Respondents.No. SC98619
Opinion issued June 29, 2021APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY
The Honorable Patricia Joyce, JudgeElad Gross appeals the circuit court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of Governor Michael Parson and the custodian of records for the governor’s office, Michelle Hallford (collectively, “the Governor’s Office”). The underlying lawsuit filed by Mr. Gross involves two public records requests he made under the Sunshine Law, sections 610.010-.035.
Mr. Gross claims the circuit court erred in entering judgment on the pleadings because the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it: required Mr. Gross to pre-pay an estimate of costs for his first request that included attorney-review time; arbitrarily refused to waive the fees associated with his first request; failed to explain its estimated delay in producing certain requested records; and impermissibly redacted [….] certain records. Mr. Gross claims some or all of these violations were knowing and purposeful. He also alleges the circuit court misapplied the law by assigning him – not the Governor’s office – the burden of demonstrating the redaction of portions of the records complied with the Sunshine Law.
For the reasons set forth below, the circuit court’s judgment is vacated, and the cause is remanded.
[….]
Facts in the case:
….In 2018, Mr. Gross sent the Governor’s Office two requests for public records pursuant to Missouri’s Sunshine Law. In August 2018, Mr. Gross first sought “[a]ny and all records, communications, documents, emails, reports, and other material” sent from or received by the Governor’s Office from 27 specific individuals or entities after January 9, 2017, i.e., between January 9, 2017, and the processing of Mr. Gross’s request. [….] Mr. Gross says his request was made as part of his investigation into the use of “dark money” by nonprofit organizations in Missouri. Mr. Gross ended his request by noting where responsive documents should be sent and requesting a waiver of all fees related to his request….
….On October 12, 2018, the Governor’s Office provided records in response to Mr. Gross’s second request. The responsive records were separated into two sets. “Set A” [….] contained 17 pages, two of which were partially redacted. “Set B” contained 40 pages, none of which were redacted. In addition to the responsive documents, the Governor’s Office informed Mr. Gross it decided to waive the fees for his second request. The Governor’s Office did not, however, provide a further response regarding Mr. Gross’s first request….
….After filing its answer, the Governor’s Office filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, alleging Mr. Gross’s claims fail, as a matter of law. In particular, the Governor’s Office alleged Mr. Gross’s fee-waiver claim fails because the Governor’s Office has [….] discretion to waive fees; Mr. Gross’s excessive-fee claim fails because attorney review time is chargeable to a requester and $40 per hour is the hourly rate of the lowest-paid attorney who works for the Governor’s Office; Mr. Gross’s claim regarding the inadequate timeline provided by the Governor’s Office fails because the 120-day estimate is reasonable given the scope of Mr. Gross’s request; no improper redaction occurred because the Sunshine Law “authorizes the redaction of closed information, which includes attorney-client privileged communications”; and Mr. Gross’s allegations regarding “knowing” or “purposeful” violations of the Sunshine Law are based only on speculation. On July 8, 2019, the circuit court sustained the motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment in favor of the Governor’s Office….
The gist of the appeal:
….On appeal, Mr. Gross claims the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In 10 points relied on, Mr. Gross offers 10 different legal reasons to support his position. First, he claims the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it required him to pre-pay an estimate of costs for his first request that included attorney review time. Second, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it failed to provide him with the earliest date upon which the records in his first request would be available. Third, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it failed to provide him with a detailed explanation of why it required at least 120 business days to produce documents in response to his first request. Fourth, Mr. Gross alleges he properly pleaded the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it redacted certain records in response to his second request without explanation and without closing any records. Fifth, Mr. Gross alleges the circuit court erred in holding he had the burden of demonstrating the Governor’s Office did not comply with the Sunshine Law when, under the Sunshine Law, it is the Governor’s Office’s burden to demonstrate compliance with the law when redacting public records. In his sixth and seventh points, Mr. Gross alleges he adequately pleaded the Governor’s Office knowingly violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his first and second requests, respectively. In his eighth and ninth points, Mr. Gross alleges he adequately pleaded the [….] Governor’s Office purposely violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his first and second requests, respectively. Tenth, and lastly, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office abused its discretion in violation of the Missouri and United States constitutions by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in denying his request for a fee waiver or reduction associated with his first request….
Point by point:
….In his first point, Mr. Gross alleges the circuit court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings because the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it required him to pre-pay an estimate of costs for his first request that included attorney review time. Mr. Gross avers the Sunshine Law does not authorize the Governor’s Office to charge him for attorney review time.
[….]
….Because the Sunshine Law does not authorize a public governmental body to charge a requester for attorney review time, the Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, from the face of the pleadings. In this respect, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings….
….In his second claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it failed to provide him with the earliest date records in his first request would be available for inspection…
[….]
Because the pleadings show the Governor’s Office provided Mr. Gross with a time estimate of 120 business days from payment rather than the exact calendar date upon which Mr. Gross could inspect the requested records, the Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, from the face of the pleadings. In this respect, the [….] circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings….
….In his third claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated section 610.023.3 when it advised Mr. Gross it would take at least 120 business days to produce documents responsive to his first request without providing him with a detailed explanation as to why it required at least 120 business days…
[….]
… Because section 610.023.3 requires a public governmental body to provide a “detailed explanation” when records are not immediately made available and the pleadings do not show the Governor’s Office did so, the Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, from the face of the pleadings. With respect to Mr. Gross’s claim that the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law by failing to provide a detailed explanation for the delay associated with his first request, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings….
….In his fourth claim, Mr. Gross alleges he properly pleaded the Governor’s Office violated the Sunshine Law when it redacted certain records in his second request without explanation…
[….]
….Mr. Gross’s pleading sufficiently alleged the Governor’s Office violated the law when it redacted records responsive to his second request. In this respect, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings….
….In his fifth claim, Mr. Gross alleges the circuit court misapplied the law when it concluded he had the burden of demonstrating the Governor’s Office did not comply with the Sunshine Law when it made the relevant redactions….
[….]
A requester does not have the burden to show noncompliance when an open record is redacted. The circuit court’s conclusion that Mr. Gross must have pleaded “more” than unexplained redaction is erroneous….
….In his sixth claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office knowingly violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his first records request and he sufficiently pleaded the Governor’s Office committed knowing violations….
[….]
…Mr. Gross has sufficiently alleged the Governor’s Office acted knowingly; therefore, the Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, from the face of the pleadings. In consequence, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to this issue….
….In his seventh claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office knowingly violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his second sunshine request when it redacted two records it provided to him. Mr. Gross also claims he sufficiently pleaded that a knowing violation occurred. The Governor’s Office alleges its redactions were proper and Mr. Gross failed to plead otherwise sufficiently. The circuit court held Mr. Gross did not plead any facts “support[ing] even an inference that the Governor’s Office engaged in any conduct to knowingly . . . violate the Sunshine Law.” This conclusion was erroneous….
…In his eighth and ninth claims, Mr. Gross alleges the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to Counts III and VII of his petition. Count III alleges the Governor’s Office purposely violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his first request, and Count VII alleges the Governor’s Office purposely violated the Sunshine Law with respect to his second request….
[….]
…These allegations sufficiently allege the Governor’s Office had an intent to violate the law. The Governor’s Office was not entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, on the face of the pleadings; therefore, the circuit court erred in sustaining the Governor’s Office’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in regard to Counts III and VII of Mr. Gross’s petition….
….In his tenth and final claim, Mr. Gross alleges the Governor’s Office violated “Missouri statutory and case law, the Missouri Constitution, and the United States Constitution” and “abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in denying [his] request for [the Governor’s Office] to waive or reduce fees associated with his first [….] Sunshine Request.” While his point relied on mentions “Missouri statutory and case law,”
Mr. Gross’s argument alleges only constitutional violations….[….]
…Because Mr. Gross failed to raise this issue in the circuit court and never sought to amend his pleadings, his constitutional claims have not been preserved for appellate review….
Go. Read the whole thing.
Openness and transparency are supposed to be an essential element when it comes to government in Missouri. Not always in practice. There are a lot of people who should know better.
Governor Mike Parson (r) [2018 file photo].
H.Res. 503 – Kevin McCarthy’s (r) and Mitch McConnell’s (r) malpractice
28 Monday Jun 2021
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
Capitol breach, Congress, H.Res. 503, Insurrection, invesitigation, Kevin McCarthy, Nancy Pelosi, select committee, Speaker
“…Whereas January 6, 2021, was one of the darkest days of our democracy, during which insurrectionists attempted to impede Congress’s Constitutional mandate to validate the presidential election and launched an assault on the United States Capitol Complex that resulted in multiple deaths, physical harm to over 140 members of law enforcement, and terror and trauma among staff, institutional employees, press, and Members…”
“…as well as the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy…” They know who they are.
The republican minority in Congress could have had a bipartisan committee investigating the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol. They stonewalled it. Instead, they get a select committee [pdf] via Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D).
The makeup of the committee:
[….]
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is hereby established the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (hereinafter referred to as the “Select Committee”).
SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.
(a) APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS.—The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.
(b) DESIGNATION OF CHAIR.—The Speaker shall designate one Member to serve as chair of the Select Committee.
(c) VACANCIES.—Any vacancy in the Select Committee shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
[….]
Heh, “consultation”.
What they’re supposed to do:
[….]
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
Consistent with the functions described in section 4, the purposes of the Select Committee are the following:
(1) To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex (hereafter referred to as the “domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol’”) and relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power, including facts and causes relating to the preparedness and response of the United States Capitol Police and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the National Capital Region and other instrumentalities of government, as well as the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.
(2) To examine and evaluate evidence developed by relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol and targeted violence and domestic terrorism relevant to such terrorist attack.
(3) To build upon the investigations of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts by reviewing the investigations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of other executive branch, congressional, or independent bipartisan or nonpartisan commission investigations into the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol, including investigations into influencing factors related to such attack.
[….]
On getting information:
[….]
(4) The chair of the Select Committee may authorize and issue subpoenas pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI in the investigation and study conducted pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of this resolution, including for the purpose of taking depositions.
(5) The chair of the Select Committee is authorized to compel by subpoena the furnishing of information by interrogatory.
(6)(A) The chair of the Select Committee, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, may order the taking of depositions, including pursuant to subpoena, by a Member or counsel of the Select Committee, in the same manner as a standing committee pursuant to section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 8, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress.
(B) Depositions taken under the authority prescribed in this paragraph shall be governed by the procedures submitted by the chair of the Committee on Rules for printing in the Congressional Record on January 4, 2021.
(7) Subpoenas authorized pursuant to this resolution may be signed by the chair of the Select Committee or a designee.
[….]
History will not be kind to the insurrectionists and their enablers.
Pass the popcorn.
Previously:
H.Res. 503 – about January 6, 2021 (June 2821)
H.Res. 503 – about January 6, 2021
28 Monday Jun 2021
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
Capitol breach, Congress, H.Res. 503, hearings, Insurrection, investigation, Nancy Pelosi, select committee, Speaker
A statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D):
Pelosi Statement on the Introduction of H.Res. 503 Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol
JUNE 28, 2021
PRESS RELEASEWashington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released this statement after she introduced H.Res. 503, which establishes the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol:
“Sadly, as of last week, there remains no prospect for additional votes from Republican Senators to create the National Commission to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Complex.
“Over the weekend, proposed legislation to establish a Select Committee to investigate the January 6th insurrection was drafted, and it has now been introduced and sent to the Rules Committee.
“January 6th was one of the darkest days in our nation’s history. It is imperative that we establish the truth of that day and ensure such an attack cannot again happen. The Select Committee will investigate and report upon the facts and causes of the attack and report recommendations for preventing any future assault.
“Senate Republicans did Mitch McConnell a ‘personal favor’ rather than their patriotic duty and voted against the bipartisan commission negotiated by Democrats and Republicans. But Democrats are determined to find the truth.”
Do it.
Warrensburg Pride Festival – June 26, 2021
26 Saturday Jun 2021
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
The inaugural Warrensburg Pride Festival took place today at an event venue just south of town. Due to rain the event was held indoors with a number of vendor/product, sponsor tables, and food vendors.
Starting at 11:00 a.m. events included an all all-ages drag show, two panel discussions/Q and A with drag performers, and, at the close of the festival, an 18+ drag show.
Johnson County Democrats were one of the sponsors.
“Make America Gay Again”
Group photo.
Free Mom Hugs.
One of two panel discussions.
Ally.
J.D. Leathers – a Democratic candidate in the 4th Congressional District.
It’s taking long enough
26 Saturday Jun 2021
Tags
Denny Hoskins, Federal Reimbursement Allowance, FRA, General Assembly, John Rizzo, Medicaid, missouri, social media, Special Session, Twitter
During the latest regular legislative session the right wingnut controlled Missouri General Assembly failed to continue the legislation enabling the previously non-controversial Federal Reimbursement Allowance [FRA] program for Missouri.
There is a looming deadline for legislation to implement the program before it impacts Medicaid and forces cuts in other general revenue funded areas.
Governor Mike Parson (r) called a special session of the General Assembly in attempt to deal with the mess. The General Assembly is now in that special session.
John Rizzo (D) [2019 file photo].
Senator John Rizzo (D):
J O H N R I Z Z O @JohnJRizzo
The MO Senate has passed a 3yr FRA. This version has NO LANGUAGE banning birth control & NO LANGUAGE defunding providers. Good work by all involved, especially the Senate Women who removed the list of birth control from the final bill.
1:18 AM · Jun 26, 2021
Early this morning, From the Senate Journal [pdf]:
Journal of the Senate
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
FIRST EXTRA SESSION
FOURTH DAY—SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 2021
[….]
REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEESSenator Hough, Chairman of the Committee on Governmental Accountability and Fiscal Oversight, submitted the following report:
Mr. President: Your Committee on Governmental Accountability and Fiscal Oversight, to which was referred SS No. 3 for SB 1, begs leave to report that it has considered the same and recommends that the bill do pass.
THIRD READING OF SENATE BILLS
SS No. 3 for SB 1, introduced by Senator Hegeman, entitled:
SENATE SUBSTITUTE NO. 3 FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 1An Act to repeal sections 190.839, 198.439, 208.152, 208.437, 208.480, 338.550, and 633.401, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof seven new sections relating to MO HealthNet. Was taken up.
On motion of Senator Hegeman, SS No. 3 for SB 1 was read the 3rd time and passed by the following vote:
YEAS—Senators
Arthur Bean Beck Bernskoetter Brown Cierpiot Crawford
Eigel Eslinger Gannon Hegeman Hough Luetkemeyer May
Mosley O’Laughlin Razer Rehder Riddle Rizzo Roberts
Rowden Schatz Schupp Washington White Wieland Williams—28NAYS—Senators
Brattin Burlison Koenig Moon Onder—5Absent—Senators—None
Absent with leave—Senator Hoskins—1
Vacancies—NoneThe President declared the bill passed.
On motion of Senator Hegeman, title to the bill was agreed to.
Senator Hegeman moved that the vote by which the bill passed be reconsidered.
Senator Rowden moved that motion lay on the table, which motion prevailed.
[….]
Denny Hoskins (r) [2016 file photo].
Previously:
“The buck stops…somewhere over there” (June 22, 2021)
On the mark (June 22, 2021)
Now what? (June 22, 2021)
Denny Hoskins (r): sleeping through school as an aspirational model for life (June 23, 2021)
If you take the health care out of Medicaid, is it still Medicaid? (June 25, 2021)
If you take the health care out of Medicaid, is it still Medicaid?
25 Friday Jun 2021
Posted in Missouri General Assembly, social media
Tags
Federal Reimbursement Allowance, FRA, General Assembly, Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Medicaid, missouri, Special Session
Uh, no.
During the latest regular legislative session the right wingnut controlled Missouri General Assembly failed to continue the legislation enabling the previously non-controversial Federal Reimbursement Allowance [FRA] program for Missouri.
There is a looming deadline for legislation to implement the program before it impacts Medicaid and forces cuts in other general revenue funded areas.
Governor Mike Parson (r) called a special session of the General Assembly in attempt to deal with the mess. The General Assembly is now in that special session.
The Red Lily, Anatole France
…For the poor it consists in sustaining and preserving the wealthy in their power and their laziness. The poor must work for this, in presence of the majestic quality of the law which prohibits the wealthy as well as the poor from sleeping under the bridges, from begging in the streets, and from stealing bread…
Representative Mary Elizabeth Coleman (r) [2019 file photo].
Today:
MaryElizabethColeman @meaccoleman
For the record. No one is talking about banning contraception. There is discussion about tax payers NOT buying them. I can’t imagine there is anything the left doesn’t want the government to pay for.
10:26 AM · Jun 25, 2021
Some of the responses:
For the record, you cannot stop the Government from paying for healthcare, including Birth Control. This is all a scam on pro life voters.
Also for the record, birth control, by far, the best way to prevent abortions & is extremely cost effective for the gov’t; saves huge $$.
Birth control is a mandatory medical service under Mo Health net, as funded by Federal Medicaid $$.
What’s next? Republicans decide taxpayers shouldn’t pay for insulin? Blood pressure meds? Where does this stop?
Actually, they want nothing at all.
What’s next is other meds/conditions that only impact women. The goal is to subjugate women. No medical necessary hysterectomies, no mammograms, no Pap smears. Republicans will keep trying to control women.
For the record, it’s just that we understand basic economics: Birth control is cheaper than unplanned kids.
How does “only” banning it for people only on Medicaid make what you’re saying any better?
You want taxpayers to shoulder the burden of lawsuits that will arise when police in our state try to enforce federal gun laws, get sued for it, and then sue the state in return.
Likewise, your contempt for most life is readily apparent in your desire to milk as many pregnancies out of low-income women as possible and then callously ignore the healthcare needs of both them and their babies. Single moms can only make $3000 to qualify for Medicaid as is 1/2
2/2 and you would deny them even that unless your bizarre and unfounded grudge against contraception is made into a law that will never be viable anyway. You are running for State Senate on phony pro-life gesturing.
For the record the issue is the RIGHT trying to remove common medical care coverage in place for decades essentially banning covered contraceptive care & medication used to treat endometriosis. I can’t imagine there’s any reproductive healthcare the RIGHT would willingly pay for.
Every single study shows the countries with the fewest abortions are those that provide taxpayer funded healthcare with a broad range of contraceptive options. You’re anti-abortion? Covering contraceptives & providing great pre-natal care is the way to achieve this.
Meanwhile, we are NOW, because of the obstinance of THE RIGHT, talking about no Medicaid coverage at all. Who does that hurt? Mother’s, children, and you know what? It hurts YOU the taxpayer. Missouri insurance plans go up. Hospital bills go up. Our tax $ doesn’t go as far.
So, Mary Elizabeth, don’t even begin to come at THE LEFT when 89% of all Americans approves of birth control, even Catholics use birth control, and the taxpayers at large are THRILLED to pay this fractional amount to cover this form of healthcare.
Birth control is healthcare. I pay for yours if you choose/need so. And I don’t quibble over what’s covered or not. Same for someone on Medicaid. Every woman deserves that right to make those healthcare decisions.
Mary doesn’t want to share that she and her family want full access to all of these services and privacy to make those decisions but ultimately her goal is to take that right from Missouri women. We see your long game Coleman and we call BS.
Also I can pretty much guarantee that “the left” doesn’t want a single penny of Missouri revenue going to make the state a theocracy
Nice try. When you can’t afford something, you can’t access it. It’s a ban on contraception. Your party needs to stop treating Americans like dumb-dumbs.
This logic she is playing here is absolutely dangerous. Coleman knows better. This logic can be used as to ban other medical options and treatment plans. This is not limited government. This is a violation of people’s freedom to a safe and healthy life.
You’re an embarrassment
For the record you are narrow minded and short sighted.
Previously:
Now what? (June 22, 2021)