#037 | The Speaker is Not In the House
All of the top stories 📰 of the week to keep you in the know
It’s Meseidy is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber.
It’s FRIDAY, October 6! YAY
This week’s stories:
The Unseating of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and What Lies Ahead
Donald Trump's High-Stakes Civil Fraud Trial
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Announce Independent Run for 2024 Presidential Race: A Game-Changer in American Politics?
AGAAVE-Other: The FBI's New Classification Donald Trump Supporters
Wall of Hypocrisy: Biden's Border Reversal Exposes Political Expediency Over National Security
Hunter Biden from Plea Deal to Not Guilty
Paid Subscriber | I’ve got to say…
From 'Deplorables' to 'Deprogrammables': Hillary’s New Vision for Trump Supporters
The Hideaway Hubbub: A Tale of Retribution and Political Karma on Capitol Hill
In Case You Missed It
The Unseating of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and What Lies Ahead
In a week filled with intense political maneuvering in the House of Representatives, Speaker Kevin McCarthy faced a historic event – his removal from office, an action orchestrated by members of his own party. This significant political shift can be traced back to McCarthy's earlier concession on a motion to vacate rules in January, which ultimately led to his ousting.
The Buildup to McCarthy's Removal
McCarthy's position seemed precarious from the beginning when he conceded on the motion to vacate rules in January. This move, presented as an attempt to bridge differences within his party, ironically planted the seeds of his downfall. The motion to vacate is a procedural tool that can be used to remove a sitting Speaker. McCarthy's concession made it a viable option for his detractors within the GOP ranks.
The Climactic Vote
The tension peaked in a vote that saw McCarthy ousted amidst an internal party feud, the final count reading 216 to 210 against him. The Freedom Caucus, led by figures such as Rep. Matt Gaetz, opposed McCarthy's leadership and advocated for a change that better matched the conservative agenda.
Post-Ouster Dynamics
The upheaval paved the way for Rep. Patrick McHenry to step in as Speaker Pro Tempore, a rarely necessitated interim position. At the same time, the GOP scrambled to find a more permanent replacement. McHenry called a recess, and the House is not expected to reconvene until next week.
The Race for the Speaker's Gavel
The vacuum left by McCarthy has spurred a rush among House members vying for the Speaker’s position. The candidates span a spectrum of political ideologies and experience within the Republican party. Among the contenders are:
Jim Jordan: Known for his fervent loyalty to former President Trump and his confrontational style, particularly during the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.
Steve Scalise: The seasoned lawmaker from Louisiana, long considered McCarthy's heir apparent, has formally announced his candidacy despite health concerns.
Kevin Hern, Tom Emmer, and Tom Cole: These figures have emerged as potential candidates, each with unique strengths and political orientations, signaling a wide-open race.
Patrick McHenry: Although currently the acting Speaker, McHenry has expressed reluctance in taking up the mantle permanently, albeit supporters might push him towards it.
Jim Jordan's name has emerged as a favorite among GOP hardliners, highlighting the divide within the party and the struggle for a unified front moving toward the 2024 elections.
Trump's Reaction
Former President Donald Trump is contemplating visiting Capitol Hill amid GOP discussions about the next House Speaker following Kevin McCarthy's removal. This visit, which would be Trump's first since leaving office and since the Capitol incident on January 6, 2021, is seen by some as a potential move toward an interim Speaker position. However, sources suggest that his visit is aimed at engaging with Republican lawmakers rather than self-promotion for the Speaker role. On Thursday evening, Fox News reported that Trump was open to temporarily becoming the Speaker of the House of Representatives, aiming to bring unity to the Republican Party while awaiting a decision on the permanent leadership position within Congress. Trump is expected to participate in a closed-door candidate forum before a possible speakership vote on Wednesday.
Pelosi's Eviction from Capitol Hideaway
In a dramatic extension of the power shift, McHenry ordered former Speaker Nancy Pelosi to vacate her Capitol hideaway office. This move reclaims the space for official speaker office use, symbolically signaling the end of Pelosi's era and the start of a new chapter in House leadership dynamics.
McCarthy Holds Pelosi and Democrats Responsible for His Removal
McCarthy points the finger at Democrats for his removal as Speaker. He argues that they should have backed his continued leadership for the sake of institutional stability.
According to McCarthy, he spoke with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the period when he was working to secure enough votes for his Speaker candidacy. McCarthy asserts that Pelosi had pledged her support if he faced a motion to vacate.
McCarthy says that, by aligning with Gaetz and fellow Republicans, Democrats prioritized political maneuvering over the institution's integrity.
Conclusion
The ongoing drama in the House reflects the broader ideological battle within the GOP. This conflict is bound to have a lasting impact as the party charts its course for the 2024 elections. The internal struggles within the GOP are reshaping its leadership and establishing a precedent that could profoundly influence the nation's political landscape in the lead-up to the next election cycle.
News of the Week
AGAAVE-Other: The FBI's New Classification Donald Trump Supporters
As the 2024 U.S. presidential election draws near, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) finds itself in the spotlight, grappling with a situation it created. Newsweek reports that in October 2022, the agency introduced a new subcategory called "AGAAVE-Other." This new classification aims to focus on domestic violent extremists with anti-government or anti-authority motivations. However, a closer look reveals a more complex story.
The term "AGAAVE-Other," though seemingly harmless, signifies a troubling path the FBI might be heading down. It raises concerns about potential surveillance of American citizens based on their political affiliations. While the official stance claims non-partisanship, the practical implications could be quite different.
This narrative suggests that this classification might serve as a convenient cover for monitoring individuals, especially those associated with former President Trump's MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement. This revelation is troubling as it implies the potential use of government resources to surveil citizens based on their political beliefs, rather than clear criminal intentions or actions.
In its mission to prevent domestic terrorism, the FBI must uphold the constitutional rights at the heart of American democracy. Yet, with "AGAAVE-Other," the agency blurs the line between legitimate scrutiny and political surveillance. This is a significant concern as it infringes upon the fundamental democratic principle of freedom of political expression.
Moreover, the discussion surrounding domestic terrorism lacks clarity and consensus on what qualifies as terrorism within the United States. The blending of political dissent with domestic terrorism is a slippery slope that could stifle the essential political discourse vital for a healthy democracy.
The debate about the FBI's new classification goes beyond semantics; it exposes deeper systemic issues. It paints a picture where the agency, tasked with maintaining law and order, might become entangled in political surveillance, undermining the democratic values it is mandated to protect.
As the nation approaches the 2024 election, the introduction of "AGAAVE-Other" casts doubt on the FBI's role in politics and whether its actions align with the democratic principles that underpin American society.
What are you thoughts? Is this a good idea but needs oversight or politically motivated and the FBI will abuse?
Donald Trump's High-Stakes Civil Fraud Trial
The ongoing civil fraud trial of former President Donald Trump is making headlines as it enters its fourth day this week. At the heart of the trial are allegations that Trump and the Trump Organization significantly inflated the values of their assets, among other claims. These allegations are currently under scrutiny in a Manhattan courtroom with Justice Arthur Engoron presiding.
New York Attorney General Letitia James initiated the lawsuit, seeking a substantial $250 million in damages and aiming to prevent Trump from conducting future business in the state of New York. This legal action is part of a broader narrative accusing Trump and his associates of persistent fraudulent activities, which had previously resulted in Trump being found liable for fraud in a previous ruling.
The courtroom proceedings are not just about legal arguments and evidence presentations; they've also seen some dramatic moments. For example, the judge imposed a gag order on Trump and others involved in the case after a specific outburst, highlighting the tensions surrounding this high-profile trial.
The prosecution argues that Trump's fraudulent activities allowed him to amass over $100 million. This allegation is part of the broader accusation that Trump routinely submitted false and misleading financial statements. On the other side, the defense portrays these allegations as politically motivated attacks led by a Democratic Attorney General.
While the exact duration of the trial remains uncertain, it is speculated to go into next year. This is a high stakes trial not only for Trump but also for the broader political landscape. A guilty verdict could have far-reaching consequences, including a substantial financial setback for Trump and the Trump Organization, as well as potential restrictions on Trump's business activities in New York.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Announce Independent Run for 2024 Presidential Race: A Game-Changer in American Politics?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent figure from the well-known Kennedy political dynasty, is entering the 2024 presidential race, but not in the way you might expect. He's gained recognition for his passionate stance against vaccines and is now diverging from his Democratic roots to run as an independent candidate. On October 9, during a rally in Pennsylvania, he's expected to officially announce his presidential aspirations.
Kennedy Jr.'s dissatisfaction with the Democratic establishment isn't a recent development. He's been vocal about his discontent, especially regarding the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which he believes has veered away from its original principles. In an open letter, he criticized what he saw as irregularities in the DNC's primary system, hinting at a departure from the party's core values and suggesting it has "gone off track." A campaign insider says, “Bobby feels that the DNC is changing the rules to exclude his candidacy, so an independent run is the only way to go.”
His decision to run as an independent carries significant implications for the broader political landscape of the 2024 election. As an independent candidate, Kennedy Jr. has the potential to draw votes away from both Democratic and Republican contenders. This move towards independent candidacy could disrupt the traditional two-party system in a way not seen in recent elections.
Kennedy Jr.'s transition from a Democrat to an independent is another example of the larger trend of disenchantment and the search for political authenticity beyond established party boundaries. His independent campaign, driven by a sense of discord with the DNC and a commitment to addressing overlooked issues, is an example of a moment in American politics where traditional loyalties are being reassessed.
Does RFK, Jr. change your vote? Do you think it will benefit Trump or Biden more for RFK, Jr. to run as an Independent?
Wall of Hypocrisy: Biden's Border Reversal Exposes Political Expediency Over National Security
The Biden administration's recent about-face on border wall construction has unveiled a glaring hypocrisy that's hard to overlook. After spending the bulk of his campaign and early presidency vehemently criticizing his Trump’s border wall strategy, Biden now finds himself in a position where his administration is not just endorsing, but actively resuming the very policy he once denounced.
Biden campaigned on the promise that no more border wall would be constructed during his administration, recently addressed this issue during a White House press briefing saying that the legal bindings of the 2019 appropriations by the Trump administration left him with no choice but to utilize the funds as originally designated. He stated, "I tried to get them to reappropriate, to redirect that money," but was met with resistance, adding, "They didn't. They wouldn't. And in the meantime, there's nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what it was appropriated. I can't stop that.”
However this does not explain the dramatic change of heart, orchestrated by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who waived 26 federal laws to expedite border wall construction in South Texas. Some of the laws waived include the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act, something enviromental activists are not too please about. Biden defended this decision, citing the dire need to curb illegal migration from Mexico as the principal reason behind it.
The motivation behind this reversal isn't hard to decipher. The lax border policies championed by Biden since day one have paved the way for an unprecedented influx of illegal migrants, a crisis that has now started to affect Democrat-led cities like New York City and Chicago. The "acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers," as put by Secretary Mayorkas, is a clear acknowledgment of a failed border strategy, one that ignored the necessity of a physical barrier in ensuring national security.
It's almost comedic how the narrative has shifted from vilifying wall construction to now embracing it as a solution to the border crisis that has spiraled out of control under Biden's watch. The previous halt in construction led to a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars, with over $100 million in border wall materials discarded in Texas alone. Not to mention, the administration's decision to divert $2.2 billion from border wall funding to other projects while the border crisis worsened, demonstrates a level of policy mismanagement that's hard to justify.
As border states like Texas took matters into their own hands to continue wall construction amid federal inaction, the Biden administration seemed more interested in undoing Trump's policies than in addressing the urgent border security issues. The recent actions to resume wall construction come off as too little, too late, and driven more by political pressure and the adverse effects on Democrat-leaning cities, rather than a genuine concern for national security and the rule of law.
In a landscape where consistency and principled decision-making should be the hallmark of any administration, the flip-flop on border wall construction by the Biden administration reveals a troubling willingness to bow to political expediency over maintaining a secure and sovereign border.
What say you? Is Biden doing this only because it’s an election season and blue cities are not being effected? Are you just happy that something is being done? Have you seen the effects of the open border where you live?
Hunter Biden from Plea Deal to Not Guilty
Hunter Biden, embroiled in federal gun charges, has made a tactical shift in his legal stance, now pleading not guilty. Initially, Biden was set to plead guilty as part of a plea deal. The deal would have had Biden admitting to two tax misdemeanor charges, thereby avoiding incarceration tied to a separate illegal gun possession charge. However, this agreement failed to hold, prompting Biden to switch his plea to not guilty concerning the accusations of false statements regarding his drug addiction when he purchased a gun in 2018.
The hiccup in the plea deal came to light when the presiding judge, a Trump appointee, voiced reservations regarding the clarity on the spectrum of charges the Department of Justice could impose on Biden down the line. Although the legal representatives agreed to confine the plea deal to the tax and gun charges, they left a window open for potential future charges. Despite these modifications, the judge demanded more insights into the plea deal's framework, leading to a temporary disintegration of the agreement.
Following the plea change, federal prosecutors moved to indict Biden on the gun charges, marking a pivotal point in this legal saga. Now, if convicted, Biden stares down the barrel of a maximum 25-year prison term alongside fines that could escalate to $750,000.
Upon Biden's not guilty plea, the judge delineated the terms of his release. These terms reportedly encompassed supervision by a U.S. probation officer within the Central District of California, securing employment, and abstaining from drugs or alcohol use.
The legal gears continue to turn as the courtroom drama unfolds with the deadline for pretrial motions now marked for November 3, setting the stage for the subsequent legal maneuvers in this high-profile case.
NEW! The news is crazy and sometimes a little humor and sarcasm makes the medicine go down easier. Friday News Bites subscriber-only "I’ve got to say…" section. No fluff, no spin—just my uncensored take on what is happening in the news. Trust me, you won't want to miss it. 😜 (Yes, I changed the name. A girl can change her mind.)
Hit the button get a discount. 😘
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to It's Meseidy to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.