congress.ot today, members of the committee wereto repeatedly asked about whetherwe they were worried abo the precedent that this could set and the potential for retaliation in the event that republicans takere over the hou in november. hereho was maryland congressman jamie raskin s response. this is almost unprecedented step, this is rare for members to subpoena sitting members. what do you say about what that does to the broader workings of the constitution? well, an attempted coup and a violent insurrection at the capitolti interrupts the peacef transfer of power are unprecedented events and some people have asked, does this set precedent for the issuance of subpoenast for members of in the future, if there areco coups and insurrections, d i suppose that it does. a lot of questions, unfortunately, my first guest is thert perfect person to answer them. the aforementioned maryland congressman member of the
0 they ll be no reluctance on our. part at that time, the chairman committee, the chairman the garage was reluctant to issue subpoenas. i doubted, thompson told the associated press. there s no precedent to force that compliance. but, in the months since, revelations have come to life. ce revelations have come to life. because after conducting nearly a thousand witness interviews and obtaining over 100,000 documents, one thing has become clear, efforts to contest joe biden s election victory were not limited to the white house and a kookie task of sham lawyers and conspiracy theorist, elected republican lawmakers were deepl they were integral to the plan to overturn the election of the 2020 election. a mind boggling 147 house republicans, look at them all, objected tobl certifying presidt biden s victory on january 6th, literally hours after their own workplace was ransacked by a violent mob. but for a smaller core of trump die-hards their involvement went far beyond voting. messages f
by what i heard from justices cavanaugh and barrettvana from those arguments becauseba they both seemed to get it. s gt cavanough i liked his language where he said the court should remain strictly impartial here just scrupulously neutral and not say we re going toy be pro-choice, we re not going be pro-life. we re just going to say let the people decide these issues. justice barrett was talking about, you know, the abilityty give their child up for adoption, how this really shows how far we ve come in our country. we can say whereho they were going to switch. yeah, well, i would i would hope that all the justices would come out and unequivocally condemn these these terroristic acts on the part of activists and say this will not stand and they need to find this leaker or leakers, i should say, out of the out of the supreme court. this can t be thishis difficultd it really wants to be found out. to seewad mike, great you both.nt to thank you . and the left wants youve to avet your eyes
the country s most christian blocks, and that s why african-americans are by far the most reasonable and moderate among the loading blocks of the democratic coalition, by far because they are the most breligious. but they are not in charge of the democratic party. probably unfortunately. the people who are overwhelmingly white and havee degrees from the ivy league. whereho are they? many of them are aggressively anti-christian. may be why they want to force the catholic charities to fund s birth control and catholic hospitals to perform abortions. it s why they spend a decade crusading, hassling chick-fil-a because they donated to a handful of traditional christian charities they thought were immoral. just leave them alone. they couldn t help themselves. they truly hate traditional christianity. it s why some of their lawmakers openly speculate that judges may be ineligible for the supreme court because they believe in god. if you re wondering why they are willing to support this