"Where you can find almost anything with A Click A Pick!"
Go to content

"Seeking liberty and truth above suppression and mendacity!"
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech," said Benjamin Franklin. Everyone has an opinion and the right to speak that opinion our forefathers granted us that right it is called the First Amendment. Read it then discuss it in the Forums.

Mitch McConnell (aka Moscow Mitch) Helping Russia More Than America

Moscow Mitch has done more to help Russia than he has done to help America. Instead of Mitch McConnell, doing his job to help Americans during the great recession his focus was to make Obama a one-term president. Mitch McConnell did his best to obstruct Obama during the great recession at the expense of everyday Americans. Instead of trying to help Americans, he wanted to prevent Obama from accomplishing anything even if meant harming Americans. If McConnell were a real American, he would put aside any difference with Obama and worked with him for the American people. McConnell made up a lie to steal Obama Supreme Court pick can you say coup d’état. Now under the same set of circumstances he would fill a Supreme Court opening can you say hypocrite. When Obama wanted come out with joint statement on Russian interference instead of doing the right thing Moscow Mitch said no and threatened to use it against Obama, which would have caused confusing during the 1026 elections. We know Moscow Mitch knew about Russian interference during the 2016 election so why does he keep preventing election security bills from passing. Moscow Mitch has done nothing to prevent Russian hacking of the 2020 election and it does not appear he plans to do so. We elect our representatives to protect us from our enemies both foreign and domestic Moscow Mitch refuses to protect us from both. Read below to find out more about Moscow Mitch. #moscowmitch, #massacremitch  

By Savannah Eadens, Louisville Courier Journal
Sen. Mitch McConnell published a blistering rebuke of the Trump administration's decision to pull military forces out of Syria. In a Washington Post op-ed published Friday afternoon, McConnell, R-Ky., explained the three lessons he's learned while working with three different administrations since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "Lesson No. 1.," he wrote, is that the "threat is real and cannot be wished away." "These fanatics threaten American interests and American lives. If permitted to regroup and establish havens, they will bring terror to our shores," he said. The second lesson, he said, is the importance of American leadership. "No other nation can match our capability to spearhead multinational campaigns that can defeat terrorists and help stabilize the region. Libya and Syria both testify to the bloody results of the Obama administration’s 'leading from behind,'" McConnell wrote. The third lesson, he said, is that the U.S. is not alone in the fight against the Islamic State and the Taliban — and that Syria had been a model for the "successful approach" of contributing "limited, specialized capabilities that enable our local partners to succeed." "Unfortunately, the administration’s recent steps in Syria do not reflect these crucial lessons," McConnell wrote.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday he is backing a measure to improve election security after Senate Democrats slammed him for blocking bipartisan election security legislation. The amendment to an appropriations package would provide an additional $250 million to the Trump administration to assist states with improving their voting systems and preventing foreign interference. “I am proud to have helped develop this amendment and to co-sponsor it in committee,” McConnell said on the floor. McConnell has previously supported addressing election security through appropriations. McConnell added that the amendment brings the total funding for election security to $600 million since fiscal year 2018.

McConnell doesn’t like his “Moscow Mitch” nickname, but these latest revelations might make it difficult to shed
By Travis Gettys
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked a measure that would have funded pensions and health care for coal miners in his home state of Kentucky, not long after steering almost the same Treasury Department funds to an aluminum plant linked to a Russian oligarch. The Kentucky Republican doesn’t like the “Moscow Mitch” nickname that’s been stuck to him, but these latest revelations might make it difficult to shed, reported The Daily Beast. McConell voted in January to lift sanctions on Rusal, a Russian aluminum company formerly headed by Putin ally Oleg Deripaska, and just days after the Treasury Department officially de-listed the company — it announced a $200 million investment in an aluminum plant in northeastern Kentucky. Democrats have raised questions about how much McConnell knew about the investment before he voted to lift sanctions, but a Braidy Industries spokesperson told The Daily Beast the company never lobbied Congress about sanctions, and said no employee or director of the company ever spoke to McConell about Rusal, the only outside investor in the plant. But, the website reported, McConnell’s connection to the Rusal-Braidy deal is deeper than previously understood. While Rusal was lobbying the Trump administration to remove sanctions, the Kentucky Republican was pushing for federal funds to be used to help build the Braidy plant near Ashland, back in his home state. The federal government has been giving Appalachian states millions of dollars since 2016 to help clean up abandoned coal mining land, and to assist in economic development there. But McConnell and other Kentucky lawmakers, including Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY), helped steer $4 million away from sewer and road repair in October 2018 to preparing for construction on the aluminum plant.

The Senate majority leader worked to keep money out of Kentucky coal miners’ hands—even as he maneuvered to steer federal cash to an aluminum plant connected to a Putin ally.
By Erin Banco
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last month blocked a measure that would have used Treasury Department funds marked for Appalachian development to help pay for coal miners’ health care and pensions in his home state of Kentucky. But just a few months earlier, McConnell successfully steered near-identical Treasury funds for Appalachia to bankroll a Kentucky aluminum plant connected to an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Democrats on Capitol Hill have raised concerns for months about McConnell’s connection to the aluminum plant. It’s one of several reasons why McConnell’s political opponents have tried to stick him with the nickname “Moscow Mitch.” But what’s gone largely unnoticed as the sobriquet has become a social media trending topic is how McConnell worked to keep money out of coal miners’ hands—even as he maneuvered to steer federal funds to the Russian-linked plant. The scrutiny started in January, when McConnell voted to lift sanctions on Rusal, a Russian aluminum company formerly headed by Putin ally Oleg Deripaska, despite several of his Republican colleagues defecting and voting no. Rusal’s de-listing caused an uproar among Democrats on Capitol Hill who viewed the deal the Treasury Department put together with Rusal as too lenient. Then, in April, the focus turned to McConnell. Just days after the Treasury Department announced the official de-listing of Rusal, the company announced a $200 million investment in the Braidy Industries aluminum plant in the northeastern part of Kentucky. Democrats raised questions about how much McConnell knew about Rusal’s investment plan before he voted for sanctions relief. Rusal is the only outside investor in the plant. In a statement to The Daily Beast, a Braidy Industries spokesperson said the company has never lobbied members of Congress on sanctions issues and began working with law firm Akin Gump in May 2019 for “general government relations representation.” The spokesperson also said no employee or director of the company has ever spoken to McConnell about Rusal. But McConnell’s connection to the Rusal-Braidy aluminum plant is deeper than previously understood. At the same time Rusal was lobbying the Trump administration to get off the U.S. sanctions list, McConnell was advocating for federal funds to be diverted to help with construction of the Braidy plant in Kentucky.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is denying that he knew a project in his home state would benefit from the U.S. ending sanctions against a Russian oligarch. In January, nearly a dozen Republicans broke away from McConnell and joined Democrats in voting to block the Trump administration from lifting sanctions on companies owned by Oleg Deripaska, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. They didn't reach the 60 votes necessary to advance the resolution, and a few weeks later, the government lifted the sanctions against Deripaska and Rusal, Russia's largest aluminum producer. Three months after that, The Washington Post reports, Rusal announced it was partnering with Braidy Industries on an aluminum-rolling mill in Ashland, Kentucky, with Rusal supplying $200 million in capital for a 40 percent stake in the plant. The night before the Senate voted on lifting sanctions, Braidy Industries' founder, Craig Bouchard, had dinner in Zurich with Rusal's head of sales. Bouchard told the Post they did not discuss the Senate vote, and Braidy Industries did not tell any government officials that lifting sanctions would be beneficial. Rusal's parent company, EN+, told the Post the Kentucky project had nothing to do with its aggressive lobbying to get sanctions dropped, and McConnell's spokesman, David Popp, said McConnell "was not aware of any potential Russian investor before the vote."

By Jordain Carney
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked two election security measures on Thursday, arguing Democrats are trying to give themselves a "political benefit." The move comes a day after former special counsel Robert Mueller warned about election meddling in 2020, saying Russia was laying the groundwork to interfere in the 2020 election "as we sit here." Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) had tried to get consent Thursday to pass a House bill that requires the use of paper ballots and includes funding for the Election Assistance Commission. It passed the House 225-184 with one Republican voting for it. But McConnell objected, saying Schumer was trying to pass “partisan legislation.” “Clearly this request is not a serious effort to make a law. Clearly something so partisan that it only received one single solitary Republican vote in the House is not going to travel through the Senate by unanimous consent,” McConnell said. Under the Senate’s rules any one senator can request consent to pass a bill, but any one senator can object. Schumer argued that if McConnell didn’t like that bill “let’s put another bill on the floor and debate it.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also asked for consent to pass legislation that would require candidates, campaign officials and their family members to notify the FBI of assistance offers from foreign governments. McConnell also objected to that bill. In his testimony before Congress on Wednesday, Mueller warned about continued Russian interference in U.S. elections.

Goldberg shames McConnell for claiming the sins of slavery were repaid by the election of the first black president
By Travis Gettys
Whoopi Goldberg shamed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for claiming the sins of slavery had been repaid with the election of President Barack Obama. McConnell disagreed with reparations for slavery, lynching, discrimination and other racist institutions, saying the Civil War and Obama’s election should be enough — and “The View” host called out his hypocrisy. “You know, Mitch, you said that you would make him a one-term president,” Goldberg said, “and you did everything you could to not help him in the first four years. Maybe you should pay reparations for that.” Goldberg argued that black work and wealth had been stolen for centuries, and she said racism was much bigger than anything President Donald Trump — whose name she never says — and the Republican Party had done. “It’s not them,” she said. “This is much bigger than Trump.”

by Martin Longman
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moved toward using the nuclear option reluctantly, haltingly, and with baby steps that provided plenty of warning. After Barack Obama was elected president but before he was sworn in in January 2009, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell adopted a strategy of total obstruction, declaring his number one priority to be making sure Obama was a one-term president. Throughout 2009 and 2010, McConnell used every available parliamentary trick to slow down the legislative agenda and the confirmation of Obama’s nominees. He was particularly aggressive on nominees for the federal courts. After the shellacking the Democrats took in the 2010 midterms, their majority in the Senate was markedly reduced and McConnell’s ability to obstruct was correspondingly enhanced. In response, in 2011, Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Tom Udall of New Mexico began advocating that Reid use the nuclear option (which they called “the constitutional option”) in order to enact reforms to the filibuster rules. Although Reid opposed their plans, by October 2011, the pressure had grown substantial enough that Reid pushed through a rule change with 51-48 vote. The impact of the change was modest because it only eliminated a post-cloture delaying motion and it only applied to the 2013-14 Congress, but he had changed the rules without a supermajority, thereby technically invoking the nuclear option. In context, however, he had gone nuclear in order to avoid going nuclear. After President Obama disappointed McConnell by winning reelection in 2012, the Democrats began signaling that they would invoke the nuclear option in January 2013. The threat was credible enough to send many Republican senators scurrying into negotiation mode. In bipartisan votes of 78 to 16 and 86 to 9, the Senate rules were changed to curtail “the minority party’s right to filibuster a bill as long as each party has been permitted to present at least two amendments to the bill.” Reid acknowledged that the reforms didn’t go as far as many wanted them to, but tried to sound optimistic, “It is my hope that these reforms will help restore a spirit of comity and bipartisan cooperation.”

by Scott Neuman
Former Vice President Joe Biden says he and President Barack Obama decided not to speak out publicly on Russian interference during the 2016 campaign after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to sign a bipartisan statement condemning the Kremlin's role. Speaking on Tuesday at the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden said the Obama administration sought a united front to dispel concerns that going public with such accusations would be seen as an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the election. However, McConnell "wanted no part of having a bipartisan commitment saying, essentially, 'Russia's doing this. Stop,' " he said. At that point, Biden added, he felt that "the die had been cast" and that "this was all about the political play." "Can you imagine if the president called a press conference in October, with this fella, Bannon, and company, and said, 'Tell you what: Russians are trying to interfere in our elections and we have to do something about it,' " he said. "Would things have gotten better, or would it further look like we were trying to de-legitimize the electoral process, because of our opponent?" "Had we known what we knew three weeks later, we may have done something more," Biden added. McConnell's office disputed Biden's account, as reported by Politico, "pointing to a letter signed by all four congressional leaders in September 2016 and sent to the president of the National Association of State Election Directors, urging cybersecurity precautions in light of reports of attempted hacking." "That missive, however, did not address Russia specifically, or the larger topic of influence beyond voting systems," Politico writes. The former vice president's account echoes reporting that first appeared in The Washington Post in June describing a meeting that occurred the same month between Obama's Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, then-FBI Director James Comey, Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco and 12 key members of Congress. In the meeting, the Post reports:

There is no low to which the senate majority leader won’t stoop in pursuit of his right-wing takeover of the American judiciary.
What a difference two years makes. In 2016, the Republican senate majority leader Mitch McConnell was all about letting the voice of the American people be heard, before the Senate would dream of making so important a decision as nominating a judge to the US Supreme Court. When Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia died in May 2016, six months before the election, McConnell made it clear that allowing Obama to nominate a successor, as was his constitutional right as president, was a total non-starter. His party refused even to give the eminently qualified judge Obama nominated, Merrick Garland, a hearing; the seat was eventually filled by Donald Trump, whose nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate last year. In 2016, McConnell boasted to a crowd in his home state: “One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy’.” In the Senate chamber on Monday appeared a completely different McConnell. Now, it was the Democrats who were the ones being obstructionist. “They’re committed to delaying, obstructing, and resisting this nomination with everything they’ve got,” he said. “They just want to delay this matter past the election.” Word for word, it was an exact description of McConnell’s own behaviour with regard to all of Obama’s judicial nominees, including his last Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland. The FBI is currently investigating allegations of sexual assault against Trump’s nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, at the request of the White House, an investigation which came after Republican senator Jeff Flake, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, made it a condition of his vote to move Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Senate floor.

By Ewan Palmer
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is receiving criticism in the wake of two mass shootings within less than 24 hours over his apparent failure to help impose stricter gun control laws. More than 120,000 tweets have been sent using the #MassacreMitch hashtag after at least 20 people were killed at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, and a further nine people killed in a shooting around 13 hours later in Dayton, Ohio. Many Twitter users expressed their anger towards McConnell for blocking a Senate vote on a bill passed by the House of Representatives in February which would require full background checks to be run against every person who wishes to purchase a gun. Others also accused McConnell of costing people's lives by pandering to the NRA due to the donations he and the Republican party receive from the lobbying group. It is the second time in a matter of days that a McConnell-related hashtag has trended on Twitter. Tens of thousands of people used the "Moscow Mitch" hashtag after the Kentucky senator blocked a set of election security bills.  

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should explain why he blocked a bipartisan denunciation of Russian interference in our election before voters went to the polls.Americans deserve to hear why McConnell did not trust them with the evidence that he and 11 other congressional leaders received in a confidential briefing in September. The Washington Post reports that during that briefing McConnell “made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.” McConnell also questioned the veracity of the intelligence, according to the Post, based on information from unidentified officials present at the September briefing. On Monday, McConnell said he had the “highest confidence” in U.S. intelligence agencies. But McConnell would not answer reporters’ questions about the Post’s account. He passed up the opportunity to deny that he torpedoed the administration’s request for a bipartisan pre-election statement calling out the Russians. Now McConnell and other Republicans are saying the integrity of our elections is too important for partisanship. But before the election McConnell appears to have put partisan concerns first. It’s impossible to say whether the outcome would have changed if Republicans and Democrats in Congress had united to publicly rebuke Russia. There was plenty of information out about Russians hacking the Democratic National Committee and a couple of state election offices. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued an election security statement on Oct. 7 urging “state and local election officials to be vigilant and seek cybersecurity assistance from DHS.” It also was clear that Russian President Vladimir Putin preferred Republican Donald Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton, whom he blamed for public protests against him in Russia. Trump probably would have won and the Republicans probably would have held the Senate even if Congress had denounced Russia before the election. Now McConnell’s pre-election move to obscure Russian interference will weaken Trump’s standing as president, an office he won by the thinnest of margins. McConnell’s action, which if anything helped Trump, also clouds Trump’s nomination of Elaine Chao, McConnell’s wife, as transportation secretary.

By Eric Black
MinnPost readers are smart and well-informed and I often benefit from reading the comment threads under my posts. This morning’s post mocked a certain current POTUS about a recent attack by the Trump political operation blaming former President Barack Obama for allowing the Russians to influence the 2016 election in favor of well – that same current POTUS. This is not a joke. See the Black Ink post of this morning, I had forgotten the details about whether and why Obama might have done such a thing. But in reading the comments just now, I got a reminder, which I’m hereby passing along for the benefit of those who may not read the discussion threads. President Obama had intelligence indicating that Russia was using various efforts to help Donald Trump win. He wanted to make it public, but was concerned that, as a Democrat himself but also the POTUS and the most important recipient of such intelligence, it would look partisan and unseemly to make the intelligence finding public unless he had backing to do so from congressional leaders of both parties.

WASHINGTON — The Senate's Republican leader has a simple postelection message for President Barack Obama: Move toward the GOP or get no help from its lawmakers. Two days after Republicans scored big victories in congressional elections, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday offered an aggressive assessment of the results, calling for votes to erode the reach of the health care law that was a signature of the Obama administration. "That means that we can — and should — propose and vote on straight repeal, repeatedly," McConnell said. McConnell's remarks, in a speech delivered to the conservative Heritage Foundation, acknowledged that Obama would veto such legislation, which probably would be blocked by the president's fellow Democrats in the Senate anyway. He said the only way Republicans in Congress can achieve their goals is "to put someone in the White House who won't veto" a repeal of Obama's health care reform, spending cuts and shrinking the government. More realistically, McConnell said Republicans, who will hold a majority in next year's House of Representatives, should aim to hobble the healthcare law by "denying funds for implementation" of the measure. Annual spending bills for agencies, including ones that implement the healthcare law, are normally written first in the House. McConnell said the results of the midterms were not about Republicans but instead about Democrats, who he said got an "F." He said he expects Democrats will begin peeling off of their base to start supporting GOP initiatives.

If Republicans take the House as anticipated on election night, voters can expect to hear the customary talk about coming together with Democrats for the good of the country. President Barack Obama inevitably will extend a hand across the aisle as well.  But that’s Tuesday. Right now, the tone is a lot different — with Republicans pledging to embrace an agenda for the next two years that sounds a lot like their agenda for the past two: Block Obama at all costs. And even Obama’s pre-election appeals to cooperation are wrapped in an I’m-still-the-president tone that suggests that Americans will be looking at two opposing camps glaring at each other across the barricades — gridlock all around. Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Obama frequently reminds voters he believes all the delay in Washington this year is the Republicans’ fault. “So I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to change their minds going forward, because putting the American people back to work, boosting our small businesses, rebuilding the economic security of the middle class, these are big national challenges. And we’ve all got a stake in solving them. And it’s not going to be enough just to play politics. You can’t just focus on the next election. You’ve got to focus on the next generation,” Obama said a recent event in Rhode Island.

Back to content