<Democrat Tom Suozzi on Tuesday won a special election to reclaim his old New York congressional seat that was vacated by disgraced former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y.

Suozzi led Republican Mazi Pilip 54-46 Wednesday morning with nearly all of the votes counted, according to The Associated Press.

Suozzi, a centrist who pushed for tougher border policies and bail laws, won his old seat thanks to a strong showing in Nassau County, where he previously served as the county executive, despite a snowstorm hitting the area on Election Day. The win further cuts the slim House GOP majority to 219-212.

Former President Donald Trump immediately deflected blame for the loss on Pilip, a registered Democrat who holds local office as a Republican and sought to distance herself from Trump before praising him ahead of the election.

“Republicans just don’t learn, but maybe she was still a Democrat? I have an almost 99% Endorsement Success Rate in Primaries, and a very good number in the General Elections, as well, but just watched this very foolish woman, Mazi Melesa Pilip, running in a race where she didn’t endorse me and tried to ‘straddle the fence,’ when she would have easily WON if she understood anything about MODERN DAY politics in America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“MAGA, WHICH IS MOST OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, STAYED HOME - AND IT ALWAYS WILL, UNLESS IT IS TREATED WITH THE RESPECT THAT IT DESERVES. I STAYED OUT OF THE RACE, ‘I WANT TO BE LOVED!’ GIVE US A REAL CANDIDATE IN THE DISTRICT FOR NOVEMBER. SUOZZI, I KNOW HIM WELL, CAN BE EASILY BEATEN!” he added.

CNN analyst Scott Jennings, a Republican strategist, raised concerns that Democrats “crushed” Republicans in early voting in the district while the majority of GOP voters had to face a snowstorm on the day of the election.

“A big part of it is the Republican Party remains resistant to getting votes in the bank,” Jennings complained after Trump and his allies repeatedly attacked early voting in 2020.

“Who could have possibly given the Republicans the idea that it’s not a good idea?” asked anchor Anderson Cooper.

“Who could have given you such a stupid strategy?” pundit Van Jones interjected. “I’m just trying to think to myself, is there someone who’s just a perpetual loser, who loses over and over again, who also has a losing strategy when it comes to not voting early? Do you have, sir, any idea?”

CNN anchor Dana Bash reported that several voters said to her on Election Day “that they don’t want to vote for the Republican because it’s clearly impossible to get a solution on the issue of immigration” after the party tanked a bipartisan border bill last week amid pressure from Trump.

“The fact that Republicans killed that bipartisan deal put them over the edge to vote for Tom Suozzi,” Bash said.

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough agreed that Trump’s pressure to kill the bipartisan deal hurt the GOP in a race where the border was a top issue.

"Tom Suozzi was on the defensive on the issue of immigration until that happened, and when that happened, when Donald Trump killed the bill, the reporters up there say, the entire issue turned on its head. Suozzi leaned into it and won on the issue of immigration. Stop for a second, listen to what I just said: A Democrat won on the issue of immigration,” Scarborough said.

"Republicans lose again – 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, last night, and they aren't just losing because the stars are aligned against them," he added. "They're losing because one self-inflicted Trump wound after another. This is just the latest chapter and verse of that.">

Gawdam, there's that <early voting> thing maggats love to hate, come back to bite them in the fundament!!

< A conservative group has told a Georgia judge that it doesn't have evidence to support its claims of illegal ballot stuffing during the 2020 general election and a runoff two months later.

Texas-based True the Vote filed complaints with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in 2021, including one in which it said it had obtained “a detailed account of coordinated efforts to collect and deposit ballots in drop boxes across metro Atlanta” during the November 2020 election and a January 2021 runoff.

A Fulton County Superior Court judge in Atlanta signed an order last year requiring True the Vote to provide evidence it had collected, including the names of people who were sources of information, to state elections officials who were frustrated by the group's refusal to share evidence with investigators.

In their written response, attorneys for True the Vote said the group had no names or other documentary evidence to share.

“Once again, True the Vote has proven itself untrustworthy and unable to provide a shred of evidence for a single one of their fairy-tale allegations," Raffensperger spokesman Mike Hassinger said Wednesday. "Like all the lies about Georgia’s 2020 election, their fabricated claims of ballot harvesting have been repeatedly debunked.”

True the Vote’s assertions were relied upon heavily for “2000 Mules,” a widely debunked film by conservative pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza. A State Election Board investigation found that surveillance camera footage that the film claimed showed ballot stuffing actually showed people submitting ballots for themselves and family members who lived with them, which is allowed under Georgia law.

The election board subpoenaed True the Vote to provide evidence that would assist it in investigating the group's ballot trafficking allegations.

True the Vote's complaint said its investigators "spoke with several individuals regarding personal knowledge, methods, and organizations involved in ballot trafficking in Georgia.” It said one person, referred to in the complaint only as John Doe, “admitted to personally participating and provided specific information about the ballot trafficking process.”

Frustrated by the group's refusal to share evidence, Georgia officials took it to court last year. A judge ordered True the Vote to turn over names and contact information for anyone who had provided information, as well as any recordings, transcripts, witness statements or other documents supporting its allegations.

The group came up empty-handed despite having “made every additional reasonable effort to locate responsive items,” its attorneys David Oles and Michael Wynne wrote in a Dec. 11 legal filing first reported Wednesday by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

True the Vote's founder and president, Catherine Engelbrecht, didn't immediately respond to an Associated Press email seeking comment Wednesday. She and another member of the group were briefly jailed in 2022 for contempt for not complying with a court order to provide information in a defamation lawsuit. The suit accused True the Vote of falsely claiming that an election software provider stored the personal information of U.S. election workers on an unsecured server in China.

Prior to the State Election Board's investigation, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation looked into True the Vote's assertion that it was able to use surveillance video and geospatial mobile device information to support its allegations. In a September 2021 letter, Vic Reynolds, who was then the GBI's director, said the evidence produced did not amount to proof of ballot harvesting.

State elections officials opened their own investigation after receiving True the Vote's complaint two months later. When pressed to provide names of sources and other documentation, the group last year tried to withdraw its complaint. One of its attorneys wrote that a complete response would require True the Vote to identify people to whom it had promised confidentiality.

The State Election Board refused to shelve the complaint and went to court to force True the Vote to turn over information.

In addition to names, the judge ordered True the Vote to provide copies of any confidentiality agreements it had with sources.

The group's attorneys replied: “TTV has no such documents in its possession, custody, or control.”>

Yet another assertion on a favourite theme of <joshie> and <lyinfred> refuted.

In other words: he's wrong, you're right and you get to slag Carlsen, whom you loathe for some ridiculous reason.

<....It remains shameful of Chess.com to toss out the words "Freestyle" and "GOAT" as part of a tournament name that was not all inclusive while fully promoting ONE player. What if Tata Steel had pulled such a stunt? Let's remember that Vishy Anand won every type of rated chess event that there was during his reign, so MC is not a never-seen-before phenomenon....>

Anything to tear down a great player, the more so cos you were never anything in life, full stop, <nichevofred>.

<....Yes, Peter Leko is a fine analyst of not only the board positions, but of the players' mindsets. Psychological outlook influences one's decisions....>

What would you be knowing on that topic? Next, you'll be regaling us with tales of how life on the team at Baguio or Merano was.

<....puffy - You're still insisting on being the wretch of deliberate mischaracterizations of others. Freestyle Chess GOAT Challenge (2024) (kibitz #54) If you have nothing honest and worthwhile to say, then don't say anything. That of course, will prove to be impossible for one seeking to reach 50,000 superfluous posts....>

<You>, and no-one else, stated that Carlsen 'ducked' Wijk aan Zee.

<....Petrosianic - MC is not going to be classical world champion again. Just forget about that. There's too much money to made playing in shorter, easier gimmicks like this tournament....>

You object, or is it the simple jealousy of one who has failed at everything in life?

<Ted? Ted Bundy seems more your type, being born of an unwed mother in Vermont and all those similarities.>

<Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law and one of his former top White House advisers, defended on Tuesday his business dealings with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after leaving government, despite the Arab leader being accused by the U.S. of involvement in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

"Are we really still doing this?" Kushner said during a live interview at the Axios BFD summit in Miami when he was asked if he believed that the Saudi crown prince was responsible for the killing. "I know the person who I dealt with. I think he's a visionary leader. I think what he's done in that region is transformational," he said.

Khashoggi, a 59-year-old U.S.-based journalist critical of Saudi Arabia's leadership and bin Salman, was killed in a Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on 2 October 2018. A month later, the CIA concluded with high confidence that the Saudi crown prince had ordered the murder of the journalist, defying the Saudi leadership's claims they were not involved in the killing.

Trump, who was president at the time, denied the findings and blocked the release of an unclassified report identifying anyone implicated in the case. Kushner, who had developed ties with the Saudi crown prince during his role at the White House, kept that relationship going after the end of the Trump administration.

The private equity firm Kushner started after leaving the White House, Affinity Partners, reportedly received $2 billion in investment from Public Investment Fund, the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. In 2022, a spokesman for Affinity Partners told The New York Times that the company, "like many other top investment firms, is proud to have PIF and other leading organizations that have careful screening criteria, as investors."

Axios Business Editor Dan Primack pressed Kushner on Tuesday on his decision to seek Saudi funding for his firm. "You leave public service, you spend all this time particularly with Saudi Arabia, working with them, you leave, a couple months later, six months later, you get $2 billion," he said. "From an optics perspective, or even an ethics perspective, were you at the time concerned about taking money from PIF, and if you could do it again, would you have done it at all differently?"

Kushner denied that there was any conflict of interest in the business deal with PIF and dismissed ethical concerns around accepting funds from the Saudi crown prince, calling the country "one of the most prestigious investors in the world."

Addressing Khashoggi's murder, Kushner said: "I understand why people, you know, are upset about that. I think that what happened there was absolutely horrific. But again, our job was to represent America, and to try to push forward things in America."

Newsweek sent a press inquiry through Affinity Partners' website on Wednesday morning.

During the same livestreamed interview, Kushner said he won't be joining the White House if Trump wins the 2024 election.

"I've been very clear that my desire at this phase of my life is to focus on my firm," he said. "I've really enjoyed the opportunity as a family to be out of the spotlight. Both my wife and myself were working in the White House, which is a 24/7, high-stakes job, and so we both really enjoyed the opportunity to be down here in Florida with the kids.">

<Democrat Tom Suozzi won a special election in New York’s 3rd district defeating MAGA newcomer Mazi Pilip and taking back the congressional seat most recently held by Republican serial fabricator George Santos. Both parties worked to spin the results, an easier task for the victorious Democrats who portrayed the results as a referendum on a MAGA movement it hopes is in its last throes.

Republicans, too, saw a silver lining in Pilip’s showing in an anomalous election, which makes Suozzi the incumbent when the seat is again up for grabs in November.

Even House Speaker Mike Johnson said that in his opinion the result wasn’t something “Democrats should celebrate too much.”

Johnson cited Democrats outspending Republicans in the race to win a district Biden triumphed in, so not exactly a swing seat — Johnson asserts — even as he’s forced to acknowledge that the Democrat will now replace a Republican. That is, by definition, a swing, yet Johnson says it is “in no way a bellwether for what’s going to happen next year.”

One aspect of the race, however, did signal the end of a certain sort of MAGA resistance strategy, staunching an ugly, anti-American, anti-Democratic strain of the movement. Unlike Donald Trump in 2020 or Kari Lake in 2020 and 2022, Pilip conceded she’d lost the special election and called her opponent to say so. “Yes, we lost,” Pilip said. (Trump became the only president in U.S. history not to concede defeat and, breaking with tradition, did not attend his successor’s inauguration.)

“How refreshing to see a Republican concede gracefully,” wrote one commenter on Pilip’s move. Expressing disappointment at how anti-Democratic intransigence of not conceding defeat has gained political prominence, another commenter writes: “I sincerely dislike how it's now applaudable when a loser actually concedes after they lose.” Another writes, alluding to a common stratagem among recent losers: “What? No lawsuits?”>

<In a dramatic turn of events, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has mobilized a formidable force of 30,000 agents to pursue an astonishing 11.5 million small business owners across the United States.

This unprecedented crackdown comes in the wake of mounting concerns over the alleged misuse of COVID-19 relief funds, specifically the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL). Finance expert John Williams sheds light on the magnitude of this operation and its potentially far-reaching consequences.

According to Williams, a staggering $1.2 trillion in relief funds was dispersed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) over the past two years. However, shocking revelations suggest that a significant portion of this sum, approximately 70%, never reached the intended recipients – employees.

Instead, an alarming 66% to 77% of the funds were diverted into the hands of business owners and shareholders, raising serious questions about the integrity of the relief programs.

Williams highlights several high-profile cases that have captured public attention, including reality TV stars, celebrities, and business moguls who stand accused of defrauding the government.

These individuals are facing severe penalties, with some potentially facing decades-long prison sentences for their alleged roles in schemes involving millions of dollars. From luxury cars to designer goods, the ill-gotten gains of these schemes have funded lavish lifestyles at the expense of taxpayers.

Facing mounting pressure to recoup lost funds and stem the tide of fraud, the IRS has embarked on a sweeping campaign to hold perpetrators accountable. With a focus on identifying fraudulent activity and recovering misappropriated funds, the agency aims to restore public trust in government relief efforts.

The deployment of 30,000 agents signals a significant escalation in enforcement efforts, underscoring the seriousness of the allegations and the determination to root out wrongdoing.

As the IRS intensifies its efforts to combat fraud, concerns mount over the broader economic impact of its actions. With tax revenues declining and deficits looming, the agency sees recouping lost funds as a vital lifeline to shore up government coffers.

However, the repercussions of its crackdown may reverberate far beyond the world of small business, potentially impacting consumer confidence, market stability, and economic recovery efforts.

As the investigation unfolds, small business owners are left grappling with uncertainty and anxiety over the prospect of facing audits, investigations, and potential legal consequences. The fallout from these developments underscores the importance of transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of government resources.

Ultimately, the outcome of the IRS’s crackdown will shape perceptions of financial integrity, regulatory enforcement, and the resilience of the American economy in the years to come.

People in the comments share their thoughts: “I’m more concerned with what the govt plan on doing with the money they actually get back than who took it fraudulently.”

“We’ll see what really happens and which percentage of the rich or corrupt politicians get wealthier. I don’t believe that it’s coming back to the tax paying citizens.” added another commenter.

One commenter concluded: “PPP and related loan misuse and fraud massively contributed to the massive rise in real estate values due to rampant investment with the free government money. Also why so many foolish fraudulent business owners suddenly driving G-wagens and Lambos after the pandemic. I hope all of the business owners and individuals who committed fraud get in massive trouble and need to sell off their properties. Unfortunately, a ton of the money has also left the country, was used to buy crypto, or has been laundered and will never be recovered.”

The IRS’s unprecedented crackdown on alleged loan fraud among small business owners represents a pivotal moment in the nation’s economic landscape.

As the agency ramps up its enforcement efforts and targets perpetrators with precision, the fallout from these actions is poised to reshape the business landscape and redefine expectations of accountability in the post-pandemic era.

What do you think? How do you think the IRS’s pursuit of 11.5 million small business owners will impact the economy and business landscape?

What measures should be implemented to prevent widespread fraud in government relief programs like the PPP and EIDL loans? How might the fallout from this investigation affect public trust in government aid programs and financial institutions?>

<Tucker Carlson’s interview last week with Russian President Vladimir Putin was so soft that even Putin thought it was a letdown.

“To be honest, I thought that he would behave aggressively and ask so-called sharp questions,” he said told interviewer Pavel Zarubin, according to a Reuters translation. “I was not just prepared for this, I wanted it, because it would give me the opportunity to respond in the same way.”

Carlson, who was let go from Fox News last year, released a two-hour interview with Putin last week in which he barely spoke at times as the Russian leader delivered lengthy monologues. When Carlson did get a word in, Putin frequently dismissed him and continued with his lecture.

Putin noticed that, too.

“He tried to interrupt me several times, but still, surprisingly for a Western journalist, he turned out to be patient and listened to my long dialogues, especially those related to history,” Putin said, per a Google translation of a transcript posted on the Kremlin website.

That was a big disappointment for the strongman leader.

“Honestly speaking, I did not fully enjoy that interview,” he said with a laugh, according to a translated clip posted online on an X feed that monitors Putin’s comments:

Carlson, who has admitted to lying on his show, has frequently praised Putin and attacked U.S. support for Ukraine, which Russia invaded nearly two years ago.

When he was still on Fox News last year, Carlson often repeated Russian talking points. He was cited approvingly by Russian state television, which even seemed to offer him a job.

After last week’s interview, Carlson continued his love affair with the Kremlin, praising Moscow as “so much nicer” than any U.S. city.

“It is so much cleaner and safer and prettier aesthetically, its architecture, its food, its service, than any city in the United States,” he said.

Human Rights Watch notes that Putin is in the midst of an “all-out drive to eradicate public dissent in Russia” via laws attacking free speech, activism, independent journalism and political dissent. The resulting crackdown has led to jail for opposition leaders and critics of the ongoing war in Ukraine.>

<Special counsel Jack Smith, ever quick on the draw, urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to deny former President Donald Trump’s recent request for a stay of the criminal proceedings based on the pro-Trump riots at the U.S. Capitol Complex on Jan. 6, 2021.

The government says the 45th president’s latest effort is an affront to the internal U.S. order — and should not be entertained.

“The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy,” the response brief reads. “A President’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law. Applicant seeks a stay to prevent proceedings in the district court from moving towards trial.”

Late Monday, Trump asked the nation’s high court to indefinitely pause the federal case against him filed by Smith for his defense attorneys to prepare and then file a genuine petition for writ of certiorari that could, likely weeks down the road, lead to oral arguments and a precedent-setting ruling on presidential immunity.

The special prosecutor’s response notes that the trial in the case was originally slated by the district court judge to begin on March 4, but the appeals process has already kicked the can substantially.

“Applicant’s interlocutory appeal placed the district court proceedings on hold, thus delaying the trial and verdict in this case,” the brief reads.

Trump’s procedural asks of the Supreme Court — to pause the entire case while his defense attorneys craft a more thorough appeal — are ultimately all about delaying the inevitable, Smith argues.

“He has no entitlement to a further stay while seeking discretionary review from this Court,” the response brief reads. “Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power.”

At the moment, Trump’s arguments on immunity have been rejected at both the district court and the appellate court levels. In the latter case, however, those immunity arguments were, so far, only shut down by a three-judge panel — and Trump intends to have the case reviewed en banc — or by the entire appeals court. Under the current judgment issued by the Washington, D.C., court of appeals, the case was slated to return to the trial court level absent such a review, where it would likely be set for trial. Trump has complained that this was before the “traditional” appeals process was allowed to play out....>

<....Smith says the latest-requested pause should be denied because Trump will never be able to make his case before the Supreme Court.

From the 40-page filing, at length:

Here, [Trump’s] request fails for two interrelated reasons: first, he cannot show the requisite likelihood that this Court would reverse the judgment and sustain his extraordinary claim of absolute immunity; and, second, the serious harm to the government — and to the public — of postponing the resolution of the criminal charges against [Trump] outweighs any equities he can assert to preclude further pretrial proceedings while he seeks certiorari. The thorough opinions of the courts below considering and unanimously rejecting his arguments — and [Trump’s] failure to point to any Founding Era suggestion of such absolute immunity, any former President making such a claim, or even any scholarly commentary positing such immunity — underscore how remote the possibility is that this Court will agree with his unprecedented legal position. And the public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former President is charged with conspiring to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office.

The government also does not shy away from noting that they do, in fact, want to quickly resolve Trump’s Jan. 6 case — something the former president complained about in his stay application.

“[T]he public interest in a prompt trial is at its zenith where, as here, a former President is charged with conspiring to subvert the electoral process so that he could remain in office,” the response brief reads. “The Nation has a compelling interest in seeing the charges brought to trial.”

Trump’s application says Smith cited only the “imperative public importance of a prompt resolution” of the case when arguing and winning the denial of Trump’s immunity claim before the D.C. Circuit panel — and the subsequent almost-immediate return to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s court.

Smith’s response brief, on the merits of the case itself, is uncannily similar to an amicus brief filed Tuesday by a group of constitutional law professors. In both briefs, the major argument is that Trump’s claims of absolute immunity have no support within the context or history of the U.S. Constitution.

“Applicant’s novel immunity claim would ‘collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches,'” the response brief reads. “The absence of any such absolute immunity claim throughout our history weighs heavily against its novel recognition now.”

But, in the event the Supreme Court is inclined to grant some form of relief for the ex-president, Smith has no problem with Trump pleading his immunity case before the nine justices — he just doesn’t think Trump should be granted a delay to craft an entirely new appeal.

“Expedited briefing and argument would be appropriate given the parties’ just-completed briefing of the same issues in the court of appeals on an equally expedited schedule,” the reply reads. “The application for a stay of the mandate should be denied. Alternatively, the Court should treat the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and order expedited briefing and argument.”

In the underlying case, Smith is prosecuting Trump on four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct the U.S. Congress, and conspiracy against rights.>

<House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) tried to project confidence on Wednesday after his party suffered yet another stinging special election defeat, but members of his own party are already knifing him in interviews with Politico.

According to Politico, GOP insiders are facing "buyer's remorse" with Johnson, whom they see as "a man perpetually without a plan."

In fact, one source described as a "senior Republican lawmaker" said just that to Politico when comparing Johnson to former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

“Kevin would have a strategy, he’d shop it around, then he’d make a play call,” a senior Republican lawmaker said. “The more I’m around Johnson, the more it’s clear to me he doesn’t have a plan.”

A senior GOP aide, meanwhile, said that Johnson seemed to be careening from one position to another in the desperate hopes of not facing a vote to vacate the chair by rebellious Republican members.

“I’m as confused as ever about what he wants,” they said. “He hasn’t given us any direction... I think right now he’s in survival mode.”

Republicans say that Johnson appears to lack a trusted group of advisers who will keep the rest of the conference in the loop about his thinking, which has left many members in the dark about his actual plans until he announces them publicly.

An aide for Johnson, however, countered that there's a good reason that the speaker is keeping his cards close to his vest.

“They’re left in the dark because they leak," they said of Johnson's critics.

Politico notes that Johnson's predecessor Kevin McCarthy, who has since left Congress, offered some unsolicited advice for him earlier this week.

“Make a decision and go," he said. "I would do the exact same thing that I did before. You can’t be afraid of someone trying to throw you out.”>

<Democrats are calling on House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) to produce evidence from a closed-door deposition Tuesday, after he accused them of “witness intimidation.”

In an interview with Newsmax Tuesday, Comer accused Democrats by name of intimidating witness Tony Bobulinski, whose credibility Democrats brought into question, ahead of the Tuesday deposition. Bobulinski’s is the latest in a series of interviews conducted as part of the GOP-led impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

“I’ve never seen such witness intimidation as what I saw today. And it wasn’t necessarily from the Democrat staff who were leading the deposition. It was from the members. It was from Jamie Raskin. It was from Goldman. It was from Garcia. It was from Crockett. They were there. They were wagging their fingers. They were pointing, they were yelling, they were calling Tony Bobulinski a liar. They were telling him to shut up,” Comer said, adding that Bobulinski is an “American hero.”

The Democrats who were mentioned by name all shot back against Comer, calling on him to release video footage or transcripts from the interview in order to back up his claim, which they all claimed was false.

Reached for comment, a spokesperson for Comer referred The Hill to his Tuesday statement in which Comer described Democrats’ behavior as “shameful” during the testimony and said he would “soon release the transcript” from the interview.

“Chair Comer knows he can’t defend the credibility of the litigious Tony Bobulinksi [sic], so he’s crying witness ‘intimidation.’ Release the tape!” House Oversight Democrats posted on X, formerly Twitter, in response to Comer’s accusation.

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) responded to the Newsmax interview, writing on X, “Chairman @JamesComer: if you think that was ‘witness intimidation,’ please release the video you took of the interview so the American people can be the judge.”

“You brought in a Trump campaign plant to peddle your same lies,” Goldman continued. “The evidence matters, not your baseless allegations.”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) similarly demanded Comer release the transcript, saying, “Hey Chairman Comer. You invited a sham witness and we asked basic questions — his lack of credibility is on you! Why not release the transcript?”

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) denied Comer’s suggestion.

“Let’s read between the lines here: we asked questions on the very real credibility issues with your witness. If his claims can’t stand up to the most basic scrutiny, that’s on you. Sorry to ruin your circus!” she wrote in response to the interview.

House Oversight Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) asked Comer ahead of the Tuesday deposition to corroborate any claims from Bobulinski with testimony from other Trump administration and campaign officials. Raskin said Bobulinski raised “giant red flags,” pointing to refuted claims he has made publicly about President Biden and about the 2020 presidential election.

In a statement following the testimony, Raskin wrote that the deposition proceeded as expected.

“Just as expected, Republicans’ ‘star witness’ and Donald Trump’s political pawn repeated the same debunked and vacuous allegations against President Biden, recycled from Trump’s 2020 campaign,” he wrote.

“Over the course of his more than eight-hour long interview, Mr. Bobulinski did not provide any evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden, nor did he provide any evidence at all that President Biden was involved in his family’s business dealings. Mr. Bobulinski testified that neither Hunter nor James Biden ever indicated that Joe Biden would receive money from their business dealings, and Mr. Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden was not part of their business structure.”>

<It was a good ol' crossfire until Kaitlan Collins pulled the plug.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) tangoed with CNN's host of "The Source" on live television, with the pol switching from cogent immigration insights to a seemingly oversimplified lesson on the fundamentals of the U.S. government.

So Collins gave him the vaudeville hook to pull him off stage.

Collins started asking Lawler about the victorious campaign of Long Island Democrat Tom Suozzi on Tuesday night over Republican Mazi Pilip in the special election of a seat left vacated by the scandal-plagued George Santos.

The win cuts into conservatives' thin majority in the House of Representatives and Collins then asked if it concerned Lawler with his own reelection prospects.

"Not at all," he said. "I'm not concerned and about how this plays out in districts like mine in which any number of polls shows me doing very well and my favorability 29 points higher in my district than the generic Republican."

Collins asked Lawler about a group text message sent by Santos trolling Republicans over the loss.

“I hope you guys are happy with this dismal performance and the 10 million dollars your futile Bull S— cost the party,” it reads.

Lawler confirmed he was on the receiving end of the text, but then said "George Santos is a waste of time" because "he's no longer a member of congress for good reason."

The Republican then tried to steer the conversation back to immigration policy and how the Democrats "chose not to act until December of last year" where they created a bill to fix the Southern Border crisis.

"Here's the bottom line: and the way Congress works — because the media seems to have this position that whatever the Senate passes everybody has to accept — there are two houses within Congress and you actually have to negotiate —"

Collins interjected: "Congressman yes, we understand. Congressman, respectfully I have to stop you there—"

Lawler didn't stop pushing his point, "...everybody wanted us to accept a bill that wouldn't actually pass. And that's the problem."

She then took back control of the interview and, before ending it with a promo for the next show, she told him, "I think the problem, I think both parts of Congress bear the blame for this."

"No one has done anything to fix immigration system.">

<One of 16 Republicans who allegedly acted as "fake electors" for former President Donald Trump in Michigan after the 2020 presidential election testified in state court Wednesday that he never intended to falsely make or alter a public record.

James Renner and his alleged co-conspirators were charged by the Michigan Attorney General in July with charges including forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery for allegedly attempting to replace Michigan's electoral votes for Joe Biden with electoral votes for Trump at the certification of the vote on Jan. 6, 2021.

Renner, who had his case dismissed by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel for cooperating with the case in October, said in a hearing at Ingham County District Court in Lansing Wednesday that if he had thought that a crime was being committed, he would've never agreed to go to a meeting with the other suspects on Dec.14, 2020.

The 16 suspects allegedly met "covertly" in the basement of the Michigan Republican Party headquarters and signed their names to multiple certificates stating they were the duly elected electors, according to prosecutors. The forged documents were then submitted to the U.S. Senate and the National Archives.

"I would have challenged it because my background is enforcing the law," Renner said when asked by an attorney if he would have spoken up at the meeting with the rest of the so-called "fake electors."

Renner was asked to testify by the prosecution as part of a preliminary hearings held this week for some of the people facing charges for allegedly serving as false electors.

"The purpose was to present the slate of candidates because we were told that the representatives and senators had the ability to accept our slate of candidates versus the Democrats slate of candidates," Renner testified.

At one point during a hearing, Kahla Crino, a Michigan assistant attorney general, said that a 1960 Hawaii case became the "inspiration" for the so-called fake electors in multiple states.

Crino's comments followed one defense attorney's mention of the election in which then-Vice President Richard Nixon, in his capacity as president of the Senate, certified Hawaii's electoral votes that went to his opponent in the presidential race, John F. Kennedy, after a recount in the state.

"This became the inspiration for a multi-state criminal conspiracy that was absolutely linked to the Trump campaign," Crino said.

Trump has not commented on the Michigan case.

The state is still pursuing charges against the other 15 defendants. All the defendants pleaded not guilty including Renner.>

Maybe the 'zeitgeist', he who can divine others' thoughts before they are even conscious of them, can suss out what their intent was.

Hahahahaha!!!

Don't like the content here? Choke on it!!

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d6 3.c4 Nbd7 4.Nc3 g6 5.Bg5 Bg7 6.Qc2 c6 7.Rd1 0-0 8.e4 h6 9.Be3 Ng4 10.Bc1 e5 11.dxe5 Ndxe5 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.g3 Re8 14.Bg2 Bg7 15.0-0 Qc7 16.h3 Ne5 17.b3 b5 18.f4 Nd7 19.e5 dxe5 20.cxb5 cxb5 21.Bxa8 b4 22.Bd5 Nb6 23.Bxf7+ Qxf7 24.Ne4 Bf5 25.g4 Bxe4 26.Qxe4 exf4 27.Qxf4 Qb7 28.Qf3 Qc7 29.Bf4 Qc5+ 30.Qf2 Qc6 31.Rd6 Qe4 32.Qf3 Qc2 33.Qd3 Qc3 34.Qxc3 bxc3 35.Rxg6 Kh7 36.Rc6 Nd5 37.Bc1 Re2 38.Rd1 Nb4 39.Rc7 Nxa2 40.Ba3 Rd2 41.Rxd2 cxd2 42.Rd7 Nc1 43.Rxd2 Nxb3 44.Rd7 Kg6 45.Kg2 a5 46.h4 Be5 47.Kf3 Kf6 48.Rb7 Nd2+ 49.Ke2 Nc4 50.Bc1 h5 51.gxh5 a4 52.Ra7 a3 53.Bxa3 Nxa3 54.Rxa3 Kg7 55.Kf3 Bf6 56.Kg4 Bd8 57.Ra7+ Kh6 58.Ra6+ Kh7 59.h6 1-0>

In this Dutch Stonewall, Black never managed to get his queenside pieces free. I annotated this in <Chess Horizons>, but do not recall what improvements I suggested in Black's play, though certainly there are plenty to be found:

<[Event "Framingham Open"] [Site "Framingham Mass"]
[Date "1987.09.20"]
[EventDate "1987"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Griego, David"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "A95"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<An FBI informant has been charged with fabricating a multimillion-dollar bribery scheme involving President Joe Biden, his son Hunter and a Ukrainian energy company, a claim that is central to the Republican impeachment inquiry in Congress.

Alexander Smirnov falsely reported to the FBI in June 2020 that executives associated with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid Hunter and Joe Biden $5 million each in 2015 or 2016, prosecutors said in an indictment. Smirnov told his handler that an executive claimed to have hired Hunter Biden to “protect us, through his dad, from all kinds of problems,” according to court documents.

Prosecutors say Smirnov in fact had only routine business dealings with the company in 2017 and made the bribery allegations after he “expressed bias” against Joe Biden while he was a presidential candidate.

Smirnov, 43, appeared in court in Las Vegas briefly Thursday after being charged with making a false statement and creating a false and fictitious record. He did not enter a plea. The judge ordered the courtroom cleared after federal public defender Margaret Wightman Lambrose requested a closed hearing for arguments about sealing court documents. She declined to comment on the case.

The informant’s claims have been central to the Republican effort in Congress to investigate the president and his family, and helped spark what is now a House impeachment inquiry into Biden. An attorney for Hunter Biden, who is expected to give a deposition later this month, said the charges show the probe is "based on dishonest, uncredible allegations and witnesses.”

The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, called for an end to the Biden impeachment inquiry.

Raskin said the allegations from the Republicans against Biden “have always been a tissue of lies built on conspiracy theories.” He called on Speaker Mike Johnson, Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and House Republicans “to stop promoting this nonsense and end their doomed impeachment inquiry.”

Comer, R-Ky., downplayed the importance of the informant, who had figured centrally to the start of the probe.

“To be clear, the impeachment inquiry is not reliant on the FBI’s FD-1023,” Comer said in a statement, referring to the form documenting Smirnov's allegations.

The chairman said the inquiry “is based on a large record of evidence, including bank records and witness testimony,” including interviews this week. He said the committee will continue to “follow the facts” and determine whether to proceed with articles of impeachment against Biden.

In the indictment, prosecutors say that Smirnov had contact with Burisma executives, but it was routine and actually took place in 2017, after President Barack Obama and Biden, his vice president, had left office -- when Biden would have had no ability to influence U.S. policy....>

<....Smirnov "transformed his routine and unextraordinary business contacts with Burisma in 2017 and later into bribery allegations against Public Official 1, the presumptive nominee of one of the two major political parties for President, after expressing bias against Public Official 1 and his candidacy,” the indictment said.

He repeated some of the false claims when he was interviewed by FBI agents in September 2023 and changed his story about others and “promoted a new false narrative after he said he met with Russian officials," prosecutors said.

If convicted, Smirnov faces a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison.

The charges were filed by Justice Department special counsel David Weiss, who has separately charged Hunter Biden with firearm and tax violations.

The Burisma allegations became a flashpoint in Congress as Republicans pursing investigations of President Joe Biden and his family demanded the FBI release the unredacted form documenting the allegations. They acknowledged they couldn't confirm if the allegations were true.

Comer had subpoenaed the FBI last year for the so-called FD-1023 document as Republicans deepened their probe of Biden and his son Hunter ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Working alongside Comer, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa released an unclassified document that Republicans at the time claimed was significant in their investigation of Hunter Biden. It added to information that had been widely aired during Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial involving Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to dig up dirt on the Bidens ahead of the 2020 election. After Grassley released the document, the White House said the claims in it had been “debunked for years.”

The impeachment inquiry into Biden over his son’s business dealings has lagged in the House, but the panel is pushing ahead with its work.

Hunter Biden is expected to appear before the committee later this month. His attorney, Abbe Lowell, said he had long warned the probe was based on “lies told by people with political agendas, not facts. We were right and the air is out of their balloon.”

A judge set a detention hearing for Feb. 20 for Smirnov, who was arrested at the Las Vegas airport after arriving in the U.S. from overseas.>

There goes one of your lies, <incelfredthenescient>; how da ya like them apples?

<Former President Donald Trump has plans to radically reshape the federal government if he returns to the White House, from promising to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally to abolishing government agencies and firing tens of thousands of workers and replacing them with loyalists.

Liberal organizations in Washington are backing President Joe Biden and say they expect Trump to lose. But they're quietly trying to install roadblocks just in case.

A collection of activists, advocates and legal experts is promoting new federal rules to limit presidential power while urging Biden’s White House to do more to protect his accomplishments and limit Trump in a possible second term. All of that is happening with far less fanfare than plans by Trump supporters to create a conservative government-in-waiting via an effort known as “Project 2025.”

The Office of Personnel Management, the federal government's chief human resources agency, will finalize a rule by April against reclassifying tens of thousands of workers so they can be more easily fired, according to OPM spokesperson Viet Tran. A future administration would likely have to spend months or years unwinding the rule.

Those supporting the effort are open about its limits.

“My impression is the Biden administration is taking very seriously that potential threat and is trying to do things now," said Michael Linden, a former executive associate director of the White House Office of Management and Budget under Biden. But he added, "Nobody should be under any illusion that there’s anything that this president can do in advance to prevent the next president from doing things that are very damaging, potentially catastrophically.”

“There isn't any magic bullet,” Linden said.

The White House is reluctant to talk about a second Trump term before Election Day, as that would imply it has plans for if Biden loses.

Trump "is already telegraphing plays straight out of the authoritarian playbook — gutting the civil service of people he deems disloyal and plotting revenge on his political enemies," said Kevin Munoz, a spokesman for Biden's campaign. "There’s one way of stopping Trump’s dangerous and un-American plans: reelecting President Biden.”

Still, Norm Eisen, who was chief ethics counselor to President Barack Obama, wants Biden to issue executive orders that could limit the use of the military domestically. Trump has talked about sending troops to the southern border or to Democrat-run cities dealing with rising crime rates.

“I understand the potential reluctance to signal any risk here as a political matter and that’s not an illegitimate consideration,” said Eisen, a senior fellow in governance studies at the left-leaning Brookings Institution. “But there are countervailing considerations given the threat that we face.”

Central both to Trump's plans and the Democratic efforts to impede him is deciding how many government workers can be removed by a new administration, potentially to be replaced with loyalists.

Trump at the end of his term sought to reclassify thousands of the more than 2 million federal employees, stripping them of job protections and making them at-will employees under a new classification known as “Schedule F.” Around 4,000 federal employees are now considered political appointees who typically change with each administration. Creating Schedule F could have increased that more than tenfold....>