ERIC CANTOR: REPUBLICAN MESSAGE WAS CHARADE…

Written by Elaina Plott | Published on July 26, 2017

If you hang around Twitter on a day when President Trump does something especially head-turning and Paul Ryan goes especially quiet, you’ll likely encounter some quip about how blissful John Boehner must be. Smoking cigars. Sipping Merlot. Mowing his lawn. The former House speaker has become a meme for a man unburdened.

There’s no such narrative around Eric Cantor, the former Republican House majority leader from Richmond who was spectacularly ousted in his 2014 primary by a no-name economics professor. “There’s no denying that he misses all of it,” says Cantor’s former deputy chief of staff, John Murray—a sentiment the ex-congressman himself confirms. When he talks to Boehner, Cantor tells me, Boehner will say something to the effect of “I am so glad I’m not there dealing with those mm-mm-mms”—those pesky Freedom Caucus members whom many in the GOP hold responsible for sparking the party’s new populist flavor and egging on the anger that led to Trump’s election. Not Cantor. “I never felt like that,” he says.

The 54-year-old now sits on several boards and is managing director of Moelis & Company, a boutique investment firm in New York. His work takes him to Davos and Dubai and Tokyo, often just about anywhere but Washington or his old district. It also pays handsomely more. But Cantor is still painstakingly abreast of what’s going on in the Capitol, texting often with members such as Kevin McCarthy, his successor, and Patrick McHenry, chief deputy whip, to offer advice and then popping up on cable news to reassure Republicans that the party is just going through “growing pains.” The day the House voted on Obamacare’s replacement, Cantor chuckled at reports that former majority leader Tom DeLay was loitering near the speaker’s lobby, cigar in hand, to monitor the vote. Yet it’s safe to say that, mentally if not physically, Cantor was there, too.

If Boehner’s current profile is accurate—the warden held hostage by his own inmates, free at last—Cantor’s is the opposite, the second-in-command consumed by his role in making the Republican Party feel like a prison to begin with. What’s strange is that for all his clear-eyed ruminations about where he helped steer the party establishment wrong, he seems to believe that doing more of the same is all it’ll take to get it back on track.

***

Let’s back up a moment. Remember the summer of 2013, when the “Defund Obamacare Tour” drove the news cycle all through Congress’s August recess? The town halls organized by the political arm of the Heritage Foundation enlivened the base and furthered what had been the GOP’s core message since 2010—that Obamacare was bad and, if Americans helped Republicans hold both chambers, it could be repealed.

Cantor helped create that perception. Earlier that summer—after many failed attempts over the years to shred the law piecemeal—Cantor promised colleagues that the House would vote on a “full repeal.” But even after it did, the measure was dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Cantor—in Congress 13 years and, fairly or unfairly, once thought to be above electoral reproach—paid the price. His 2014 avenger, now-congressman David Brat, bludgeoned him for being soft on Obamacare, among other things. But the failure to make a dent in the law landed a bigger blow on the party. After seven years of pledging they could dismantle Obamacare, if only they had control of Congress and the White House, Republicans—at last in charge of both—have faced deep divisions over a replacement.

Asked if he feels partly responsible for their current predicament, Cantor is unequivocal. “Oh,” he says, “100 percent.”

He goes further: “To give the impression that if Republicans were in control of the House and Senate, that we could do that when Obama was still in office . . . .” His voice trails off and he shakes his head. “I never believed it.”

He says he wasn’t the only one aware of the charade: “We sort of all got what was going on, that there was this disconnect in terms of communication, because no one wanted to take the time out in the general public to even think about ‘Wait a minute—that can’t happen.’ ” But, he adds, “if you’ve got that anger working for you, you’re gonna let it be.”

It’s a stunning admission from a former member of the party leadership—that the linchpin of GOP electoral strategy for the better part of a decade was a fantasy, a flame continually fanned solely because, when it came to midterm elections, it worked. (Barring, of course, his own.)

His sojourn in the private sector has helped him see that. At Moelis, Cantor lends his Rolodex and his years on the Financial Services Committee to help the bank land accounts including Saudi Aramco—expected to be the world’s largest IPO—and giving Moelis name recognition it didn’t have three years ago.

“I see how [mergers-and-acquisitions] deals work and how companies go through processes making decisions when they decide to allocate shareholder capital,” he says. “They’ve got a vision of where their next target may be . . . and most of the times it is not a hostile situation [but] an agreeable one. They’ve got to . . . realize when the time is right to then advance to the next step. There’s something about the deliberateness and the thoughtfulness involved. That’s not necessarily how politics works. It’s a lot more extreme and back and forth.”

It’s far easier to cop to political gamesmanship when out of office. But Cantor says if he could do it over again, he wouldn’t have bought into this “expectation . . . that says if it’s not everything, then it can’t be conservative.” He pauses. “That’s a perspective I’ve gained.”

***

Yet here’s the other shocker: despite all that, Cantor’s read of how party leadership is navigating the current landscape is nothing short of sanguine.

While he won’t go so far as to say Trump’s presidency has been a “disaster,” as Boehner recently put it, Cantor admits he’s less than charmed by the state of the West Wing: “The lack of humility right now in the system is striking to me. I’m worried about Trump’s rhetoric. . . . If things keep going like they are now without any real progress, it’s a problem for electoral victories for our party.”

But strikingly, he won’t criticize House speaker Paul Ryan or others for not demanding a new course. Cantor does say that, were he speaker, he would “answer the questions I’m asked,” a subtle dig at Ryan’s penchant for evading Trump-related questions from the podium. But that’s as pointed as he’ll get.

Why not demand more from leadership? For one thing, Cantor is convinced that the party’s current state—the fury roiling the base and the White House alike—is an aberration. He calls the moment an “anger detour,” which sounds less like a label for a larger GOP identity crisis and more like an inconvenient square in Candy Land.

His position, however, reflects that of many in the establishment—that a pro-immigration, pro-market strain of conservatism, the one Cantor championed at the end of his tenure, is still the future of the party. It’s why he helped raise funds for Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign even after his own primary defeat was seen by many to be the first sign of a populist wave to come. It’s why Cantor continues to believe that President Trump, his policies, and the discontent that wrought them are mere hiccups and that at some point they’ll all cycle out.

“It’s very captivating to a lot of people right now because of the extremes of the language, of the Twitter, of the activity, and it’s just . . . it’s really a lot about showmanship,” he says. “It could end up to all be a lot of steam that, in the end, the implementation will be a lot more consistent with what I think the party’s about.”

His logic assumes that political parties grow and change in the same way that, say, caterpillars metamorphose—organically and predictably. Perhaps in the last couple of decades, they have. But if the previous two years have reminded us of anything, it’s that parties are made up of individuals with the agency to reject the sameness prescribed by institutional monoliths and the career politicians who lead them. For the moment, those career politicians—Ryan, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell—have been amenable to the disruption, suddenly equivocating on long-held establishment views regarding issues such as trade. Which makes Cantor’s point that much more difficult to absorb: How, exactly, can the party cycle out of something when its leaders publicly insist everything is just fine?

He doesn’t have an answer for that. “Being in a leadership position is hard,” he says. “Paul’s got a really tough challenge right now. Really, really tough.”

Cantor may be fuzzy on the details of getting there, but he knows what normality would look like. For him, it’s acknowledging that, undesirable as something in the system might be vis-à-vis, say, health care or welfare, sweeping changes can do more harm than good—an incrementalist manifestation of conservatism touted by Edmund Burke, that 18th-century British Parliament crush of modern American conservatives.

Where Cantor used to be chided as the prince of political crazes, oscillating in his pet issues depending on party mood, he’s now unequivocal that “global supply chains interconnect,” that they’re “here” and “not going away.” He says “our country is one of immigrants,” that “we don’t hold kids liable for their parents’ illegal acts.”

Never mind that these are beliefs that the most Republican primary voters in history rejected just last year. All it takes, Cantor will tell you, is for party leadership to do what it’s been doing—to keep quiet, hold its breath, and watch the party return from the anger detour.

But what if he’s wrong?

“God help us,” Cantor says. “Because how does it end?”

BOEHNER: REPUBLICANS WILL ‘NEVER’ REPEAL AND REPLACE…

//www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/267dc018-70d4-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014

Screen Shot 2017-07-25 at 4.46.45 PM

By Robert Costa July 25 at 6:00 AM

Former House speaker John A. Boehner, who has mostly avoided public commentary since leaving Congress two years ago, told a business gathering last week that Republicans are “not going to repeal and replace Obamacare” because “the American people have gotten accustomed to it.”

“Here we are, seven months into this year, and yet they’ve not passed this bill. Now, they’re never — they’re not going to repeal and replace Obamacare,” Boehner told a private crowd in Las Vegas, according to video footage obtained by The Washington Post. “It’s been around too long. And the American people have gotten accustomed to it. Governors have gotten accustomed to this Medicaid expansion, and so trying to pull it back is really not going to work.”

Screen Shot 2017-07-25 at 5.02.07 PM

Boehner said the Republicans’ best hope in the coming months is to peel away aspects of the law, such as some tax provisions and regulations, and to end health insurance mandates.

“When it’s all said and done, you’re not going to have an employer mandate anymore, you’re not going to have the individual mandate,” Boehner said. “The Medicaid expansion will be there. The governors will have more control over their Medicaid populations and how to get them care, and a lot of Obamacare taxes will probably go.”

Boehner’s remarks diverge from the positions of President Trump and congressional Republican leaders, who are still pushing for legislation to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and scale back Medicaid. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is planning to hold a vote on beginning debate on GOP health-care legislation as soon as Tuesday.

Boehner’s statements were made July 21 at ThoughtSpot, a trade show hosted by Good Neighbor Pharmacy at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in Las Vegas. Videos of his appearance were obtained by The Post from a person who requested anonymity to share the clips.

A Boehner spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

As Boehner sat on the dais in an expansive ballroom, he also shared frank observations about the president and his party. The former Ohio lawmaker’s outlook echoed the frustrations of many Republicans on Capitol Hill, although those views are usually expressed in closed settings.

Boehner warned that the GOP’s infighting, despite having control of Congress and the White House, could have dire political consequences for the party. If Republicans fail to pass legislation on health care, taxes and infrastructure, “they’re going to get annihilated” in next year’s midterm elections, he said.

Boehner described Trump as a “friend of mine. We’ve played a lot of golf together over the years. He was a donor of mine.” But he said he never expected Trump to win the presidency and has been discouraged by how he has handled parts of the job.

“I never really saw him as president. You all know what I mean,” Boehner said as audience members chuckled.

Boehner urged him to “quit tweeting” and avoid spats with media personalities like the hosts of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“He keeps getting in his own way,” Boehner told the attendees.

“I mean, going after Mika Brzezinski or Joe Scarborough? What the hell is the point?” he asked, referring to Trump’s social-media assault of Brzezinski last month.

Boehner said Trump’s seemingly nonstop battles with news organizations were unwise distractions for him and the party — and risky.

“You never get into a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel. He does it every day.” Boehner said, adding, “Never get into a p—ing match with a skunk. He does it every day.”

“It may have worked during the campaign. But I think he would do himself well if he would just slow the tweeting down and just focus on what he’s doing and not being critical,” Boehner said.

Boehner went on to tell the group that cutting bipartisan deals in Washington is now all but impossible due to the way negotiations unfold in the media. Any interaction with a Democrat risks being covered by conservative outlets as a potential betrayal of the GOP, he said.

Boehner blamed figures on the right who purchase lists of conservative activists and then position themselves as leaders of a movement. He said talks between party leaders can be ruined by “one person who creates a committee to preserve the Constitution” and can “blast out information quickly.”

“You used to have a little breathing room — 24 hours, 48 hours before it actually got in the press. Well, that’s gone. Everything today is instant,” he said.

Boehner recalled that when he used to visit President Obama, he would frequently “sneak into” the White House to avoid being seen by reporters.

“If I didn’t sneak in, if I went in like I would normally go in, the right-wing press would go crazy. ‘What is Boehner up to?’ The left-wing press would go just as crazy. ‘What is Obama doing? He’s going to let Boehner roll him again.’ You’re dead before you even have an agreement,” he said.

Boehner pointed to the fragmentation of the national media as another reason for the paralysis and what he sees as alarming intensity and partisanship in politics.

“What’s making everything even worse today is because we have so much news, people get to choose where they get their news,” Boehner said. “It used to be we had three big TV networks, five big newspapers, and five big radio stations and whatever they said was the news. Everybody else followed what they do.”

 

“They go to places that they agree with, reinforcing the divide that we have in the country already,” he said.

“These radio talk show guys, they carry on, it’s just nonsense,” Boehner said. “Some of these people who run these big blogs, the kind of stuff they put out, I would also disagree with.”

Turning back to health care, Boehner acknowledged that his candor may not be appreciated by Republican leadership on Capitol Hill. The last time he made headlines, his successor, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), sent him a dismayed text.

“Gee, thanks,” Boehner said, reciting what Ryan texted him.

LAWSUIT: OBAMA ROBBED PRIVATE INVESTORS TO FUND OBAMACARE

Private investments seized to save Obamacare

| Infowars.com – FEBRUARY 28, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Two lawsuits proceeding through the federal courts threaten to expose and disrupt a scheme the Obama administration concocted in 2012 to confiscate all the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac – the government’s two mortgage giants – with a plan to divert billions of dollars to pay essential Obamacare insurance subsidies that Congress had refused to fund.

On July 9, 2013, Fairholme Funds, Inc., a mutual fund that held preferred stock issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as “Freddie Mac,” filed suit against the U.S. government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking “just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment for their property when the Obama administration, in the so-called “Net Worth Sweep” of 2012, confiscated all Fannie and Freddie profits.

In 2008, when the economy went into recession over the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, HERA, to save Fannie and Freddie by a federal bailout that placed the two Government Sponsored Entities, GSEs, into government conservatorship, with the U.S. Treasury recapitalizing Fannie and Freddie by issuing to the GSEs $187.5 billion in senior preferred stock with a 10% dividend designed to repay the U.S. Treasury over time.

But in 2012, when Fannie and Freddie became profitable, as the mortgage market returned with rigorous credit underwriting and a zero-interest rate environment maintained by the Federal Reserve, the Obama administration initiated a “Net Worth Sweep,” designed to confiscate 100% of the profits generated by Fannie and Freddie.

The result was that private shareholders like Fairholme Funds were paid nothing on their Fannie and Freddie stock.

In August 2012, the Obama administration engineered an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements creating a variable dividend that allowed the U.S. Treasury to grab all Fannie and Freddie profits, regardless how large Fannie and Freddie’s earnings might be.

In 2016, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, ruled the Department of Health and Human Services could not use taxpayer dollars to pay Obamacare insurance subsidies Congress refused to fund.

To solve this problem, the Obama administration defied the District Court by diverting profits confiscated from Fannie and Freddie to pay the Obamacare insurance subsidies Congress had refused to fund.

To block the progress of the Fairholme lawsuit, the Obama administration asserted executive privilege, seeking to withhold some 77,945 documents from the public view, including some 12,251 documents the government wanted completely withheld (even from the federal court).

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit asserted the government’s purpose in seeking to keep the documents secret was to conceal the government’s motives in seizing from private and institutional shareholders their stock dividends in Fannie and Freddie the government wanted to seize.

“The government has asserted the information could be ‘disruptive to markets.’ However, it is difficult to imagine how discussions by officials as far back as eight years ago and emails on matters as mundane as daily press clips could impact today’s markets, which, by definition operate on the very latest information,” wrote constitutional law scholar John Yoo. “Executive privilege is available for presidents to use in highly sensitive matters, and its use is constrained by specific procedures.”

“In the pending litigation on the Net Worth Sweep, the government has applied this privilege in an overly broad and unjustified manner,” Yoo continued. “Either federal officials are trying to cover up something they know is illegal, or we are witnessing an unprecedented and disturbing obsession with secrecy.”

On Oct. 4, 2016, Judge Margaret M. Sweeney of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., gave her first order demanding the release of some of the documents that the government sought to withhold – documents the New York Times reported reached “the highest levels of the Obama administration.”

The New York Times further reported the government initially had argued that in seizing Fannie and Freddie, it had acted to protect taxpayers from future losses because the companies were in “a death spiral” and taxpayers needed protection from future losses.

But documents Judge Sweeney forced to be released made clear the government moved to seize all earnings of Fannie and Freddie just before the two mortgage giants were about to become profitable.

Fairholme and the other plaintiffs in the case had asked Judge Sweeney to review a sample of 56 documents in the case to determine if the government had a legitimate argument to seal the documents.

After her review, Judge Sweeney ruled that the documents should be released because Fairholme had an “overwhelming” need for the documents and no other source of available evidence “would similarly inform their understanding” of the events surrounding the profit sweep.

On Jan. 30, 2017  a three-judge panel for of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the federal circuit ruled unanimously that 48 of the 56 documents were not privileged, but should be released to the plaintiffs.

In writing their order, the three-judge panel expressed sympathy for the plaintiffs’ argument that the documents the government sought to seal would reveal (if made public) that Fannie and Freddie were not in a threat of a “death spiral” to insolvency when the Net Worth Sweep was ordered by the government in 2012.

Instead, the three-judge panel suggested the respondents should have access to the 48 documents in their attempt to prove the GSEs were reporting substantial profits at the time that were more than sufficient to cover the Treasury’s original 10% dividend guarantee and potentially to pay dividends to the other shareholders as well.

At issue was the plaintiff’s argument the Treasury appropriated the stock held by private investors to generate what the Treasury knew would be a massive return on the investment to the government.

FannieFreddieSecrets.org, a website created to make easily readable the documents Judge Sweeney through a series of rulings starting in October 2016, has revealed public archives and a deposition from Susan McFarland, Fannie’s former chief financial officer, from July 2015.

In her deposition, McFarland refuted projections made by Grant Thornton, the accounting firm the government had hired to do a financial analysis on Fannie and Freddie, speculating that Fannie Mae was going to lose $13 billion in 2012, the year in which the Obama administration decided to start confiscating Fannie and Freddie earnings.

McFarland revealed in the deposition that she had told high-level officials at the Treasury on Aug. 8, 2012, that the company (Fannie Mae) was “now in a sustainable profitability, that we would be able to deliver sustainable profits over time.”  McFarland added that while Fannie was “not there yet,” she as financial officer “could see positive things occurring.”

A letter from then Secretary of the Treasury Jacob L. Lew, addressed to then House Speaker John Boehner dated May 17, 2013, also rejects the government contention the Fannie and Freddy were in “a death spiral” at the time of government confiscation.

In the letter, written at a time when the Treasury was preparing to engage in “extraordinary measures” because Congress had not yet authorized an increase in the statutory debt limit, Lew explained to then-House Speaker Boehner that Treasury had just learned “last week” that it was anticipating a payment of $60 billion from Fannie Mae to be delivered on June 28, 2013.

In another document unsealed by Judge Sweeney, a Grant Thornton, purportedly showing Freddie Mac’s deteriorating financial condition, contained a marginal note handwritten by an unidentified Grant Thornton employee, saying: “3 yrs. of cum. profits, you start to think about releasing the valuation allow. The valuation allow. When probably 2013, 2014.”

In the second case, originally filed as Perry Capital LLC vs. Lew (now, Perry Capital LLC, for and on behalf of Investment Funds for which it acts as investment manager, Appellant v. Steven T. Mncuhin, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Et Al., Appellees) the investment manager Perry Capital LLC sued the Treasury Department over the decision made in the “Net Worth Sweep” of 2012, and specifically the decision made on August 17, 2012, through which the Obama administration succeeded in engineering an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements that resulted in the private and institutional shareholders of Fannie and Freddie being shut off from receiving future dividends on their Fannie and Freddie stock.

On Feb. 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled the Obama administration had acted within its authority under HERA.

While this decision was widely viewed as a victory for the government, the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals was very narrow, arguing only that the statutory claims of Perry Capital LLC were barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review.

Instead of dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, the Circuit Court remanded the case to the lower District Court to litigate contract-based claims regarding their rights as shareholders to have received Fannie and Freddie dividends.

Translated into ordinary English, the Circuit Court punted, sending the case back to the District Court where the Perry’s contractual claims regarding the rights of shareholders to receive dividends could be properly litigated at trial.

In what has become a complicated case, legal analysts still maintain that at the District Court level, Perry LLC stands an excellent chance to force the Treasury “to return the money, which it had no right to receive in the first place.”

RISE OF THE LIBERAL ‘TEA PARTY’…

By Paul Kane

Grass-roots movements can be the life and death of political leaders.

It’s a well-worn story now about how John A. Boehner, then House minority leader, joined a rising star in his caucus, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, in April 2009 for one of the first major tea party protests in the California Republican’s home town of Bakersfield.

A little more than six years later, after they surfed that wave into power, the movement consumed both of them. Boehner was driven out of the House speaker’s office and McCarthy’s expected succession fell apart, leaving him stuck at the rank of majority leader.

Democrats are well aware of that history as they try to tap the energy of the roiling liberal activists who have staged rallies and marches in the first three weeks of Donald Trump’s presidency.

What if they can fuse these protesters, many of whom have never been politically active, into the liberal firmament? What if a new tea party is arising, with the energy and enthusiasm to bring out new voters and make a real difference at the polls, starting with the 2018 midterm elections?

The women’s marches that brought millions onto streets across the countrythe day after Trump’s inauguration — spurred organically through social media — opened Democratic leaders’ eyes to the possibilities.

With a 10-day recess beginning next weekend, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has instructed her members to hold a “day of action” in their districts, including town halls focused on saving the Affordable Care Act. The following weekend, Democratic senators and House members will hold protests across the country, hoping to link arms with local activists who have already marched against Trump.

“It was important to us to make sure that we reach out to everyone we could, to visit with them, to keep them engaged, to engage those that maybe aren’t engaged,” Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters at a Democratic retreat in Baltimore that ended Friday. The trick is to keep them aiming their fire at Republicans and Trump, not turning it into a circular firing squad targeting fellow Democrats.

“Now we want people to run for office, to volunteer and to vote,” Luján added.

It’s too early to tell which direction this movement will take, but there are some similarities to the early days of the conservative tea party.

In early 2009, as unemployment approached 10 percent and the home mortgage industry collapsed, the tea party emerged in reaction to the Wall Street bailout. It grew throughout the summer of 2009 as the Obama administration and congressional Democrats pushed toward passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Many of the protesters were newly engaged, politically conservative but not active with their local GOP and often registered as independents. Their initial fury seemed directed exclusively at Democrats, given that they controlled all the levers of power in Washington at the time; the protesters famously provoked raucous showdowns at Democratic town halls over the August 2009 recess.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s first brush with the anti-Trump liberal movement came in a similar fashion to Boehner and McCarthy’s Bakersfield foray in 2009. Originally slated to deliver a brief speech at the women’s march in New York, Schumer instead spent 4 1/2 hours on the streets there, talking to people he had never met. By his estimate, 20 percent of them did not vote in November.

That, however, is where Schumer must surely hope the similarities end.

By the spring and summer of 2010, the tea party rage shifted its direction toward Republican primary politics. One incumbent GOP senator lost his primary, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) defeated the Kentucky establishment favorite, and three other insurgents knocked off other seasoned Republicans in Senate primaries (only to then lose in general elections).

One force that helped the tea party grow was a collection of Washington-based groups with some wealthy donors, notably the Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity, who positioned themselves as the self-declared leaders of the movement. For the next few years, they funded challenges to Republican incumbents, sparking a civil war that ran all the way through the 2016 GOP presidential primaries.

Guess Who: New Report Exposes 6 Top Republicans on George Soros Payroll!

By Harry Hibbs

In a report just out, some major Republicans have been caught suckling at the teat of George Soros. The report accessed financial records from the Soros Fund and found that not only was the former Nazi Socialist financing most of the Democrat liberal nut jobs in our government, but that it was also stroking some 13 different Republicans.

A non-profit, non-partisan research group which is based out of Washington D. C. has published a list which looks like a list of Who’s Who in the Republican Party. Of course at the top of the list are some names that you will recognize from recent events. You know the jerks that keep going behind our Presidents back and trying to make him look bad, or are withholding their full support from his programs.

screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-1-20-38-pm

At the top of the list is our old friend the Vietnam War Hero, Sen. John McCain, who seems intent in stabbing his country in the back just like the good old days. Another of the treasonous group is of course, Marco“which way is the wind blowing” Rubio, followed closely by Paul“no tax relief” Ryan, and John “I should have been the nominee” Kasich.

But the Soros list also includes other names which explain a lot, like everyone’s favorite Bush, Jeb. You can also quickly find John Boehner and the ever compromising Lindsey Graham. The report revealed that while George Soros is busy funding almost all the Democrats, his influence has even penetrated the ranks of the so-called opposition to a very significant extent.

Not surprisingly, all of the names revealed to receive funding fromGeorge Soros  have a record of openly opposing Mr. Trump, not only as a candidate, but as the President. All have at one time or another taken cheap shots at Mr. Trumps plans and his character and have a track record of opposition to the President. And an interesting new addition to the payoff list along with Marco Rubio is Carlos Curbelo also of Florida.

Even as Sen. McCain continues to attempt to back-stab and embarrass the President and his policies on the world stage, we now have proof that it has nothing to do with what he feels is right, but what he feels will get him the most money from George Soros. In fact it has come to light, that McCain has been on the Soros payroll for the last 16 years.

In 2001, McCain founded the Alexandria, Va.-based Reform Institute as a vehicle to receive funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s “you know her husband Lurch served in Vietnam” Tides Foundation and several other prominent non-profit organizations. McCain used the institute to promote his political agenda and provide remuneration to staff and key campaign operatives between elections.

But McCain’s treachery gets much worse. According to TPM, in 2002 the Open Society Institute gave $300,000 in grants to various groups that were defending McCain’s campaign finance law against a deluge of legal challenges, defending McCain from financial ruin. In short, making it obvious that the “good” Senator has been bought and paid for by George Soros. No wonder he spent the election season railing against Trump and defending Soros’s agenda.

Bill Maher: ‘I’ll ‘F*cking Kill Anthony Weiner’ if Clinton Loses

by JEROME HUDSON

Bill Maher live-streamed his #WhinyLittleBitch stand-up comedy special on Facebook on Wednesday, during which he unloaded on Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka, Republican voters and disgraced former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner.

“I mean, what does it take? A racist, a liar, a tax cheat, a draft-dodger, a deadbeat, a Russian agent, and a rapist. You know we’re a nuclear power, right? These are red flags,” the Real Time host joked to an audience at Los Angeles comedy club Largo.

“You know, I hope that when we look back on this, it’s going to be like… Trump is like Y2K. Right?” he continued.

“We thought it was going to be a disaster, we sh*t our pants, and then it was a bunch of nothing,” Maher said. “But who knows? Even if he loses, his army of whiny little bitches… these people are crazy. They think if Hillary is elected, this is the end of civilization, right? They’re so brainwashed that we’re living in this country of disaster where there’s always a cold knife at your heart and a brown d*ck at your lips.”

No one was safe during Maher’s 45-minute act.

He referred to Trump’s campaign surrogates Dr. Ben Carson, Kellyanne Conway, Rudolph Giulianni, and Mike Pence as “flying monkeys.”

But perhaps Maher’s most cutting commentary was aimed at Weiner, whose alleged sexually explicit online conversation with a 15-year-old girl spurred the FBI’s renewed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Maher called the disgraced former Congressman “the c*ck that ended the world” and said he would “f*cking kill” him if Hillary Clinton lost the election.

Maher’s live-streamed standup routine competed for viewers with Game 7 of the World Series, but managed to garner more than 1.5 million views on Facebook.

Toward the end of his set, Maher offered up lackluster support for Clinton and compared her email scandal to New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady’s “Deflategate” scandal.

“Is she completely honest? Well, she’s deflated a few balls in her time,” Maher said of Clinton. “But it’s a minor crime and she’s a great quarterback! She would be a great president, or at least a good one, not a disastrous one.”

Paul Ryan Danger…

screen-shot-2016-10-27-at-6-21-12-pm

BY SCOTT WONG

Republican lawmakers who voted against Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for Speaker aren’t saying whether they’ll vote for him in a new election next year.

Nine House Republicans rejected Ryan in the special election to replace Speaker John Boehner(R-Ohio) one year ago Saturday.

Eight of them will have a chance to vote for Ryan again.Rep. Dave Brat (Va.), one of the eight, said his public criticisms of Ryan have never been personal.

Like he did last year, Brat plans to present all leadership candidates five policy requests on things like trade, immigration and regular order. He’ll support those candidates who pledge to uphold those policies.

“Whoever signs off on those, I’ll vote yes,” Brat said.

Reps. Randy Weber (Texas), Ted Yoho (Fla.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Bill Posey (Fla.) and Curt Clawson (Fla.) are the other Republicans who voted for Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) in last year’s vote.

Aides to Weber, Yoho and Massie said they did not know how their bosses would vote in the next Speaker’s election.

Spokespersons for Gohmert, Jones, Posey and Gosar did not respond to emails seeking comment, though Gosar has been openly critical of Ryan for working with Democrats to pass a stopgap government-funding bill.

“How’d that work out for John Boehner?” Gosar, a member of the far-right Freedom Caucus, told The Hill in September.

Clawson is not running for reelection and will not have a vote.

Ryan is almost certain to face a tougher reelection fight after a tumultuous year in which he has publicly feuded with Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president.

Republicans will first hold closed-door leadership elections next month, where only a majority vote within the conference is needed for victory.

The more critical vote will come in January, a public roll call in which lawmakers will shout out the name of their choice for Speaker from the House floor. Ryan will need 218 votes for victory.

With the current 246-seat GOP majority, losing all eight votes isn’t such a big deal.

It would leave Ryan with 238 votes, 20 more than the threshold he needs.

But with Republicans widely expected to lose seats in the Nov. 8 election, Ryan is likely to have much less room for error.

With a 226-seat majority, for example, Ryan would be right at 218 if all eight Republicans vote against him.

Trump may add to Ryan’s problems.

The businessman has repeatedly criticized Ryan’s leadership and was stung after the Speaker said he would not longer defend Trump after a 2005 tape emerged in which the GOP nominee speaks lewdly about groping and kissing women.

Win or lose on Nov. 8, Trump could put pressure on House Republicans to oppose Ryan in a speakership contest.

The presence of Trump campaign chairman Steve Bannon is another factor.

As an executive with Breitbart news, Bannon has made it his mission to depose Ryan. He is unlikely to stop causing trouble for the Speaker after the election.

A big question mark is what the House Freedom Caucus decides to do. The conservative group, which is credited for pushing Boehner out last year, endorsed Webster for Speaker last year. But after Ryan beat Webster in the closed-door, internal vote, most of the group’s leaders supported Ryan in the public floor vote.

Freedom leaders now are pressing Ryan to delay the House GOP leadership elections until after the lame-duck session. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and other conservatives say they want to see how Ryan handles a fiscal 2017 spending bill and other items after the election before voting to give him another two years. But there is no indication that Ryan plans to grant their request.

Other Freedom members, like Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.), are still furious with Ryan for ditching Trump.

“I have not made up my mind how I’ll vote yet,” DesJarlais said. “It depends on who runs.”

So far, no viable candidate has stepped up to challenge Ryan in the Speaker’s race. Webster, the former Speaker of the Florida state House, indicated he probably wouldn’t run again for the top job on Capitol Hill.

“I don’t think the conference is interested in a principle-based, member-driven Congress,” Webster told The Hill on Wednesday.

Webster is one of a number of other lawmakers whose votes will be closely watched in the Speakership election.

The central Florida lawmaker said he’s focused “100 percent” on his congressional race and hasn’t yet thought of whether he’ll vote to give Ryan another two-year term.

Republican Jim Banks, who’s the favorite to win an open House seat in Indiana, plans to join the Freedom Caucus but said backing Ryan is a no-brainer. The two recently campaigned together in the Hoosier State.
“Yes, I plan to support Paul Ryan,” Banks said. “He is the substantive leader our party and country needs right now.”