congress

100 Days Of Chaos: Who, Or What, Will Save Us?

April 24, 2025 By John DeProspo 1 Comment

April 30 marks 100 days into Trump’s return to the White House, and already the country looks bruised, battered, and barely recognizable. With his gang of sycophantic enablers, Trump has wiped his butt with the Constitution, taken a sledgehammer to the rule of law, turned corruption into a virtue, and breathed new life into Reagan’s infamous quip: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” If this much damage can be done in just 100 days, imagine the wreckage four years from now!

How does this nightmare end? Can anyone—or anything—save us?

If you’re hoping the Republican-led Congress will step in to stop the madness, that’s laughable. These aren’t lawmakers; they’re loyalists, lackeys, and cowards. Faced with a president who openly flirts with authoritarianism, they’ve chosen fealty over fidelity to the Constitution. They’ve traded their oaths for applause, their spines for status. They are traitors who watched democracy burn and brought marshmallows.

And the Supreme Court—those robed “guardians” of the Constitution? Please. They greased the skids by slow-walking Trump’s immunity case until accountability timed out. Then, in a ruling both absurd and dangerous, they declared that a president is immune from prosecution for “official” acts. Translation: if you’re powerful enough, your crimes are just “policy” decisions.

What about the 2026 midterms? Maybe. But don’t hold your breath. Not if the traitorous Republican machine gets its way. Across the country, they’re already working overtime—gerrymandering maps, purging voter rolls, and passing laws designed to suppress Democratic votes. They don’t want fair elections. They want fixed outcomes.

The courts won’t save us. Congress won’t save us. The system is rigged to protect the powerful and punish the rest. It’s no wonder that many feel an overwhelming sense of dread about the future.

Can anything save us? Maybe not—unless the people themselves rise up. Not with memes but with pitchforks. Not with hashtags but with outrage, organizing, and relentless pressure. This isn’t politics anymore. It’s survival. It’s about whether we still have a country worth fighting for.

Hey, Mother Nature—if you’re reading this downer of a rant, a little karmic intervention wouldn’t hurt.

*To my loyal readers, I apologize for the long absence. I will try my best to chime in more frequently on this sh*tshow we are all unfortunately witnessing.

It’s Time For This Simple “Sense Of The Congress” Resolution

March 3, 2021 By John DeProspo 6 Comments

Nearly two months since Joe Biden’s inauguration, some Republican members of Congress still have trouble saying his November election was valid and that he won fair and square.

And it’s easy to see why.

In a recent poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, about two-thirds of Republicans say Joe Biden was not legitimately elected president.

This is why you had Rep. Steve Scalise, second in command of the House Republicans, waffling when ABC host Jonathan Karl asked him a simple, straightforward question.

“Joe Biden won the election,” Karl asked. “He is the legitimate president of the United States. The election was not stolen, correct?”

“Look, Joe Biden’s the president,” said Scalise. “There were a few states that did not follow their state laws. That’s really the dispute that you’ve seen continue on.”

Karl persisted.

“Congressman, I know Joe Biden’s the president,” Karl said. “He lives at the White House. I asked you, is he the legitimate president of the United States, and do you concede that this election was not stolen? Very simple question. Please just answer it.”

“Look, once the electors are counted, yes, he’s the legitimate president,” Scalise said. “But if you’re going to ignore the fact that there were states that did not follow their own state legislatively set laws, that’s the issue at heart, that millions of people still are not happy with and don’t want to see happen again.”

This nonsense has got to end.

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer need to introduce, to their respective chambers, this simple resolution: “Joe Biden is the duly-elected 46^th president of the United States.”

“Sense of the Congress” resolutions do not create law, do not require the signature of the President and are not enforceable. What they do is force individual members of Congress to go on the record as supporting or opposing a particular policy or concept.

Putting Congressional Republicans on the spot serves at least two important purposes. It officially forces their hands, putting them on record over the Biden “legitimacy” question, hopefully cutting off any more of this “Biden is president … but” foolishness. It will also, I’m guessing, show Biden and the rest of the Democrats exactly what they are dealing with. It may finally convince some moderate Democrats that reaching across the aisle is futile.

How can you have bipartisanship when X amount of Republican lawmakers don’t believe the president of the United States legitimately holds office? This resolution might convince all Democrats (looking at you Manchin and Sinema) that ending the filibuster is the only way Biden’s agenda can go forward.

And while a “no vote” will not get a representative or senator expelled (need 2/3 vote) it most likely will get him or her censured as only a majority vote is needed.

So what is your vote, Mr. “I-have-no-sense-of-shame-or-dignity” Cruz. Is that a yea or a nay?

Photo | Official White House photo/Lawrence Jackson

DOJ Clamps Down On Mueller Prior To Congressional Testimony

July 22, 2019 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

Just two days before his much anticipated appearance before two congressional committees, the Department of Justice has sent Robert Mueller a letter warning him to be careful about what he says in public.

“Any testimony must remain within the boundaries of your public report because matters within the scope of your investigation were covered by executive privilege, including information protected by law enforcement, deliberative process, attorney work product, and presidential communications privileges,” wrote Associate Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer.

Mueller was reminded by Weinsheimer that DOJ policy prevents him from commenting on the legal conclusions his office made “with respect to uncharged individuals, other than information contained within the portions of your report that already have been made public.” Weinsheimer also said Mueller should not testify about portions of the public report that have been redacted or about uncharged third parties.

It’s unlikely Mueller will go outside the four corners of his report in any event, with or without the DOJ’s last minute admonition. He specifically said he would do so in his brief press conference in May.

Democrats on the House committees are hoping Mueller will be more forthcoming than he has stated he would be. But the straight-laced Mueller, who is only testifying because he was subpoenaed to do so, will most likely disappoint those Democrats holding out hope he will go rogue.

About the only suspense on Wednesday will be which Trump congressional lapdog will make the biggest fool of himself trying to discredit the former Eagle Scout and ex-Marine.

The bottom line is even if Mueller only reads from his 448-page report, the damage to Donald Trump could be significant as the American public will hear, many for the first time, the true, unvarnished-by-Barr version of his investigative findings.

Photo | nbcnews.com

Barr Changes Tune On Mueller Testimony

July 9, 2019 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

You saw it coming, right?

A little over one month ago, AG William Barr made it appear he had no problem with Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifying before Congress. This was at a time when Mueller had not yet been subpoenaed to appear before both the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees.

“It’s Bob’s call whether he wants to testify,” said Barr during a Wall Street Journal interview.

Yesterday, Barr pulled a “Trump,” saying one thing when it is convenient to sound reasonable (i.e. Trump promising to release his tax returns) and then making a complete one-eighty when the moment of truth arrives.

While he did not come right out and say Mueller should not testify, the Attorney General of the United States, told the Associated Press yesterday, he doesn’t believe Robert Mueller should have to “subject himself” to testifying before Congress about the Russia investigation.

“I’m not sure what purpose is served by dragging him up there and trying to grill him,” Barr said. “I don’t think Mueller should be treated that way or subject himself to that, if he doesn’t want to.”

One representative, Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence committee, was not surprised by Barr’s shocking remarks..

“Barr misled the public about Mueller’s report, and wants his own deception to stand,” Schiff tweeted. “The public has a right to hear the truth, from Mueller himself, about Trump’s misconduct and ongoing national security risks.”

Think about this for one moment. The top law enforcement official in the United States is encouraging a fellow lawyer, another officer of the court, to disregard a congressional subpoena!

What needs to happen (but won’t) is for the appropriate bar association(s) to immediately open an investigation into Barr’s unprofessional and unethical conduct with a view towards disbarment.

As of now, it appears Mueller, the reluctant witness, will keep his July 17 date with Congress. But as I’ve stated before, I doubt his testimony will change much of anything. It certainly won’t light a fire under Nancy Pelosi to begin impeachment proceedings ASAP.

I pray I’m wrong.

Photo | cnbcfm.com

Will Mueller’s Testimony Change Anything? Probably Not

July 5, 2019 By John DeProspo 3 Comments

In less than two weeks, Robert Mueller will testify before Congress.

On July 17, the reluctant witness will answer questions, in open hearings in front of two Congressional committees, about his probe into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

While many fans of karma, and the rule of law, are excited about Mueller possibly exposing Trump for the criminal that he is, it is more likely they will be sorely disappointed. But whatever Mueller’s testimony, it will probably not change the dynamics of impeachment. It is crystal clear by now that Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in the House do not want to start impeachment proceedings against Trump.

Republicans on both the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees think Mueller’s appearance will be a disaster for him because they plan on exposing him as an incompetent, political hack. They, somehow, will try to get at the former Eagle Scout’s credibility.

Good luck with that!

No, Mueller’s testimony will be ineffective not because a few Republican attack dogs, while making fools of themselves, will show he is a flawed individual and that members of his staff were biased against Trump. Mueller will likely disappoint because he will simply stick to the facts we already know.

Mueller has stated he plans on confining his testimony to the “four corners of his report.”

So don’t expect the ex-Marine to answer some serious questions, such as: whether he or his team thought there was sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction, were he not president.

But even if Mueller reveals some new information harmful to Trump, it is unlikely to be the game changer that will spark impeachment proceedings the next day, or week or month.

Nancy Pelosi wants Trump to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2020 no matter what we may learn from Mueller. In her perfect world, the Democratic candidate will trounce Trump at the polls and Democrats will flip the Senate.

Good luck with that!

The American people, Madam Speaker, need for you to do your job, Mueller or no Mueller! If you do not, you run the serious risk of demoralizing your base and helping Trump to a second term.

Photo | bostonherald.com

No, Mueller Has Not “Agreed” To Testify Before Congress

June 26, 2019 By John DeProspo Leave a Comment

The breaking news is everywhere: “Mueller agrees to testify before House committees.”

Former Special Counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, will testify in open session before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on July 17.

Yet Robert Mueller is not the upstanding patriot some are portraying him to be. What Mueller has done is to simply agree to honor two subpoenas.

After weeks of negotiations between Mueller and House Democrats for his voluntary testimony, House Committee Chairmen, Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff, were forced to issue subpoenas for Mueller’s testimony.

Mueller made it clear in a rare public statement in May that he did not wish to testify publicly about his investigation. He said his report spoke for itself … my “report is my testimony.”

“He was and is deeply reluctant to come testify, but nonetheless he has agreed to respect the subpoena,” said Schiff.

Schiff made it clear this is not a “friendly” subpoena.

“I don’t think the Special Counsel’s Office would characterize it as a ‘friendly subpoena,'” said Schiff. “He did not want to testify. He made that very clear.”

Chairman Nadler, during an interview on CNN Tuesday night, said that he is not worried that the White House or Department of Justice will block Mueller’s testimony.

“No, I’m not really worried about that because Mueller is an honest, upstanding citizen and he will testify in response to the subpoena that we issued,” Nadler said.

So the best that can be said of “Bobby Three Sticks” Mueller is that he is not defying a subpoena as many other potential witnesses have done.

After all, Mueller is a former Eagle Scout!

Yet it should never have come to this (subpoena).

Photo | theatlantic.com/REUTERS/Jim Bourg

Stoic, Reserved Mueller Finally Talks … In “Lawyerspeak”

May 30, 2019 By John DeProspo 2 Comments

The publicity shy, by-the-book Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, delivered a surprise speech yesterday in which he, in the most indirect of ways, called his boss, Attorney General, William Barr a liar. During his nine-minute press conference, Mueller shot down both William Barr’s and Donald Trump’s “no collusion, no obstruction” mantra.

Mueller explained, under a long-standing DOJ policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while in office. “Charging the President with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider,” said Mueller.

The mild-mannered Mueller, however, disappointed many listeners by delivering a speech devoid of bombshells, filled more with implications, hints and innuendos. It was a speech more for professionals to decode than for the American public to consume.

Bottom-line? While he couldn’t complete the job he was assigned to do, the ball is now squarely in the hands of Congress to begin impeachment proceedings for perhaps the most brazen criminal ever to occupy the White House.

Photo | smerconish.com

Bobby … Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are!

May 28, 2019 By John DeProspo 3 Comments

Mr. Mueller (may I call you Bobby? Thanks) it has now been over two months since you handed over your Trump-Russia report to your boss, AG William Barr, and it appears you have gone into hiding.

We’ve heard from all sorts of folks about your report … from those who have actually read the entire thing to those who haven’t a clue about its contents … yet we haven’t heard from the most authoritative analyst… you.

Your findings have not only be distorted and mischaracterized, they have been used by Trump and his sycophants to further their narrative that your entire two-year investigation into perhaps our most corrupt president has been a hoax.

It is way past time for you to end this game of hide and seek,

You have been called to discuss your report before the House Judiciary Committee. You now have the opportunity to set the record straight. So what gives, Bobby?

What is preventing you from doing your duty? From defending your integrity? From getting the facts out to the American people?

We now hear from Chairman Nadler that you are willing to testify but only behind closed doors?

This is no time to be camera shy. Your country needs you. The American people must see your face and hear your voice.

Is your reticence the result of being threatened? Do you fear for you safety?

Knowing your history, I seriously doubt it.

You are a man of honor and courage. A man deserving of the utmost respect. Hell, you’re a decorated combat veteran … a patriot if there ever was one.

It’s time to end your silence and get out there before the cameras … and start talking.

It’s very possible your testimony will tilt the political scales and get members of Congress to do what the Constitution calls on them to do … impeach and remove the brazen criminal now occupying the White House.

Photo | time.com

Dems … Enough With The “Mister Nice Guy” Routine Already!

May 9, 2019 By John DeProspo Leave a Comment

When will Democrats learn how to deal with Republicans? When will they stop bringing knives to gunfights? When will they fight fire with fire?

We are in the middle of a constitutional crisis. We have a lawless president, and administration, that keeps giving the bird to our Constitution and system of government. And what do Dems do? Play nicy nice. We have cabinet members thumbing their noses at lawful subpoenas and Dems just keep writing cordial letters and asking for compliance.

Yes, issuing contempt citations is all fine and good … but who will enforce them? Our compromised Justice Department?

Former Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich) made a great suggestion recently, arguing against fruitless efforts to get this administration to enforce contempt citations … jail the lawbreakers! While not used since 1935, Congress has the constitutional authority (inherent contempt power) to detain and imprison a person found in contempt until that person complies with the congressional demand or that Congress comes to an end.

“To protect its constitutional authority and carry out its constitutional responsibility to the American people, it should not hesitate to use its inherent contempt power if needed,” said Levin.

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin agrees with Levin. She argues for the Dems to start employing their “lock them up” power.

“One can imagine the chaos that might ensue from an effort to put … Cabinet officials behind bars, but it does seem time for the House to take some measure(s) at least as dramatic as Trump and his Republican sycophants’ blatant, repeated violations of the rule of law,” writes Rubin in yesterday’s Post.

Rubin goes on to give Dems a list of actions they should consider in dealing with the criminal syndicate now running this country:

“Pursue crushing civil fines against recalcitrant witnesses, impeach Mnuchin and Barr, seek sanctions to punish lawyers for ethics violations and, yes, if need be, try to lock them up. Perhaps if Democrats start wielding their power, some Republicans (just a few) will recognize the gravity of the situation they have created and head off the administration before a true constitutional calamity ensues.”

Jennifer Rubin, a conservative columnist, is spot on. It’s past time for Dems to grow a pair and steal a page from the Republicans’ book of hardball.

“Lock em’ up! Lock em’ up! Lock em’ up!

Photo | cnbc.com

The Fate of American Democracy May Hinge On One Person … John Roberts

May 5, 2019 By John DeProspo 4 Comments

When Richard Nixon refused to comply with the Senate Watergate committee’s subpoena to turn over his White House tapes, the standoff resulted in litigation which made its way to the Supreme Court.

In an 8-0 decision (Justice Rehnquist recused himself), the Court ruled against Nixon and directed him to turn over the tapes to Congress.

Much like Nixon, the Trump Administration is refusing to comply with a lawful congressional subpoena for the full, unredacted Mueller report (and its supporting documents).

How would the current conservative Supreme Court rule on Trump’s clear defiance of established law?

There is little doubt this Court would be divided. No unanimous decision here, folks, as in United States v. Nixon.

You can bet on a 5-4 decision, either way.

Since Justice Anthony Kennedy retired from the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts has become the de facto “swing vote.” With four solid conservatives on the bench, now that Trump has been able to get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to join the other two right-wing ideologues (Thomas and Alito), how would Roberts vote?

If Roberts joins his conservative colleagues, you can pretty much forget about the rule of law, and the Constitution for that matter, in this country. We will have a kneecapped congress unable to fulfill its oversight responsibilities, and we’ll have entered a new era of unchecked, unrestrained executive powers.

If Roberts sides with the four liberals on the Court, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, we will remain a nation that honors the Constitution and the separation of powers. The decision would serve as a strong rebuke to a lawless president and administration.

So what would Roberts do if some form of United States v. Trump makes its way to his court?

If you remember, much to the dismay of conservatives, Roberts was the deciding vote which upheld Obamacare (Affordable Care Act.)

Roberts is what I would label a principled conservative jurist who actually cares about the Court’s reputation and how history will judge him and his court.

As Michael O’Donnell writes in The Atlantic, “Roberts is the most interesting judicial conservative in living memory because he is both ideologically outspoken and willing to break with ideology in a moment of great political consequence. His response to the constitutional crisis that awaits will define not just his legacy, but the Supreme Court’s as well.”

While he has sided with his conservative colleagues in 87.5 percent of 5–4 decisions, I’m betting there is a better than 50-50 chance Roberts will do the right thing and tell Trump and his cabal of corrupt cohorts they are not above the law.

Photo | newyorker.com