In his Thursday interview with Good Morning America, Empire actor Jussie Smollett struck back at those who have doubted his story of an alleged hate crime attack in Chicago.
Throughout his chat with Robin Roberts, Smollett described his frustration with those who’ve criticized him and taken a skeptical view of his attack. At one point he suggested that his doubters might have a racial agenda, saying they wouldn’t be so disbelieving if his attackers were minorities.
“It feels like if I had said it was a Muslim or a Mexican or someone black (who attacked me), I feel like the doubters would have supported me a lot much more, a lot more and that says a lot about the place that we are in our country right now.”
As Smollett defended his reluctance to share his phone records with the police, he grumbled about “inaccurate, false statements” that have been spread about the attack, citing one which claimed that he said his attackers wore MAGA hats. Smollett explained that this was a false add-on to what he said earlier in the interview about how his attacker supposed yelled pro-Donald Trump slogans during the assault.
“I never said that. I didn’t need to add anything like that,” Smollett said. “They called me a f*ggot, they called me a n*gger. There’s no which way you cut it. I don’t need some MAGA hat as the cherry on top of some racist sundae.”
Smollett continued to bash other “ridiculous” false narratives about the attack, he said that he could’ve been targeted because “I come really, really hard against 45. I don’t hold my tongue.” Smollett said he was appreciative that the president condemned the “horrible” attack on him, but as for the perpetrators, “I could only go off their words.”
“Who says ‘This is MAGA country,’ ties a noose around your neck, and pours bleach on you and this is just a friendly fight?”
Democratic House Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries defended his party’s push for a universal background check bill Wednesday, claiming that any enforcement of the legislation — including federal firearm registration — will be left to the Department of Justice to decide.
Efforts to expand federal firearm background checks to all private sales could eventually lead to federal firearms registration, a potential that worries some Second Amendment advocates and sympathetic Republicans.
“The Department of Justice and the FBI will have primary responsibility for enforcing the requirements that we hope will be enacted into law consistent with the values of the overwhelming majority of the American people,” Jeffries said. (RELATED: Congress To Take Up Gun Control This Week)
“This is a discussion that we should be having in the United States Congress as it relates to the gun violence epidemic in the United States of America, particularly on the eve of the tragedy that took place in Parkland,” Jeffries continued.
Republican North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson, author of the National Reciprocity Act of 2017, said in response to Jeffries, “That sounds to me like a registry is a possibility if you have an attorney general that wants one.”
House Judiciary Committee members marked up the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 on Wednesday, previously citing the upcoming anniversary of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on Feb. 14. (RELATED: House To Move Forward With Gun Control Proposals)
“How would H.R. 8 be enforced? If someone obtains a gun without getting a background check, it would seem that’s not going to come to light until that gun is used,” Republican Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert said during the markup committee hearing.
While the current bill restricts any formation directly or indirectly of a national firearms registry, Democrats on the committee see this legislation as a first step and support a federal registry in some way.
Democratic California Rep. Karen Bass, a fellow Judiciary Committee member, says the enforcement question is a “good one” but could not provide information “beyond ATF and the resources around that.” When asked by the Caller if she would prefer to see a mandatory federal firearms registry, Bass replied: “Not right now.”
“The truth of the matter is the gun is registered to somebody,” Democratic Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond, another Judiciary Committee member, told the Caller. “So, if somebody wanted to violate the law then that’s on them, but to detect that they violated [the law] when the new person either registers it or are caught in possession of it, the question will become how did they get the gun and if they say they purchased it.”
He added, “The question becomes why didn’t they go through the required federal law?”
Richmond says he would also like to see a mandatory federal gun registry.
“I would not mind seeing a gun registry. I really wouldn’t. I think I filed that bill when I was in the Louisiana legislature. I think I filed a registry. I think I filed ballistic fingerprints and assault weapons ban. So, I’m at the other end of the spectrum. I don’t mind.”
Richmond, though, says he does not think Democrats in Congress are ready to move legislation to support a federal firearms registry right now.
“This bill sounds good when you hear universal background checks. It sounds like a great idea, but once you realize that every gun sale in America, commercial gun sale, has a background check,” said Hudson, “and if someone’s not running a background check, they’re breaking the law. Let’s enforce the laws we have.”
Hudson also warned that an attorney general can financially exclude individuals from performing background checks, thereby denying firearms to individuals.
“Any attorney general and any local officials could set the price for running a background check for a person so high that individuals couldn’t afford to do it. So, what if they said it cost $5000 to run a background check at a gun store? Well, most Americans can’t afford that,” Hudson noted. “So those are two of the different levers that they intend to use to limit law-abiding gun owners from purchasing guns.”
(D-N.Y.) on Thursday introduced a new climate change resolution with aims to bring the progressive Green New Deal to life legislatively and push the U.S. to take a lead role in reducing carbon emissions through the economy.
The proposal, titled “Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal,” has a goal of creating millions of “good, high-wage jobs” by striving for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is introducing a companion proposal in the upper chamber.
The legislation offers a natural transition for Ocasio-Cortez, who before even formally entering office championed the idea of a Green New Deal as the basis for creating a special committee on climate change.
Engaging in a sit-in at Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) office with members of the youth climate advocates the Sunrise Movement, Ocasio-Cortez pushed to make climate change a main focus of the Democratic Party as they took back control of the House.
Her proposed special committee was ultimately rejected by Democratic leaders, who opted instead for a panel on climate crisis that lacks legislative and subpoena power. Pelosi Thursday announced the names of eight members of Congress who will sit on that panel. Ocasio-Cortez is not one of them.
The resolution aims to continue the tenants of that committee, priming congressional leaders to accept the dire climate situation as laid out in this November’s United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that the world has 12 years to reverse emissions trends in order to thwart irreversible global warming.
“Whereas, because the United States has historically been responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, having emitted 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions through 2014, and has a high technological capacity, the United States must take a leading role in reducing emissions through economic transformation,” the resolution reads.
The proposal says that accomplishing the plan would take a 10 year “national mobilization” and would include resilience building, a 100 percent renewable-energy driven power grid, updating “smart” power grids and increasing building energy efficiency. Buried in the resolution is also a commitment that all future infrastructure bills would specifically address climate change.
The text also calls for a long wish list for Ocasio-Cortez, including seeking environmental changes not directly related to climate change such as supporting family farming, guaranteeing universal access to clean drinking water and investments in high-speed railroads.
“Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us, to our country, to the world,” Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview on NPR on Thursday.
“This is really about providing justice for communities and just transitions for communities. So, really the heart of the Green New Deal is about social justice.”
In a statement released Thursday, Varshini Pakash, founder and executive director of the Sunrise Movement, said, “Young people put the Green New Deal on the national agenda. The historic support for this resolution, especially among 2020 contenders, shows how far the movement has shifted the political conversation.”
The proposal has been met in some instances with scorn from people on the right, who criticize it as a radical pipe dream rather than an achievable climate goal.
While a number of 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), have openly embraced “the concept” of the Green New Deal, they too at times have been reserved in what components of the massive undertaking they are getting behind.
The proposal comes a day after two congressional hearings Wednesday focused on addressing climate change. The hearings in the House Natural Resources and the Energy and Commerce committees were the first on the topic in nine and six years, respectively, and Democratic leadership has vowed to make the issue of curbing greenhouse gas emissions front and center in their new majority.
While many Republicans on the committees said they would try to work with Democrats to find common ground on the issue, at least one lawmaker, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), called the proposal “radical.”
“We should be open to the fact that wealth transfer schemes suggested in the radical policies like the Green New Deal may not be the best path to community prosperity and preparedness,” Shimkus said.
According to The Washington Post, Gillibrand and Booker will sponsor the plan along with other 2020 hopefuls Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is also considering a run for the White House, will also back the plan.
Trump administration is asking Koch brothers and other business what they want on their Wish List. Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam wants babies to be killed at birth. FEDERAL COURT REFUSED TO UNSEAL DOCUMENTS JUSTIFYING FBI RAID ON REPORTED CLINTON FOUNDATION WHISTLEBLOWER. NELLIE OHR RESEARCHED TRUMP’S KIDS FOR FUSION GPS. Fox News Promotes Microsoft’s NewsGuard Blacklist as ‘Good Idea’. 3 men arrested for alleged conspiracy to support ISIS. FIRST TRANSGENDER NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR THINKS‘RADICALIZED CHRISTIANS’ ARE A PROBLEM. Key House panel proposes to have ‘so help you God’ removed from oath. Rep. Ilhan Omar may have married her brother.
The media has become nothing but a bunch of liars, and I know it’s not new but there was once a time that they would hide it. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Saying ‘The World Is Going to End in 12 Years if We Don’t Address Climate Change. The media knew that Native American activist Nathan Phillips was a fraud. The Covington Catholic High School kids have been slandered by the media. COLUMNIST MATT WALSH SAYS THE LEFT’S WAR AGAINST CHRISTIANITY IS JUST GETTING STARTED. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi informed President Donald Trump Wednesday that she would not allow him to deliver his State of the Union address. SHEILA JACKSON LEE TO LEAVE LEADERSHIP POSTS AMID CLAIMS SHE RETALIATED AGAINST RAPE VICTIM. Nobel Secretary Says Awarding Obama the Peace Prize Was a Mistake.
CNN anchor Christopher Cuomo, host of Cuomo Primetime, likened red baseball caps embroidered with President Donald Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” to t-shirts which read “I Hate Black People” on Thursday evening.
A partial transcript is as follows:
CHRISTOPHER CUOMO: It’s a hat with four words on it, but they can mean a lot to people. I’m talking about the president’s MAGA hat. Now, we hear of a chef in San Mateo, California, saying “you wear that hat into my place, you’re not getting service.” He tweeted stuff like this, saying, “MAGA hats are like white hoods except stupider because you see exactly who is wearing them.” Now he’s taken down some of those tweets, and there are reports the chef is getting threats. What’s right here? What’s wrong? What matters? Let’s bring in D-Lemon, how do you see it?
DON LEMON: I think people should be able to wear whatever they want, right? I don’t like banning. I don’t like boycotting. I don’t like people getting fired for what’s just making honest mistakes. But I do say your clothing tells a story, and if you’ve put certain symbols in your home or in front of your house, things tell stories, and you should be aware of the entire story they tell, not just the little part of it that you want to be told. But I don’t like the idea of banning someone for wearing a hat, but that hat, as we have said, it’s no secret, I told you about how I feel and many people perceive that hat.
CUOMO: Right. So, you have the legality and then–
LEMON: It’s legal, right? You’re the attorney.
CUOMO: You can refuse service. You know, no shirt, no shoes, no service. On that, you’d have a counter First Amendment argument. You’re chilling my rights. It’s a private place. Well, how is this any different than the baker with the cake? Well, that was about refusing service to a group of people that should be a protected class. And, unless you argue that Trump supporters should be a protected class, I don’t think you have much of an argument on that.
…
Here’s my problem on this issue. Ordinarily, I’d go down the line, look, “be bigger than that.” But I don’t want to fold to the trap of underselling the significance of the trigger of the expression to people. I think the more appropriate analogy to say is if people were wearing shirts that said, “I hate black people,” would he be okay to say, “Don’t come into my place with that?” And I think most people would be like, “yeah.”
LEMON: Yeah.
CUOMO: That’s how people like him see the MAGA hat, so does that make it okay? I think that’s the right question.
