#

Donald Trump’s New Hampshire second-in-command was at the January 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill, and he recorded a message for law enforcement protecting the Congress.

Go kill yourselves.

“I have a message. If you are a police officer and you are going to abide by unconstitutional bullsh*t. I want you to do me a favor right now and go hang yourself,” said Dylan Quattrucci, currently New Hampshire Deputy State Director for Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

“Cuz you’re a piece of sh*t. Go f*** yourself,” Quattrucci said in the video, originally posted to his mother’s Facebook account. 

The video was shot on the evening of January 6 as members of the mob were being turned out of the Capitol Building by police officers after hours of violence. In the months that followed the attack, four of the police officers who responded to the Capitol to protect members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence would end up taking their own lives.

Pat Sullivan, executive director for the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, has not seen the video but is not a fan of Quattrucci’s Jan. 6 message.

“It doesn’t sound like a message anyone should be putting out,” Sullivan said. 

The mob had failed to stop Vice President Mike Pence from certifying the election for Joe Biden, which would have been unconstitutional. Quattrucci’s subsequent rise in state politics, however, went unhindered. The young activist is now an active figure in the Trump campaign, taking the post shortly after he graduated from law school.

Quattrucci did not respond to NHJournal’s request for comment.

NBC News reports that campaign finance records show he began working for the Trump campaign in May and made $6,500 in June, the most recent records available.

Matthew Bartlett is a Nashua, N.H. native who worked for the Trump administration and resigned on January 6 in response to the day’s events. He called Quattrucci’s video “one of the most disgusting messages I have seen from one of the most disgraceful days in our country’s history. This person should not be embraced in politics or public discourse, he should be deeply ashamed.”

Trump faces 91 criminal indictments in multiple venues, many connected to an alleged scheme to steal the election. Despite that, Trump remains far and away the most likely GOP candidate to win the nomination for president. Many in the party fear his wrath, and seemingly his operatives like Quattrucci. GOP insiders contacted about the video by NHJournal declined to publicly criticize Quattrucci.

Salem Police Officer Mike Geha, president of the New Hampshire Police Association, said his members work every day to keep Granite Stater’s safe and generally do not pay attention to political noise. While Geha would rather stay out of politics, he also had little time for Quattrucci’s comments.

“I can’t defend him for what he said,” Geha said.

If there is missing context for Quattrucci’s statement that police officers should kill themselves, he should come out and make that clear, Geha said.

Quattrucci has been dodging questions about his presence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 for weeks since WMUR first reported on his now-deleted tweets from the riot. None of the tweets and photos appeared to be coming from inside the Capitol Building, but Quattrucci seemed to get close.

One tweet included a photo of the crowd outside the building from a raised vantage point, like the top of the steps outside the entrance. “We’re not gonna take it,” Quattrucci wrote, possibly referring to Twisted Sister’s metal anthem from the 1980s.

Other Quattrucci tweets from Jan. 6  included, “Mike Pence is a traitor to America” and “I’m bleeding for my country. You’ll have to kill me to stop my #FightForTrump.” That last tweet accompanied a photo presumably showing Quattrucci’s hand with a minor cut on a finger. 

Medicare Advantage is the best bet for seniors looking at their options as the open enrollment period begins, according to a new study published by the “Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Health Forum.”

Medicare Advantage, also known as Medicare Part C, gives seniors a choice about how to get their medical services delivered over the traditional fee-for-service Medicare plan. According to the JAMA study, that choice also gives seniors better value and better care.

Examining data from nearly two million Medicare beneficiaries, the JAMA-published study concluded that “those enrolled in MA had lower rates of hospital stays, emergency department visits, and 30-day readmissions.” Additionally, the study noted that “[a]mong Medicare beneficiaries with complex care needs, those enrolled in MA had lower rates of acute care utilization, suggesting that managed care activities in MA may influence the nature and quality of care provided to these beneficiaries.”

Medicare Advantage provides health care plans offered by approved private coverage providers. Unlike government-run fee-for-service Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans can cover additional services that seniors rely on and depend upon, such as prescription drugs and routine eye and dental care.

The option currently enjoys broad bipartisan support in Washington, with all four members of New Hampshire’s federal delegation calling for more support for Medicare Advantage earlier this year. Sen. Maggie Hassan was part of a group of 62 lawmakers who signed off on a letter supporting the program.

“We write to express bipartisan support for the Medicare Advantage program and the high-quality, affordable care it provides to over 27 million older adults and people with disabilities,” the letter read, signed by members as ideologically diverse as Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)

In September, both Reps. Annie Kuster and Chris Pappas joined the House of Representatives in passing a bill on a voice vote to make it easier for seniors using MA to get approval for treatment and prescriptions.

Traditional fee-for-service Medicare does not limit seniors’ out-of-pocket costs and copays. As a result, beneficiaries pay nearly $2,000 more per year in total healthcare-related costs than those enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

Because Medicare Advantage relies on the private sector, some more progressive politicians oppose the option and have tried to limit its expansion or even kill it entirely. The progressive magazine “The American Prospect” wrote about Medicare advantage, and their opposition to it, in a piece headlined “The Dark History of Medicare Privatization.”

Last week, Hassan, Pappas, Kuster, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen signed a letter urging the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) to protect eligible New Hampshire Medicare beneficiaries subject to aggressive and potentially predatory marketing tactics related to the sale of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans or other insurance products.

However, based on the data, it appears seniors are satisfied with both the coverage and the quality of care received.

According to the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare Advantage enrollment has doubled over the last 15 years. Currently, 32 percent of Medicare-eligible Granite State seniors choose Medicare Advantage over traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

Reports from the Better Medicare Alliance, a research and advocacy group, indicate 95 percent of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries are satisfied with their network of care and a full 88 percent say Medicare Advantage gives them more flexibility and choice.

A separate study published by JAMA found Medicare Advantage beneficiaries received 9.2 percent fewer “costly, potentially harmful” low-value services than fee-for-service Medicare enrollees. In other words, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries received better-quality care.

The right to vote is the most sacred right a citizen has in a democracy. It underpins the whole concept of self-government and the very idea of “We the People.” It’s a right that has not come easy for many in our country, and one that must be guarded fiercely because it holds the key to the power and prestige that those with unbridled ambition are willing to lie, cheat and steal to acquire.

That is why election integrity is so important to Republicans, and why we are unwavering in our commitment to the principle of one man, one vote. When that principle is violated, it breeds dangerous cynicism that is cancerous to our republic. We must treat vote fraud and election tampering for the crime against democracy that they are and be vigilant in preventing and punishing them.

That is why I recently issued my plan to strengthen election security and improve confidence in our election outcomes through a series of simple measures that keep it easy to vote, but make it harder to cheat. My seven-point plan will do the following:

• Require Voter ID. Those seeking to vote should present verified identification just like you must do when you buy a beer, board a plane or establish employment eligibility.

• Remove The Statute Of Limitations For Vote Fraud. Those who commit voter fraud, whether it was a year ago or six years ago, must be held accountable and prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law. We must remove the statute of limitations on cases of election fraud.

• Increase Penalties For Vote Fraud. Every fraudulent vote cancels out a legitimate one. We need to treat voter fraud as the crime against democracy that it is by increasing penalties so that would-be election thieves think twice before cheating.

• Implement Election Audits. Where credible evidence of election irregularities exists, we must conduct forensic audits by a multi-partisan committee of election security experts, just as we did in the town of Windham. Proper audits in legitimate circumstances will serve to strengthen confidence in our elections and our government.

• Require In-Person Voting Except With A Legitimate Excuse. In-person voting on Election Day is not just an important part of our civic culture, but it is a critical election security measure that requires you to show yourself at the polls. New Hampshire should retain its custom of in-person voting, and continue to allow absentee voting only under special circumstances where it is a necessary accommodation for someone to cast their ballot.

• Provide Enhanced Training For Election Workers. Our election officials are mostly volunteers doing the best they can to implement free and fair elections, and they almost always get it right. But innocent mistakes do happen. By providing enhanced training on proper election procedures, we can reduce human error and the resulting frustration and cynicism.

• Protect States Rights & The First In The Nation Primary. Our friends and neighbors, who we know and trust – and who know us – should oversee our elections, not nameless, faceless, federal bureaucrats. While Chris Pappas supports the federalization of our elections, which would undermine New Hampshire’s state constitution and our long history of competently run elections, I will always put New Hampshire first. And we must never give up New Hampshire’s status as the First-In-The-Nation primary. Our unique, grassroots style of politics is a critical safeguard that ensures big money and Big Tech aren’t deciding factors in making our presidential nominations.

These are important measures for restoring trust in our elections, which are the lifeblood of our democratic republic. In the Republican primary for Congress, we have a responsibility to nominate a candidate who can credibly advance election integrity and the principle of one man, one vote. Our nation truly does depend on it.

Gail Huff Brown is a candidate in the Republican primary in the First Congressional District. If you also stand for Election Integrity, please donate to Gail here. 

[Paid for by Gail Huff Brown for Congress]

During the early days of the New Hampshire First District Democratic primary, none of the (at least) nine congressional candidates would commit to supporting former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s return to power if, as expected, their party took control of the chamber.

Eventually, just one of the candidates, state rep. Mark MacKenzie, would publicly endorse Pelosi for speaker before the primary vote.

He came in eighth. 

The eventual nominee, Democrat Chris Pappas, then spent the entire general election dodging the issue in his campaign against Republican Eddie Edwards.  Pappas won handily on November 6th, but weeks later still refused to reveal his intentions regarding the leader of his caucus.

Until today.

This morning, Pappas finally announced what many NH pundits suspected was true throughout his campaign: #HesWithHer. He will join his fellow New Hampshire Rep. Annie Kuster and vote for a return to the Pelosi era.

“After careful consideration and discussion with many constituents and future colleagues in Congress, I have decided to support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House,” Pappas said in a statement released today.   “I believe she is best equipped to lead the House at this point in our history.

“My conversations with her convinced me she will lead with fairness and empower the incoming class to play a significant role in the work ahead. We must get down to doing the people’s business quickly, and we should start by reforming the way Washington works, lowering the cost of health care and creating an economy that allows everyone to succeed.”

“I will work with anyone, anywhere to do what’s right for the New Hampshire district I represent, and I will stand up to anyone—from President Trump to leaders in Congress—when they’re wrong.”

Despite the fact that the movement to stop a Pelosi speakership has been led by his fellow centrists in the party, a low-key moderate like Chris Pappas was always an unlikely rebel. In the primary, he ran against a field of strong women candidates for the chance to replace a Congresswoman, Carol Shea-Porter, in a state that currently has an entirely female federal delegation.

A vote against the first-ever woman Speaker–or any powerful woman, for that matter–was never in the cards.

To politicians who paint the picture of couples poring over a household budget and bills at their kitchen table: save the sympathy. Set an example.

The disappointing congressional budget process of Fiscal 2017 needs to be wrapped up quickly, with a federal government partial “shutdown” looming this Friday.

Comparing Congress to a procrastinating college student near spring semester’s end would disparage the student. Spring Break’s a week. Members of Congress just returned Monday from a two-week recess they gave themselves.

For two decades, the budget process has repeatedly broken down. Both major parties have relied on stopgap measures and omnibus bills to keep the federal government’s doors open. This way of conducting the country’s business is resulting in poor policy that produces large and growing deficits, adds to the nation’s debt, and leaves little time for serious long-term planning.

Doing better for Fiscal 2018 means at least approving all twelve appropriations bills for Fiscal 2018 — which begins October 1 — in a timely, orderly fashion. A crowded press conference with party leadership, and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Committees on the Budget, committing to a calendar would be an optic that communicates an expectation to the full Congress and public.

Presidential administration officials have recently reiterated advocacy for increased defense spending, initial funding for a Mexican border wall, and altering or eliminating Affordable Care Act subsidy appropriations. Whether intentional or incidental in their complication of resolving the imminent operations shortfall, the executive branch has been enabled by a chaotic Congress.

Constituents aren’t explicitly asking for everything for nothing. But they have changed their minds some since the pre-election fall. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center has observed an 11-point swing toward a 48-45% preference for a bigger government, more services—for the first time in eight years, and almost across the board. When asked if they were making up the federal budget this year, a majority said they’d increase spending on six of 15 causes (in order of popularity: veterans benefits, education, rebuilding highways and bridges, Medicare, and health care). The 67% for increased federal spending on education are either overlooking the “local control” impulse or simply favor funding schools over federalism. Another six causes garnered plurality support for increased federal funding (descending: scientific research, military defense, environmental protection, anti-terrorism in the U.S., Social Security, assistance to the needy in the U.S.). At 48% for increased scientific research and another 38% for “Keep spending the same” in the survey conducted prior to last weekend’s March for Science, there’s an apparent appetite for maintaining to expanding exploration and innovation at parity with entitlement programs.

Americans surveyed by Pew said they’d keep spending the same for assistance to the unemployed, assistance to the needy around the world, and for the State Department and embassies. So there’s not a consensus or even inclination in favor of reducing spending on any sector. And the narrow two-percent margin for decrease as compared to increase for foreign aid (the plurality still for keeping spending the same) would undoubtedly disappear if respondents knew the actual spend data; Americans have historically overestimated U.S. foreign aid tenfold. We can’t afford it all amidst the nearly $20 trillion debt and reasonably expected revenues via Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) with its present enforcement mechanisms.

There are also people who want tax cuts. There are no people who want to keep paying hundreds of billions of dollars on debt service—i.e., on interest.

To the extent that foreign affairs are particularly unpredictable, a more predictable budgetary process in the Capitol would at least serve to “control what we can control.” Let’s get through this week, and then we can ask our congressional delegation to help lead on consistency.