Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘House Judiciary Committee’

Court Docs: Democrats Still Hope to Impeach Trump over Russia


Filed by Joel B. Pollak | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/23/court-docs-democrats-still-hope-to-impeach-trump-over-russia/

Komrade Trumpov impeachment rally balloon (Joel Pollak / Breitbart News / 

House Democrats are still hoping to impeach President Donald Trump over allegations resulting from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report earlier this year into “Russia collusion,” though Mueller found none existed.

The House Judiciary Committee reportedly told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday that it still wanted former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify even though Trump has already been impeached, because his impeachment could reveal that Trump obstructed justice in the Russia investigation.

Democrats voted last Wednesday to impeach the president for “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” in claims related to his dealings with Ukraine. But the text of the articles of impeachment cited Trump’s alleged “previous invitations of foreign interference,” referring to debunked allegations that he sought to collude with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Democrats pursued McGahn’s testimony at the time the Mueller Report was released because they were determined to find any evidence that Trump obstructed justice, even though he had made every witness and document available to investigators and declined to exercise executive privilege. Mueller did not refer Trump for prosecution, nor did he  “exonerate” the president, but both Attorney General William Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.

Nevertheless, Democrats continued to look for evidence of obstruction, even trying to obtain the grand jury materials that Mueller had used, which Barr was prohibited, by law, from providing to Congress (which found him in contempt anyway).

The White House, which had previously cooperated with Mueller, balked at allowing the president’s counsel to testify before Congress after the Mueller inquiry ended, citing legal privileges and constitutional boundaries.

But Democrats persisted.

In the Judiciary Committee’s report accompanying the articles of impeachment, which it cited in its court filing Monday, Democrats hinted that they included Trump’s so-called “obstruction of justice” in the Russia investigation in their “obstruction of Congress” article of impeachment, though they did not specifically charge him with obstructing justice (footnotes removed):

The Second Article of Impeachment impeaches President Trump for obstructing Congress with respect to the House impeachment inquiry relating to Ukraine. Yet, as noted in that Article, President Trump’s obstruction of that investigation is “consistent with [his] previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.” An understanding of those previous efforts, and the pattern of misconduct they represent, sheds light on the particular conduct set forth in that Article as sufficient grounds for the impeachment of President Trump.

These previous efforts include, but are not limited to, President Trump’s endeavor to impede the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 United States Presidential election, as well as President Trump’s sustained efforts to obstruct the Special Counsel after learning that he was under investigation for obstruction of justice.

However, a footnote at the end of the first paragraph above suggested that the committee would seek to interview McGahn to obtain evidence for use in a Senate trial on existing articles of impeachment, not new ones:

This Committee has undertaken an investigation relating to the Special Counsel’s report. That includes inquiring into President Trump’s obstruction of the Special Counsel, as well as a review of other aspects of the Special Counsel’s underlying work that the President obstructed. As part of this investigation, the Committee has sought to compel testimony by former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II, and to review certain grand jury materials relating to the Special Counsel’s report. Should the Committee obtain the information, it would be utilized, among other purposes, in a Senate trial on these articles of impeachment, if any. The Committee, moreover, has continued and will continue those investigations consistent with its own prior statements respecting their importance and purposes.

The DC Circuit is scheduled to hear the case on January 3. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has refused to turn over the articles of impeachment to the Senate because she says she is awaiting a guarantee of a “fair trial” — though the Constitution suggests that the Senate could hold a trial anyway.

She may, however, also be awaiting the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on the McGahn case, which would almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by either side.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Democrats Tell Court: More Impeachment Articles, Maybe, if Trump Lawyer Testifies


Filed by Joshua Caplan | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/23/democrats-tell-court-more-impeachment-articles-maybe-if-trump-lawyer-testifies/

WASHINGTON, DC – DECEMBER 18: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) delivers remarks alongside Chairman Jerry Nadler, House Committee on the Judiciary (D-NY) and Chairman Eliot Engel, House Foreign Affairs Committee (D-NY), following the House of Representatives vote to impeach President Donald Trump on December 18, 2019 in Washington, … Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images

The House Judiciary Committee told a federal appeals court Monday that it still wants former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify as it could potentially lead to the introduction of “additional articles of impeachment” against President Donald Trump over his contacts with Ukraine.

In a brief submitted to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the panel’s counsel Doug Letter argued its subpoena of McGahn, who departed the White House last year, is not moot despite the House’s approval of two impeachment articles — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — in a partisan vote on Wednesday evening.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” the brief reads.

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), subpoenaed McGahn in March for its investigation into whether President Trump or senior White House officials obstructed justice during special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into now-debunked collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.

The Trump White House requested McGahn refuse to comply with the subpoena, citing “absolute immunity” that has long shielded top advisers from testifying before Congress.

Late last month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of previous ruling directing McGahn to testify. The court said it would consider granting a longer stay and scheduled a hearing for oral arguments on January 3.

In a ten-page filing, the Department of Justice argued the House’s impeachment vote “eliminate[d] the need” for McGahn to answer congressional questioning and “underscore the reasons why this Court should dismiss or deny the Committee’s suit without adjudicating the subpoena’s validity.”

“Indeed, if this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial,” DOJ lawyer wrote. “That would be of questionable propriety whether or not such a judicial resolution preceded or post-dated any impeachment trial.”

My Own Two Cents


Listening to this socialist trial of President trump, under the transparent guise of being an impeachment inquiry, I am left with many questions.

  • The Leftist are proceeding with a hearing to impeach a dully elected President based on presumptuous, manufactured, taken out of context, spun and manipulated farce they represent as facts. This is more proof of their socialistic mindsets because socialist conduct all trials this way. The verdict is predetermined. The accused is doomed to a guilty verdict. Here’s the question: If given the control of all three of the divisions of The Federal Government, what will stop them from treating all people of the United States the same?
    • Rival politicians?
    • Judges?
    • Governors?
    • Any person whose speech they don’t like?
    • , etc., etc.?
  • What would stop the socialist left from telling the American people that their interpretation of the Constitution is the ONLY correct one?
  • Would these socialist outlaw the Electoral College making all national elections based on who got the most votes removing all possibility that a Conservative/Republican would ever be elected?
    • How long would it take to take over control of the states?
  • How long before our Constitution would be done away with and replaced with a socialist supported document?
  • Where would this stop?

Adam Schiff Gives Democrats Only 24 Hours to Sign Impeachment Report


Written by Joel B. Pollak | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/01/adam-schiff-gives-democrats-only-24-hours-to-read-impeachment-report/

WASHINGTON, DC – NOVEMBER 4: U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) speaks to reporters following a closed-door hearing with the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees at the U.S. Capitol on November 4, 2019 in Washington, DC. On Monday, House investigators released the first transcripts from … Drew Angerer/Getty Images

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is giving members of his committee just 24 hours to read and sign off on his report recommending articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. As Breitbart News reported Friday, House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler has previewed the report, and suggested it will include claims of “collusion” with Russia — as well as Ukraine, Russia’s enemy.

And as reported Saturday, Schiff will provide the full report to committee members on Monday, who must sign off on Tuesday in time for the first hearing in Nadler’s committee on Wednesday, which will discuss the supposed constitutional and legal basis for impeachment.

It is a foregone conclusion that Democrats will sign off on Schiff’s report. Evidence does not seem to be the top priority for Democrats: a majority favored an impeachment inquiry by August 1, eleven days before the so-called “whistleblower” sent a letter to Schiff complaining about Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.

However, as the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York has noted, Democrats are in such a rush that they are leaving potential facts out of their examination. For example, they could wage a court battle to force former National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify. Bolton reportedly disapproved of the role played by U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani in relations with Ukraine. He could be a key witness. However, Democrats did not want to wait to hear what he had to say.

As York noted recently in a column titled “Why the rush toward impeachment?”, Democrats “are racing to get the job done by Christmas. They’re not even trying to hear from some key witnesses, like former national security adviser John Bolton, because they don’t want to take the time to go to court over it.”

York notes that Democrats are fearful of letting impeachment drag into the 2020 presidential primary, when it will pull several U.S. Senators off the campaign trail. And they are also worried about the fact that public support for impeachment is stagnant at best, and slipping at worst, after lackluster public hearings last month.

But the rush has been a feature from the very beginning. On the day that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry, the president had already announced that he had declassified the transcript (or “readout”) of the phone call with Zelensky, and that it would be published the next day. Pelosi did not want to wait for the evidence: her decision was driven by political factors.

Likewise, the Intelligence Committee has rushed its proceedings before all of the evidence was available to most members of Congress, or the public. It often published lengthy transcripts of closed-door depositions on the eve of public hearings, and only released the most exculpatory transcript after public hearings were over.

Nadler has given Trump until Friday to respond to a request to participate, either directly or through his counsel, in the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment proceedings.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

House Passes “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” Bill


Posted by GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.com | on January 13, 2018

In a statement published by House Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives has passed the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” bill, which is a big NRA victory. The Vote stood at 231-198 . This piece of legislation will allow any concealed-carry permit holders to transport their firearms over state lines. Senate Democrats, however, are expecting to block this.

Read the full statement below:

Washington, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee today approved two bills to protect the Second Amendment and curb gun violence, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 and the Fix NICS Act of 2017. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) applauded today’s Committee approval of these bills in the statement below.

Chairman Goodlatte: “Today the House Judiciary Committee took action to protect Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms and enhance public safety. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act ensures that law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right does not end when they cross state lines. Citizens with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit, or individuals who are citizens of states that do not require a permit to carry a concealed firearm, should not have to worry about losing these rights when entering another state that may have different rules and regulations.

“Further, the Fix NICS Act strengthens our nation’s existing laws by ensuring criminals are reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Tragically, our nation has all too often witnessed heinous acts of violence by criminals who should never have been able to purchase a firearm. We must ensure that both federal and state authorities are properly and accurately reporting criminals to NICS so that we prevent crime and protect lives.

“I thank Representatives Hudson and Culberson for their work on these important bills and look forward to the House of Representatives taking them up in the coming weeks.” 

The House Judiciary Committee first approved by a vote of 19-11 the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), sponsored by Representative Richard Hudson (R-N.C.). This bill allows people with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit, or individuals who are citizens of states that do not require a permit to carry a concealed firearm, to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry, as long as the individual follows the laws of that state.

“My bill is a simple, common sense solution to the confusing hodgepodge of concealed carry reciprocity agreements between states,” said Representative Hudson on today’s Committee vote on H.R. 38. “It will affirm that law-abiding citizens who are qualified to carry concealed in one state can also carry in other states that allow residents to do so. I am pleased to see such strong support in committee, and I look forward to continuing this momentum and bringing the bill to the House floor as soon as possible.”

The Committee also approved by a vote of 17-6 the Fix NICS Act of 2017 (H.R. 4477), sponsored by Representative John Culberson (R-Texas). This bipartisan, bicameral bill ensures federal and state authorities comply with existing law and report criminal history records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Fix NICS Act also penalizes federal agencies that fail to report relevant criminal records to the FBI, incentivizes states to improve their reporting, and directs federal funding to make sure domestic violence records are accurately reported to the FBI. Further, the bill requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics to report to Congress within 180 days the number of times that a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime in the United States.

“Had existing law been enforced, the terrible tragedy in Sutherland Springs, Texas would have never occurred,” said Representative Culberson. “There is simply no excuse for the ongoing negligence of criminal history reporting into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I’m greatly encouraged by this bipartisan effort to ensure federal and state authorities enforce existing law. I urge my colleagues in Congress to support this lifesaving piece of legislation.”

This is wonderful news! Hopefully Senate Republicans can prevent any blocks from the Democrats. Obama wanted common sense gun laws, so here you have it!

 

House Passes “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” Bill


Posted by GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.com | on December 6, 2017

In a statement published by House Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives has passed the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” bill, which is a big NRA victory. The Vote stood at 231-198 .

This piece of legislation will allow any concealed-carry permit holders to transport their firearms over state lines. Senate Democrats, however, are expecting to block this.

Read the full statement below:

Washington, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee today approved two bills to protect the Second Amendment and curb gun violence, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 and the Fix NICS Act of 2017. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) applauded today’s Committee approval of these bills in the statement below.

Chairman Goodlatte: “Today the House Judiciary Committee took action to protect Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms and enhance public safety. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act ensures that law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right does not end when they cross state lines. Citizens with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit, or individuals who are citizens of states that do not require a permit to carry a concealed firearm, should not have to worry about losing these rights when entering another state that may have different rules and regulations.

“Further, the Fix NICS Act strengthens our nation’s existing laws by ensuring criminals are reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Tragically, our nation has all too often witnessed heinous acts of violence by criminals who should never have been able to purchase a firearm. We must ensure that both federal and state authorities are properly and accurately reporting criminals to NICS so that we prevent crime and protect lives.

“I thank Representatives Hudson and Culberson for their work on these important bills and look forward to the House of Representatives taking them up in the coming weeks.”

The House Judiciary Committee first approved by a vote of 19-11 the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), sponsored by Representative Richard Hudson (R-N.C.). This bill allows people with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit, or individuals who are citizens of states that do not require a permit to carry a concealed firearm, to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry, as long as the individual follows the laws of that state.

“My bill is a simple, common sense solution to the confusing hodgepodge of concealed carry reciprocity agreements between states,” said Representative Hudson on today’s Committee vote on H.R. 38. “It will affirm that law-abiding citizens who are qualified to carry concealed in one state can also carry in other states that allow residents to do so. I am pleased to see such strong support in committee, and I look forward to continuing this momentum and bringing the bill to the House floor as soon as possible.”

The Committee also approved by a vote of 17-6 the Fix NICS Act of 2017 (H.R. 4477), sponsored by Representative John Culberson (R-Texas). This bipartisan, bicameral bill ensures federal and state authorities comply with existing law and report criminal history records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Fix NICS Act also penalizes federal agencies that fail to report relevant criminal records to the FBI, incentivizes states to improve their reporting, and directs federal funding to make sure domestic violence records are accurately reported to the FBI. Further, the bill requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics to report to Congress within 180 days the number of times that a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime in the United States.

“Had existing law been enforced, the terrible tragedy in Sutherland Springs, Texas would have never occurred,” said Representative Culberson. “There is simply no excuse for the ongoing negligence of criminal history reporting into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I’m greatly encouraged by this bipartisan effort to ensure federal and state authorities enforce existing law. I urge my colleagues in Congress to support this lifesaving piece of legislation.”

This is wonderful news! Hopefully Senate Republicans can prevent any blocks from the Democrats. Obama wanted common sense gun laws, so here you have it!

Gianna Jessen Asks Congress “If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were mine?”


waving flag

Posted in Abortion and Life Issues by

URL of the original posting site: http://julieroys.com/gianna-jessen-asks-congress-if-abortion-is-about-womens-rights-then-what-were-mine

blog_graphics_jessen2

“If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were mine?” Gianna Jessen asked a House Judiciary Committee that question today — and with good reason. Thirty-eight years ago, Jessen miraculously survived a saline abortion. This morning, she told her remarkable story to a House Judiciary Committee investigating Planned Parenthood’s practice of harvesting and selling the body parts of aborted babies — even from those that may have been born alive. Fellow abortion survivor Melissa Ohden also shared her own gripping testimony. Below are the video and transcript of Jessen’s testimony, including some photographs she submitted as evidence. Listen and weep, and pray that God ends this evil.

pp

how many body parts

Transcript of Gianna Jessen’s Testimony to the House Judiciary Committee

Good morning,

My name is Gianna Jessen, and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. My biological mother was seven and a half months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood, who advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.

Screen Shot 2015-09-09 at 4.19.06 PMThis method of abortion burns the baby inside and out, blinding and suffocating the child, who is then born dead, usually within 24 hours. 

Instead of dying, after 18 hours of being burned in my mother’s womb, I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles on April the 6th, 1977. My medical records state: “Born alive during saline abortion” at 6 am.

Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die. Instead, a nurse called an ambulance, and I was rushed to a hospital. Doctors did not expect me to live.

I did. I was later diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy, which was caused by a lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving the abortion. I was never supposed to hold my head up or walk. I do. And Cerebral Palsy is a great gift to me.

I was eventually placed in foster care and later adopted. I forgive my biological mother. Within the first year after my birth, I was used as an expert witness in a case where an abortionist had been caught strangling a child to death after being born alive.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said the following: “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” – Margaret Sanger, “Woman and the New Race”

RELATED: 10 Reasons to De-fund Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood is not ashamed of what they have done or continue to do. But we will have to give an account as a nation, before God, for our apathy and for themurder of over 50 million children in the womb. Every time we falter in courage as individuals and fail to confront this evil, I wonder how many lives have been lost in our silence, while we make sure we are lauded among men and do not offend anyone? How many children have died, and been dismembered, and their parts sold, for our ego, our convenience, and our promiscuity? How many Lamborghini’s were purchased with the blood of innocent children? The blood that cries to the Lord from the ground, like that of the blood of Abel. Not one of them is forgotten by Him.

I would ask Planned Parenthood the following questions:

If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were mine? You continuously use the argument, “If the baby is disabled, we need to terminate the pregnancy,” as if you can determine the quality of someone’s life. Is my life less valuable due to my Cerebral Palsy?

You have failed, in your arrogance and greed, to see one thing: it is often from the weakest among us that we learn wisdom – something sorely lacking in our nation today. And it is both our folly and our shame that blinds us to the beauty of adversity.

Planned Parenthood uses deception, the manipulation of language and slogans, such as “a woman’s right to choose,” to achieve their monetary aims.

I will illustrate how well they employ this technique with the following quote: “The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” – Adolf Hitler

RELATED: Survivor of botched abortion, Melissa Ohden, tells Congress: Planned Parenthood makes sure “failures” like me don’t happen

We often hear that if Planned Parenthood were to be defunded, there would be a health crisis among women without the services they provide. This is absolutely false. Pregnancy resource centers are located nationwide as an option for the woman in crisis. All of their services are free and confidential, and they can be reached by texting: “HELPLINE” to 313131. There is access to vital exams for women other than Planned Parenthood. We are not a nation without options.

Planned Parenthood receives $500 million dollars of taxpayer money a year, to primarily destroy and dismember babies. Do not tell me these are not children. A heartbeat proves that. So does 4-d ultrasound. So do I, and so does the fact that they are selling human organs for profit. Do not tell me this is only a woman’s issue. It takes both a man and a woman to create a child. And to that point I wish to speak to the men listening to me: You are made for greatness, not passivity. You were born to defend women and children. Not use and abandon us, nor sit idly by while you know we are being harmed. I am asking you to be brave.

In conclusion, let me say, I am alive because of the Power of Jesus Christ alone. In Whom I live, move, and have my being. Without Him I would have nothing; with Him, I have all.

Abortion monster 95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: