Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘House Republicans’

Manhattan DA issues scathing response to GOP letter on possible Trump indictment: ‘We will not be intimidated’

By Chris Pandolfo | Fox News | Published March 21, 2023 10:43am EDT


Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office has issued a statement after top House Republicans demanded that Bragg testify to Congress on a possible indictment of former President Donald Trump.

“We will not be intimidated by attempts to undermine the justice process, nor will we let baseless accusations deter us from fairly applying the law,” a spokesperson for Bragg’s office told Fox News Digital. 

“In every prosecution, we follow the law without fear or favor to uncover the truth. Our skilled, honest and dedicated lawyers remain hard at work,” the spokesperson added.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and the other top Republicans on the Administration and Oversight committees on Monday sent a letter to Bragg to demand that he turn over documents related to his Trump investigation and testify before Congress after reports said that Trump could face an indictment this week.


(Christopher Goodney / Bloomberg via Getty Images / File | Al Drago / Bloomberg via Getty Images / File)

“You are reportedly about to engage in an unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority: the indictment of a former president of the United States and current declared candidate for that office,” the letter said.

Republicans warned that an indictment of Trump over alleged hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016 would “erode confidence in the evenhanded application of justice and unalterably interfere in the court of the 2024 presidential election.”

“In light of the serious consequences of your actions, we expect that you will testify about what plainly appears to be a politically motivated prosecutorial decision,” the GOP lawmakers wrote.

The letter was signed by Jordan, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis.


Former President Donald Trump has denied allegations that he had an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels and paid her hush money to cover it up in 2016, calling Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's investigation a "witch hunt."
Former President Donald Trump has denied allegations that he had an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels and paid her hush money to cover it up in 2016, calling Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation a “witch hunt.” (Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images / File)

It marked the first official attempt by these Republican-controlled committees in the new Congress to conduct oversight of the law enforcement officials who have been investigating Trump.

The potential charges stem from the $130,000 hush-money payment that then-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, in the weeks leading up to the 2016 presidential election in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006.

Federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York opted out of charging Trump related to the Stormy Daniels payment in 2019, even as Cohen implicated him as part of his plea deal. The Federal Election Commission also tossed its investigation into the matter in 2021.

However, Bragg’s office is reportedly considering whether to bring charges against Trump by elevating misdemeanor charges for falsifying business records, for which the statute of limitations has expired, to a felony charge of falsifying those records to conceal alleged campaign finance violations — an accusation levied at Trump that the Justice Department has already declined to prosecute.


The New York Young Republicans Club held a rally in front of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office in Manhattan, New York, on March 20, 2023.
The New York Young Republicans Club held a rally in front of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office in Manhattan, New York, on March 20, 2023. (Fatih Aktas / Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Republicans called this a “novel and untested legal theory” and insisted that Bragg was “motivated by political calculations.”

Bragg’s spokesperson pushed back against the accusation by insisting that the DA’s office follows the facts.


Trump said over the weekend that he expected to be arrested Tuesday, but the district attorney’s office did not confirm Trump’s claim.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Chris Pandolfo is a writer for Fox News Digital. Send tips to and follow him on Twitter @ChrisCPandolfo.


How House Weaponization Committee Republicans Can Get The Most From Their ‘Twitter Files’ Witnesses



Jim Jordan in committee hearing
Most committee hearings flounder because politicians waste time grandstanding, but lawmakers shouldn’t squander the chance to ask insightful questions of the ‘Twitter Files’ witnesses.

Author Margot Cleveland profile




Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger testify on Thursday before the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Little they say will be new, yet because corporate media have refused to cover the story, many Americans remain ignorant about the massive scandals Taibbi, Shellenberger, and the other independent journalists have revealed over the last three months in the “Twitter Files.”

Here’s what the House committee must do to break the cone of silence. 

Introduce Taibbi and Shellenberger to Americans

Most Americans know little about Taibbi and Shellenberger, allowing the left to execute its go-to play when faced with inconvenient facts: call the messengers members of a right-wing conspiracy. The House’s weaponization committee should thus ensure the public knows neither Taibbi nor Shellenberger can be written off as conservative conspirators, much less “ultra MAGA.”

Hopefully, the two witnesses for the majority party will ensure their opening statements detail their non-conservative “credentials” — something Taibbi has attempted to do on Twitter, writing: “I’m pro-choice and didn’t vote for Trump,” and noting he is an independent.

Taibbi’s work covering politics for Rolling Stone and his “incisive, bilious takedowns of Wall Street,” as well as past appearances on “Real Time with Bill Maher,” “The Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC, and his work with Keith Olbermann, are the non-conservative credentials Americans need to hear. 

Shellenberger’s biography likewise confirms he is no right-winger or Trump surrogate. Time Magazine named him “Hero of the Environment.” “In the 1990s, Shellenberger helped save California’s last unprotected ancient redwood forest, inspire Nike to improve factory conditions, and advocate for decriminalization and harm reduction policies,” his webpage reads — details helpful to highlight for the listening public.

If Taibbi and Shellenberger’s prepared testimony omits these and other details, Chair Jim Jordan should open the hearing by asking the witnesses to share with the country their political and policy perspectives and then push them on why all Americans should care about the “Twitter Files.” 

Here, the committee and its witnesses need to remind Americans of the importance of free speech and that the silencing of speech harms the country, even when it is not the government acting as the censor. (In fact, I would argue it is precisely because our country has lost a sense of the importance of free speech that the government successfully outsourced censorship to Twitter.)

Guide Them So They Tell a Coherent Story

Next, the questioning will begin. Unfortunately, here’s where most committee hearings flounder because politicians prefer to pontificate than pose insightful questions to their witnesses. But in the case of the “Twitter Files,” Republicans can do both because the witnesses have already provided detailed answers to much of what the country needs to know in the nearly 20 installments they published over the last several months. 

Thus the goal of the committee should be to provide a platform that allows the witnesses to tell the story of the scandals uncovered. Ideally, then, committee members will lead the witnesses through their testimony as if each question represents the opening paragraph of a chapter, with Taibbi and Shellenberger given the floor to provide the details.

Start at the Beginning, the Best Place to Start

Committee members will all want to focus on the most shocking discoveries, such as the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story and the government’s demands to silence unapproved Covid messages. But those events merely represent symptoms of the diseased state of free speech Taibbi and Shellenberger uncovered, and the latter represents the real threat to our country.

Democrats, independents, and apolitical Americans will also be inclined to immediately write off the hearings as political theater if Republicans immediately flip to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and Covid messaging. Both are important parts of the story, but Americans first need to understand the context.

Begin there: After Elon Musk purchased Twitter, he provided Taibbi, Shellenberger, and other independent journalists access to internal communications. What communications were accessible? What types of emails did the journalists review? How many? What else remains to explore?

Buckets of Scandals

The story will quickly progress from there, but how? 

While the committee could walk Taibbi and Shellenberger through each of their individual “Twitter Files” reports, the better approach would be to bucket the scandals because each thread the journalists wrote included details that overlapped with earlier (and later) revelations.

Remember: The scandals are not merely the “events,” such as the blocking of the New York Post’s coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Rather, they go back to first principles — in this case, the value of free speech.

Twitter’s Huge Censorship Toolbox

Moving next to what Taibbi called Twitter’s “huge toolbox for controlling the visibility of any user,” the House committee should ask the witnesses to expand on those tools, which include “Search Blacklist,” “Trends Blacklist,” “Do Not Amplify” settings, limits on hashtag searches, and more. 

What were those tools? How often were they used and why? Did complaints from the government or other organizations ever prompt Twitter to use those visibility filters? Were official government accounts ever subjected to the filters? If so, why? 

Twitter-Government Coordination

The natural next chapter will focus on any coordination between Twitter and the government. Again, the “Twitter Files” exposed the breadth and depth of government interaction with the tech giant — from FBI offices all over the country contacting Twitter about problematic accounts to, as Taibbi wrote, Twitter “taking requests from every conceivable government agency, from state officials in Wyoming, Georgia, Minnesota, Connecticut, California, and others to the NSA, FBI, DHS, DOD, DOJ, and many others.” 

Internal communications also showed the CIA — referred to under the euphemism “Other Government Agencies” in the emails — working closely with Twitter as well. Other emails showed Twitter allowed the Department of Defense to run covert propaganda operations, “whitelisting” Pentagon accounts to prevent the covert accounts from being banned. The multi-agency Global Engagement Center, housed in the Department of State, also played a large part in the government’s efforts to prompt the censorship of speech. 

Both the Biden and Trump administrations reached out to Twitter as well, seeking the removal of various posts, as did other individual politicians, such as Rep. Adam Schiff and Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

To keep the conversation coherent, the committee should catalog the various government agencies, centers, and individuals revealed in the “Twitter Files” and ask the witnesses how these government-connected individuals or organizations communicated with Twitter, how they pressured Twitter, the types of requests they made, and their success. 

The “Twitter Files” detailed censorship requests numbering in the tens of thousands from the government. Asking the witnesses to expand on those requests and how individual Americans responded when they learned they were supposedly Russian bots or Indian trolls will make the scandal more personal.

Non-Governmental Organizations

Questioning should then proceed to the non-governmental organizations connected to Twitter’s censorship efforts. Again, the committee should first provide a quick synopsis of the revelations from the “Twitter Files,” highlighting the involvement of various nonprofits and academic institutions in the “disinformation” project, including the Election Integrity Partnership, Alliance Securing Democracy (which hosted the Hamilton 68 platform), the Atlantic Council’s Center for Internet Security, and Clemson University. 

What role did these organizations play? Have you reviewed all of the communications related to these groups? Were there other non-governmental organizations communicating with Twitter? How much influence did these groups have? 

Disinformation About Disinformation 

The story should continue next with testimony about the validity of the various disinformation claims peddled to Twitter. Internal communications showed Twitter insiders knew the Hamilton 68 dashboard’s methodology was flawed. Other emails indicated Twitter experts found the claims of Russian disinformation coming from Clemson, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Research Lab, and the Global Engagement Center questionable. 

Highlighting these facts and then asking the witnesses to elaborate on the revelations, organization by organization, will advance the story for the public. 

Funding Sources

Next up should be the funding of those organizations, which came from government grants and often the same few private organizations. Here the Committee should ask Taibbi the status of his research on the financing of these organizations — something the journalist indicated last month he is delving into.

Taibbi also suggested the Global Engagement Center’s funding should be looked at in the next budget. Why? What should the House know before it makes future budget decisions?

Connecting the Censorship Complex Dots

After these details have been discussed, the committee should connect the dots as Taibbi did when he wrote: “What most people think of as the ‘deep state’ is really a tangled collaboration of state agencies, private contractors and (sometimes state-funded) NGOs. The lines become so blurred as to be meaningless.” 

Read that quote — and other powerful ones from either the emails or the journalists covering the story — to the witnesses. Hopefully, staffers already have the best quotes blown up and ready for tomorrow.

Can you explain what you mean, here, Mr. Taibbi? What “state agencies”? What NGOs? Mr. Shellenberger, do you agree? What governmental or non-governmental players did you see involved? 

What Was the Media’s Role?

Asking the witnesses about the media’s involvement will then close the circle on the big picture, which is ironic given the press’s role in circular reporting — something even Twitter recognized. Hamilton 68 or the Global Engagement Center would announce Russian disinformation and peddle it to the press, Twitter, and politicians. Then when Twitter’s review found the accounts not concerning, politicians would rely on the press’s coverage to bolster the claims of disinformation and pressure Twitter to respond. And even when Twitter told the reporters (and politicians) the disinformation methodologies were lacking, the media persisted in regurgitating claims of Russian disinformation.

Can you explain how the press responded when Twitter told reporters to be cautious of the Hamilton 68 database? What precisely did Twitter say? Did you find similar warnings to the media about the Global Engagement Center’s data?

Specific Instances of Censorship 

Then the committee should focus on specific instances of censorship, with the Hunter Biden laptop story and Covid debates deserving top billing. 

While Republicans care most about the censorship of the laptop story, this committee hearing is not the place to put the Biden family’s pay-to-play scandals on trial. Rather, Americans need to understand four key takeaways: The laptop was real, the FBI knew it was real, the FBI’s warnings to Twitter and other tech giants prompted censorship of the Post’s reporting, and the legacy media were complicit in silencing the story. Having the witnesses explain why Twitter censored the story with the goal of conveying those points will be key.

However, highlighting the censorship of Covid debates offers a better opportunity to cross the political divide of the country and to convince Americans that the hand-in-glove relationship between media and government threatens everyone’s speech. Stressing that both the Trump and Biden administrations pushed Twitter to censor Covid-related speech will also bolster that point.

The committee should start by summarizing the various Covid topics considered verboten — the virus’ origins, vaccines, natural immunity, masking, school closings — and then stress that the science now indicates the speech silenced was correct. Highlighting specific tweets that were blocked and medical professionals who were axed from the platform, while asking the witnesses to explain how this happened, will show the public the real-world implications of a Censorship Complex governing debate in America.

Where Do We Go from Here?

The committee should close by giving Taibbi and Shellenberger the floor, asking: “Where do we go from here?” 

The “Twitter Files” revealed that the government and its allies did not limit their efforts to Twitter but pushed censorship at other platforms, and also that a new “cottage industry” in disinformation has already launched. How do Americans know they are hearing the truth? How do we know the government is not manipulating or censoring the truth? 

Furthermore, if the same Censorship Complex that limits speech on social media succeeds in canceling alternative news outlets, and if the legacy media won’t provide a check on the government, how do we preserve our constitutional republic? 

That last question is not for tomorrow’s witnesses, however. It is for every American.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

    Support building for Republican resolution to authorize military force against Mexican drug cartels, eviscerate those behind the fentanyl crisis

    By: JOSEPH MACKINNON | January 21, 2023


    Photo by ARIS MESSINIS/AFP via Getty Images

    Like Blaze News? Get the news that matters most delivered directly to your inbox. SIGN UP

    Republican congressmen introduced a resolution earlier this month to authorize American military action against the terroristic drug cartels that have overwhelmed Mexican government forces and trafficked the number one killer of adults 18-45 into the United States. That resolution is fast gaining support in the House.

    Reps. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) introduced a resolution on Jan. 12 to “authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for trafficking fentanyl or a fentanyl-related substance into the United States or carrying out other related activities that cause regional destabilization in the Western Hemisphere.”

    Unmitigated crisis

    TheBlaze previously reported that fentanyl is the leading killer of adults ages 18-45. 10% of the significant drop in life expectancy recently noted in the U.S. has been attributed to the corresponding spike in opioid overdoses, which exceeded 80,000 in 2021. Rep. David Trone (D-Md.) said in September that “It’s equivalent to one 737 (jet) every day going down, no survivors. It’s a mind-boggling number of deaths.”

    Don’t miss out on content from Dave Rubin free of big tech censorship. Listen to The Rubin Report now.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, from 2019 to 2020, opioid-involved death rates increased by 38% and synthetic opioid-involved death rates went up by 56%. The Congressional Joint Economic Committee concluded last year that the financial damage of the opioid crisis, after adjusting for inflation, carried a cost to the U.S. economy in 2020 of approximately $1.47 trillion, representing a $487 billion increase over 2019 and a 37% increase from 2017.

    Waltz said in a statement, “It’s time to go on offense.”

    “Not only are these paramilitary transnational criminal organizations responsible for killing an unprecedented number of Americans, but they are actively undermining our sovereignty by destabilizing our border and waging war against U.S. law enforcement and the Mexican military,” added the Florida Republican.

    Crenshaw claimed that the cartels are at war with the U.S., “poisoning more than 80,000 Americans with fentanyl every year, creating a crisis at our border, and turning Mexico into a failed narco-state.”

    “It’s time we directly target them,” said Crenshaw. “We cannot allow heavily armed and deadly cartels to destabilize Mexico and import people and drugs into the United States. We must start treating them like ISIS – because that is who they are.”

    The “Authorization for Use of Military Force Cartel Influence Resolution” would enable the president to lay waste to the cartels. According to the legislation, the criminal groups fit for annihilation include the: Sinaloa cartel; Jalisco New Generation cartel; Gulf cartel; Los Zetas cartel; Northeast cartel; Juarez cartel; Tijuana cartel; Beltran-Levya cartel; and La Familia Michoacana or Knight Templar cartel.

    Yuma County Supervisor Jonathan Lines told Fox News earlier this week that some of these Mexican cartels effectively control vast stretches of the U.S. southern border.

    “Unless this situation changes and we take back control from the cartels, for the trafficking coming across our border, it will only get worse,” said Lines.

    The cartels whose drugs have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans are getting increasingly brazen, especially as the efforts by Mexican military and police force repeatedly prove wanting, despite receiving billions of dollars in assistance from the U.S. since 2006.

    The Council on Foreign Relations noted in a report last year that Mexico has seen over 360,000 murders since 2006, when the government declared war on the cartels.

    At least 10 Mexican military personnel and one Culiacan policeman were slain earlier this month after authorities arrested the son of Sinaloa drug cartel leader Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

    Parts of the country were transformed into warzones.

    Waltz told Fox’s “Sunday Morning Futures” earlier this month, “They are defeating the Mexican army. These are paramilitary entities with billions and billions at their disposal.”

    Extra to dealing in death and violence, the cartels have also exacerbated the crisis at the border. Arizona Republic reported in December that cartels “have increased their involvement in migrant smuggling over the past decade, transforming the operation into a multibillion-dollar enterprise.”

    They have played a significant role in violating American sovereignty by helping to smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S. U.S. Customs and Border Protection indicated that so far, this fiscal year, over 717,660 illegal aliens have stolen across the border. 2.37 million were encountered crossing the border last year, and another 1.7 million were reported crossing the year before.

    Recognizing the need to put these cartels in the ground, Reps. Jake Ellzey (R-Texas) and Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas) signed on to cosponsor the legislation on Jan. 17. Just the News reported that Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) will similarly cosponsor the resolution. To go into effect, the resolution must be passed by both the House and the Senate and then signed by the president.

    It is unclear what impact this war measure will have on China, America’s preeminent adversary, which is reportedly involved with the cartels’ manufacture of fentanyl. According to Craig Singleton, senior fellow at the nonpartisan Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “since approximately 2013, China has been the principal source of the fentanyl flooding America’s illicit drug market.” The Republican Study Committee in the previous Congress indicated that “a significant portion of China’s fentanyl manufacturing … moved to Mexico where cartels set up their own operations to produce fentanyl using precursor chemicals from China.”

    EXCLUSIVE: McCarthy Plans Training Sessions For House GOP Staffers as Party Preps Investigations into Biden Admin



    U.S. House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) presides over a news conference about the Save Our Sequoias Act at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., June 23, 2022. REUTERS/Mary F. Calvert
    REUTERS/Mary F. Calvert

    House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is planning a series of training sessions for House Republican committee staffers in what’s viewed as the party’s next step to prepare for post-midterm investigations. McCarthy and House Administration Committee ranking member Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois sent an email Tuesday morning to staffers inviting them to the upcoming sessions, dubbed “informational briefing(s).” The email, obtained by the Daily Caller, is titled “Oversight Education Series: Investigations 101” and the briefings are designed to ready House committee staffers for conducting oversight, a person familiar with the House Republicans’ plans explained to the Caller.

    “Leader Kevin McCarthy and Ranking Member Rodney Davis would like to invite you to attend this informational briefing with Jon Skladany, Chief Oversight Counsel for the Committee on Financial Services, and Rachel Kaldahl, Republican Staff Director for the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight,” the email reads. “This briefing will review the basics of performing effective oversight investigations and will highlight best practices to fulfill Congress’s Constitutional oversight obligations.”

    The first “Investigations 101” briefing is slated for the afternoon of July 22, according to the email. McCarthy will also host a second briefing Sept. 8 and a third Sept. 26.

    The GOP has a long list of oversight investigation topics should they take over the House post-midterms, the person familiar with Republicans’ plans said. The investigations list, the Caller previously reported, includes border policies implemented under the Biden administration, the origins of COVID-19, and the administration’s reaction in testing, opening schools, and its dismissal of natural immunity. The person familiar with Republicans’ plans also said the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract at the Department of Defense (DOD) is on the investigations list.

    The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and Hunter Biden and his foreign business dealings are likely to be the subject of oversight investigations as well, a Republican Oversight Committee aide added. The individuals were granted anonymity in order to speak on private planning matters pertaining to the GOP. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Kevin McCarthy Plots An Investigation Avalanche If GOP Retakes House)

    Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, arrives with wife Melissa Cohen Biden prior to President Biden awarding Presidential Medals of Freedom during a ceremony in the East Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., July 7, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

    Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, arrives with wife Melissa Cohen Biden prior to President Biden awarding Presidential Medals of Freedom during a ceremony in the East Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., July 7, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

    Republican lawmakers have been outspoken on their plans to investigate some of these topics. McCarthy, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan and Kentucky Rep. James Comer wrote an op-ed published July 1 by the New York Post about investigating Hunter Biden. Comer and Jordan would play leading roles in any investigations of the Biden administration, since they are slated to head the Oversight and Judiciary committees, respectively.

    Republicans have already sent “hundreds of preservation notices throughout different parts of the Biden Administration,” the person familiar with the plans said. These preservation notices serve as a request that various documents relevant to a case be preserved, and some have been publicly touted by the party in recent months.

    “We’re just laying the groundwork now, we’re going to keep sending our letters. I would imagine at some point … those letters are repackaged and we say, ‘Hey, you did not respond to this request we sent you six months ago. We expect you to turn over these documents,’” the Republican Oversight Committee aide told the Caller.

    “We’re just getting ready. We keep conducting oversight … We’ll be ready to roll in January with several investigations already prepared to go,” the aide added.

    Preservation letters and informational briefings appear to be just the start in the GOP’s prep for an anticipated House takeover. A senior Republican aide told the Caller that preparation for the majority will likely “kick into full gear once August recess rolls around.”

    “It’s expected that House Republicans will flood the Biden Administration with [more] preservation notices and requests that will help jump-start GOP investigations come 2023,” this senior aide said, specifying that there will be “way, way more” preservation notices in the near future.

    “Everything will be on the table, including the possible impeachment of multiple cabinet officials,” the senior aide continued. (RELATED:  Jim Jordan Lays Out The Investigations Americans Might See If Republicans Win Back The Majority)

    Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Attorney General Merrick Garland are two cabinet officials that Republicans are honing in on for impeachment, according to the senior aide. Axios reported in April on the initial plan to impeach Mayorkas, noting at the time that “many committee members” support the move. Meanwhile, Jordan has not publicly ruled out trying to impeach Mayorkas, The Washington Free Beacon reported Monday.

    “That’ll be a decision that will be made by the entire conference,” Jordan told the Free Beacon.

    As Republicans lay the groundwork for a flood of investigations, the Biden administration is also reportedly busy prepping their defense, according to an article published by The Washington Post in April. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller.

    “Senior officials have begun strategizing on how various White House departments, especially the counsel’s office, may be restructured to respond to an onslaught of investigative requests if Democrats lose control of the House or the Senate in November’s midterm elections, as many in both parties expect,” The Washington Post reported.

    The White House has also brought on new staffers recently in the hopes that they’ll aid in responding to the various GOP probes, according to The Washington Post. Some of these staffers, like President Joe Biden’s current senior adviser, Anita Dunn, are well known to the president.

    “White House officials say their preparations are hardly surprising, given the Democrats’ narrow majorities in Congress and the uncertain outcome of the midterm elections,” The Washington Post reported. “Biden officials also said the White House Counsel’s Office had been structured to respond to Republican oversight efforts from the beginning.”

    How 31 Republicans Just Betrayed The Country To Reward Illegal Immigration, Worsen Inflation, And Pay Off Democrats’ Donors

    Reported By Rachel BovardNOVEMBER 8, 2021

    At nearly midnight on Friday, 13 House Republicans gave Speaker Nancy Pelosi the votes she needed to pass the so-called “bipartisan infrastructure bill” — colloquially known in DC as the BIF. In doing so, these House Republicans, among them two members of the House GOP leadership team, all but guaranteed House passage of Joe Biden’s hotly partisan, $2 trillion reconciliation bill, which represents the largest cradle-to-grave expansion of federal power since the New Deal.

    Over at National Review, Philip Klein called the move by these 13 Republicans “political malpractice,” and a “betrayal.” He’s right, particularly on the first point. 

    Republicans who supported the bill predictably justified their vote as one for “roads and bridges,” pointing to the benefits that the bill’s largest provisions — like the $47 billion in climate funding and the $66 billion for the failing Amtrak system, provided without any reform — will ostensibly bring to their districts. 

    As Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told The Hill, “I thought it was good for our district, I thought it was good for our country.” Meanwhile, left-of-center commentator Andrew Sullivan huffed about the “fanatical tribalism” being applied to a bill about infrastructure.

    That the BIF was a bill solely focused on infrastructure may have been true at the bill’s conception. But for months, a single and unavoidable political reality has been obvious: the substance of the bill hardly mattered. Rather, the infrastructure bill was but a chit, a chess piece, in forcing through passage of the larger, hotly partisan reconciliation legislation. Their fates were linked; one would not pass without the other. 

    This was a choice made very clearly, and very openly, by congressional Democrats. In June, Pelosi stated“There ain’t gonna be no bipartisan bill, unless we have a reconciliation bill,” a sentiment she reiterated in October when she confirmed “the bipartisan infrastructure bill will pass once we have agreement on the reconciliation bill.” 

    House Progressives made the linkage of the two bills central to their strategy of leveraging concessions in the reconciliation legislation, refusing to provide votes for the BIF until their reconciliation demands were met (six of them ended up refusing to support passage the BIF, paving the way for House Republicans to be the deciding votes).

    Even President Joe Biden tied the fate of the infrastructure legislation to the reconciliation bill. He did so explicitly in June, then said he didn’t really mean it after Senate Republicans expressed outrage (but then 18 of them voted to pass the bill in August, anyway), and then linked them again in October when he told House Democrats that infrastructure “ain’t going to happen until we reach an agreement on the next piece of legislation,” reconciliation the infrastructure bill.

    So to claim that a vote for the infrastructure legislation was merely a vote for “roads and bridges,” devoid of any other major political context, is just willfully ignorant of the obvious and openly stated politics at work. A vote for the infrastructure bill was very clearly a vote for the reconciliation legislation. The inability to understand this reality raises not only questions of basic political acumen, but of the ability of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s leadership team to hold their conference together on consequential votes.

    It’s worth unpacking a few of the provisions in the reconciliation bill that this group of Republicans will help make possible. Among them:

    • A 10-year amnesty for illegal immigrants, which includes work permits and driver’s licenses and cannot be undone by future administrations for a decade.
    • Provides millions of dollars in funding for the IRS to enforce the Biden administration’s plan to review every bank account with $10,000 or more. 
    • Expands and shores up provisions of Obamacare.
    • Eliminates the statutory cap on employment visas, effectively allowing Big Tech companies and other mega-corporations to prioritize hiring foreign workers over American workers.
    • Facilitates enforcement of Biden’s vaccine mandate by increasing OSHA penalties on businesses up to $700,000 per violation and provides billions in funding for the Department of Labor to increase enforcement.
    • Mandates taxpayer coverage of abortion, leaving the long-agreed upon Hyde amendment out of the bill.
    • Provides half a trillion dollars in climate spending, including clean energy tax credits to subsidize solar, electric vehicles, and clean energy production, as well as federal spending on clean energy technology and manufacturing, all while limiting domestic energy production, thereby increasing dependence on Russia and China.
    • Provides roughly $400 billion for expanded government childcare and universal pre-K, which pumps millions into failed Head Start programs, excludes support for families who prefer at-home child-care arrangements, and by requiring that preschool teachers have a college degree, will reduce the availability of child-care options.
    • A host of new taxes, and a giant tax cut for the rich: by including a repeal on the cap for the state and local tax deduction, Democrats will provide a $30 billion net direct tax cut for the top 5 percent of earners, largely in blue states where the state and local taxes are much higher.

    The “Build Back Better” reconciliation legislation is a bill that transforms the role of the state in every aspect of an individual’s life, while expanding key Democratic priorities like amnesty, abortion, cheap foreign labor, a dysfunctional health care system, and invasions of financial privacy. And consideration of the bill in the House wasn’t made possible by the Democrats in the majority, but by House Republicans.  

    There are those, like Sullivan, who will still bemoan that political polarization has taken over even relatively popular policies like infrastructure. But politicizing the infrastructure bill was the clear and unambiguous choice that Democrats made when they linked the two bills. To expect most Republicans to be as tin-eared and politically naive (or, like Rep. Adam Kinzinger, as openly tied to Democratic priorities) as the group of 13 is ridiculous. It’s asking them to act against their own self-interest. 

    Democrats drafted a partisan reconciliation bill with no Republican input, full of provisions they knew Republicans wouldn’t support, and then hijacked an otherwise bipartisan bill to ensure passage of its much more expansive and partisan cousin. This was a specific choice Democrats made, and Republicans are not responsible for it — nor should they be expected to vote for a bill that is the stated gateway to related legislation with which they profoundly disagree.

    Regardless, the infrastructure bill now goes to the president’s desk. Eighteen Republican senators helped pass it in August, and so did 13 House Republicans (for a total of 31), knowing full well they were also voting on the amnesty-filled, abortion-funding, financially-snooping, cheap-labor loving reconciliation bill, gave it the required boost. Betrayal, as Klein noted, is not too strong a term.

    Rachel Bovard is The Federalist’s senior tech columnist and the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute.

    Judge rules in favor of House Republicans in Obamacare lawsuit

    waving flagReported By Tom Howell Jr. – The Washington Times – Thursday, May 12, 2016

    URL of the original posting site:

    President Obama has been hoping to shore up his health legacy — roughly 20 million have gained coverage under his reforms — instead of fending off repeated legal challenges to reforms. (Associated Press) more >

    A federal judge dealt President Obama and his health care law a major blow Thursday, ruling in favor of House Republicans who said the administration broke the law and trod on Congress’ fundamental powers by paying Obamacare insurers without permission from Capitol Hill.Complete Message

    An appeal is certain, but should U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer’s ruling be upheld, it could spark the economic “death spiral” Republicans have predicted and Democrats feared would doom the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

    But the ruling has implications far beyond Obamacare, signaling that federal courts may begin to play a more active role in reeling in executive powers that many legal experts say have grown far beyond what the country’s founders intended.

    Judge Collyer, presiding in Washington, said the administration violated the Constitution when it made “cost-sharing” payments to Obamacare insurers, over the objections of Congress, which had zeroed out the funding.

    “Authorization and appropriation by Congress are nonnegotiable prerequisites to government spending,” she wrote.

    Judge Collyer said it was illegal for the administration to continue making the payments. But she stayed her own decision to give Mr. Obama a chance to appeal her ruling.

    The White House was stunned by the ruling and railed against the House for bringing the fight to the courts in the first place.

    “This suit represents the first time in our nation’s history that Congress has been permitted to sue the executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.Leftist Propagandist

    The cost-sharing program was written into Obamacare to make it more attractive for poor people without insurance to buy plans on the new health exchanges. In addition to tax subsidies, those with incomes just above the poverty line were supposed to have some of their costs paid directly by the government to insurers. The Affordable Care Act authorized the payments, but Congress and the Obama administration have feuded over whether Capitol Hill needed to take the next step and appropriate the billions of dollars each year. Initially the administration seemed to think it did need an appropriation and requested the money in its budget. But after Congress refused, Mr. Obama changed tune and said he felt he could spend the money even without a new OK.

    In court the administration argued that it wouldn’t have made sense for Congress to approve the program but not come up with the money. Judge Collyer rejected that, saying Congress authorizes programs all the time but never finds the money to carry them out. She spanked the secretaries of the Treasury and Health and Human Services departments for trying to spend the money anyway.

    “Such an appropriation cannot be inferred,” she wrote. “None of the secretaries’ extra-textual arguments — whether based on economics, ‘unintended’ results, or legislative history — is persuasive.”

    Millions of Obamacare customers with incomes between 100 percent and 250 percent of poverty rely on the payments, and health plans are required to reduce their out-of-pocket costs whether they’re reimbursed or not, so they’d likely increase rates to balance their ledgers.

    House Republicans’ decision to sue Mr. Obama in 2014 was unusual, though then-Speaker John A. Boehner said he had no choice after the executive branch doled out cost-sharing payments and twice delayed the part of Obamacare that requires large employers to provide health coverage to employees. Judge Collyer shocked Democrats in September by saying House Republicans had legal standing to pursue their central claim: that the administration injured Congress as an institution by usurping its power.

    House lawmakers said Thursday’s ruling on the merits offered further vindication.

    “The court ruled that the administration overreached by spending taxpayer money without approval from the people’s representatives. Here the executive branch is being held accountable to ‘We the People,’ and that’s why this decision is very good news,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, said.

    Analysts have said the constitutional and political considerations behind the case may outweigh the economic ones. Without the reimbursements, insurers may hike the price of their benchmark Obamacare plans. But those higher costs could end up being covered by the federal government anyway through the tax subsidies paid directly to Obamacare customers to help them buy insurance on the exchanges.

    “Federal payments to insurers for cost-sharing subsidies would end, but would essentially be replaced by larger federal premium subsidy payments to insurers,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in a September study.

    For now, the ruling offers a timely jolt to congressional Republicans who want to repeal and replace Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement in 2017, and who say its existence is proof the president has stepped out of bounds in using his powers.

    “Here’s what the court just said on Obamacare: America still has three branches of government, and the president cannot rewrite the law — even if it is his namesake,” Sen. Ben Sasse, Nebraska Republican, said.

    For his part, Mr. Obama has been hoping to shore up his health legacy — roughly 20 million have gained coverage under his reforms — instead of fending off repeated legal challenges to reforms. Mr. Obama had urged his opponents to move beyond legal challenges to Obamacare last year, when the Supreme Court turned back a second major challenge that would have gutted his reforms. Now he will have to fend off one more challenge.

    “It’s unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to refight a political fight that they keep losing,” Mr. Earnest. “They’ve been losing this fight for six years. And they’ll lose it again.”Leftist Propagandist

    Dave Boyer contributed to this report.

    Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

    House committee pressing DHS for answers over missing guns, badges

    waving flagPublished February 24, 2016,

    House Republicans are pressing the Department of Homeland Security for answers following a report that hundreds of badges, cell phones and guns belonging to DHS employees were lost or stolen. House oversight committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, in a Feb. 19 letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, called it “particularly troubling … that the Department cannot account for its entire inventory of firearms.” 

    The letter, co-signed by Subcommittee on National Security Chairman Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., cited the report and asked for documents on the lost or stolen items by next week. Inventory reports obtained by the news site Complete Colorado and shared with showed that over 1,300 badges, 165 firearms and 589 cell phones were lost or stolen over the span of 31 months between 2012 and 2015. The DHS did not dispute the inventory report data.

    In their letter, Chaffetz and DeSantis pointed to a 2010 inspector general report that found the DHS “did not adequately safeguard and control its firearms,” and reported 289 firearms lost between 2006 and 2008.

    “The more recent news regarding the loss of an additional 165 firearms over a 31-month period shows that the Department is consistently unable to safeguard sensitive property,” the letter said.Oh good

    The letter requests documents showing the inventory of lost and stolen property between fiscal 2012 and 2015, as well as the cost and procedures implemented for reporting lost or stolen property.

    In an earlier statement to, a DHS spokesman said they strive to be “good stewards of government resources” and have improved oversight and reduced the number of lost or stolen items over the past few years.

    “If a credential holder loses or has their credentials stolen, the holder must report the incident to their supervisor and credential issuance office immediately,” spokesman Justin Greenberg said. “Once the incident has been reported, this information is entered into appropriate DHS and law enforcement databases, which disables use of the lost or stolen item.”Picture1’s Adam Shaw contributed to this report.

    stupid Die Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

    Federal Judge Hands Republicans ‘Historic,’ Unexpected Win Over Obama

    waving flagPosted by Jack Davis September 10, 2015

    URL of the original posting site:

    Image Credit: Flickr/Erik Drost

    Constitution 1; Obama 0.

    That was the score Wednesday as a federal judge gave House Republicans the go-ahead to proceed with their lawsuit to block President Obama’s budget-busting healthcare law. “This suit remains a plain dispute over a constitutional command, of which the Judiciary has long been the ultimate interpreter,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who said that House Republicans have legal standing to sue.

    The Constitution, Collyer wrote, “could not be more clear: ‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by Law.’ Neither the president nor his officers can authorize appropriations; the assent of the House of Representatives is required before any public monies are spent.”

    Complete Message

    Republicans had argued the Obama administration violated the Constitution by spending money on Obamacare without Congressional approval. House Democrats had called the Republicans’ suit “a political stunt.” The suit focuses on the $175 billion Obama wants to spend as part of a cost-sharing program with health insurance companies.

    “The United States House of Representatives now will be heard on an issue that drives to the very heart of our constitutional system: the control of the legislative branch over the power of the purse,” said Jonathan Turley, the attorney for House Republicans.

    “The president’s unilateral change to Obamacare was unprecedented and outside the powers granted to his office under our Constitution,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a statement. “I am grateful to the court for ruling that this historic overreach can be challenged by the coequal branch of government with the sole power to create or change the law. The House will continue our effort to ensure the separation of powers in our democratic system remains clear, as the Framers intended.”B2A_FvyCMAE14px

    Arguments on the merits of the suit are scheduled to be heard in the fall, although the White House said Wednesday it will appeal Collyer’s decision.

    The Lower you go Indenification of Obama 95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

    Obstructionists: Republicans Pass Border Bill, Democrats Declare it ‘Dead on Arrival’ in Senate

    August 1, 2014 By


    Unhappy Harry ReidLate Friday evening, House Republicans came together to pass a border bill that allows $694 million for border security and for the care of a recent surge of illegal immigrants that have made their way into the U.S.
    The vote fell largely along party lines with a 223-189 vote. Four Republicans, Reps. Paul Broun (Ga.), Stephen Fincher (Tenn.), Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Walter Jones (N.C.), voted against the legislation while one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas), voted for it.
    On Thursday, the prospects looked grim as the House GOP remained divided between moderates and conservatives. However, Friday negotiations yielded a deal that allows for the $649 million allocation, but calls for a later vote that, if approved, would prohibit President Obama from expanding his deferred action program that grants two-year work permits for illegals who arrived in the U.S. prior to 2007.

    This is precisely the sticking point for Democrats.

    Despite President Obama repeatedly declaring that he is willing to work with Republicans on the issue of immigration reform, he has remained opposed to the legislation that passed late Friday in the Republican-controlled House.

    Further, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared the House’s border bill “dead on arrival” in the Democrat-controlled Senate.cootie

    Though Democrats have repeatedly charged that Republicans are obstructionists, the Democrats have displayed an eagerness to work with Republicans on matters of immigration; however, while Republicans have offered a bill that would address the border crisis in a meaningful way, it is the Senate Democrats claiming that the effort is dead on arrival.
    Now, the House GOP has earned bragging rights, having done their job and even delaying the August recess to hammer-out a last minute deal.
    “The House is here working,” said House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). “I encourage the Senate to come back and do their job.”
    Imperial President Obama“It’s dealing with the issue that the American people care about more than any other, and that is stopping the invasion of illegal foreign nationals into our country,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. “And we got to yes.” 
    Though the deal is likely to die in the Senate, the GOP-led effort allows Republicans to shake-off the “obstructionist” label and point to Democrats as the hold-outs on the funding for which they have been clamoring.
    President Obama, however, expressed an eagerness to deal with the crisis unilaterally and stated on Friday,

    “I’m going to have to make some tough choices to meet the challenge, with or without Congress.”

    He also added: “I’m going to have to act alone, because we don’t have enough resources.”mars

    Tag Cloud

    %d bloggers like this: