Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘jerry Nadler’

Alito: Criminalizing Close Election Contests Would Destabilize Entire Foundation Of American Democracy


BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | APRIL 25, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/25/alito-criminalizing-close-election-contests-would-destabilize-entire-foundation-of-american-democracy/

The Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito suggested Thursday during oral arguments regarding presidential immunity that criminalizing individuals just because they question government-run elections would destabilize true democracy.

Special counsel Jack Smith indicted former President Donald Trump for questioning the administration of the 2020 election. The high court is now hearing challenges as to whether presidents have immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions taken while in office that fall within the scope of their presidential duties.

“Let me end with just a question about, what is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society, which is something that we all want?” Alito began. “I’m sure you would agree with me that a stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully if that candidate is the incumbent?”

“Of course,” attorney Michael Dreeben said.

“Now, if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off in a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Alito asked. “And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process where the loser gets thrown in jail.”

“So, I think it’s exactly the opposite, Justice Alito,” Dreeben said. “There are lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election and outside the record, but I think of public knowledge, petitioner and his allies filed dozens of electoral challenges and my understanding is lost all but one that was not outcome determinative in any respect. There were judges that said in order to sustain substantial claims of fraud that would overturn an election results that’s certified by a state, you need evidence, you need proof and none of those things were manifested. So there’s an appropriate way to challenge things through the courts with evidence, if you lose, you accept the results, that has been the nation’s experience.”

“Thank you,” Alito interjected.

Alito appears to warn Democrats that should the high court rule that certain presidential acts are not covered by presidential immunity and Smith’s lawfare case against the former president may continue — true democratic norms would be decimated as partisan politicians could weaponize the justice system to target their opponents.

Smith indicted Trump on charges of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. In simpler terms, Smith alleges that Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen were false and that Trump knew they were false.

To support his claims, Smith alleges that since federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — which meddled in the 2020 election — told Trump the election wasn’t stolen, and he should have taken that at face value, as pointed out by Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson.

But objecting to elections is a tale as old as time. Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton still claims the 2016 election was stolen while Democratic Reps. Jim McGovern, Pramila Jayapal, Raul Grijalva, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters — who also called the 2000 election “fraudulent” — and Jamie Raskin all objected to Congress’ certification of electoral votes in 2017 that formally declared Trump the winner, my colleague Tristan Justice details.

The 2004 election was also considered “stolen” by New York Rep. Jerry Nadler who went so far as to declare voting machines need to be investigated.

And even after the Supreme Court ended Al Gore’s attempt to overturn the outcome of the election, there were no steps taken to throw Gore in jail for challenging the contest.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

MORE ARTICLES

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

EXCLUSIVE: Ethics Complaint Filed Against Congressman Who Slurred Whistleblowers


BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND | JULY 14, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/14/exclusive-ethics-complaint-filed-against-congressman-who-slurred-whistleblowers/

Dan Goldman

Author Margot Cleveland profile

MARGOT CLEVELAND

VISIT ON TWITTER@PROFMJCLEVELAND

MORE ARTICLES

House Democrats are on a crusade to destroy the reputation of whistleblowers to save President Joe Biden and to run cover for those in the Justice Department and FBI who obstructed the investigation into the Bidens’ business dealings. But Republicans are starting to fight back. Kash Patel, who served as chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense under President Trump and as the senior counsel for the House Intelligence Committee under then-Rep. Devin Nunes, launched the counteroffensive on Wednesday when his attorney filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., and simultaneously sent a referral to the Department of Justice.

Patel’s complaint to the House Ethics Committee charged that soon after hearing the sworn testimony of FBI whistleblowers Garret O’Boyle, Steve Friend, and Marcus Allen during the Subcommittee on Weaponization’s hearing on May 18, 2023, Goldman used his official Twitter account to falsely claim the whistleblowers were “bought and paid for” by Patel. 

“The clear implication” of Goldman’s Tweet, the Patel complaint argued, was “that the witnesses lied under oath in exchange for payment by Mr. Patel.” In the same tweet, which was viewed by more than 4 million users, Goldman asserted Patel was “under investigation by the DOJ for leaking classified information.” 

By publishing lies about a private citizen on his official Twitter account, Goldman violated Rule XXIII of the House of Representatives rules, which provides that a member “shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House,” the ethics complaint asserted.

The ethics complaint further suggested Goldman’s lies may have constituted crimes. Here, Patel’s complaint points to Section 1519 of the federal criminal code and suggests that “by making false statements on his official U.S. Government Twitter account, Rep. Goldman has arguably made a false entry on the record with the intent to impede or influence the investigation of the Select Subcommittee.” The complaint also suggests, “Rep. Goldman’s dishonest tweet is a corrupt attempt to obstruct, influence, or impede the investigation of the Select Subcommittee,” which Patel notes is an arguable violation of Section 1512(C)(2) of the criminal code. 

While the ethics complaint notes that he “is not under investigation by the DOJ for anything—much less leaking classified information,” Patel adds that if there were such an investigation underway, someone would have illegally leaked that fact to Goldman. 

The Federalist contacted Goldman’s office to inquire whether the congressman stood by his claim that Patel was under investigation. A Goldman representative responded that Patel was reportedly under investigation and shared two articles with The Federalist, one being an April 2021 Washington Post article authored by David Ignatius, and the second being an article citing Ignatius’ piece.

When reached for comment by The Federalist, Patel called Goldman’s office’s reference to the Washington Post article a “congressional cop out,” and “more lies through back peddling.” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has taught America you “can find any lie in the media,” Patel added, a likely reference to the many lies the then-ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee peddled about Nunes’ memorandum on FISA abuse — something that transpired during Patel’s time as senior counsel for the committee.

FBI whistleblower Steve Friend, who was one of the three whistleblowers Goldman accused of being “bought and paid for” by Patel, told The Federalist the Democrat’s accusations were absurd. Friend explained that Patel’s charitable organization contacted him in November of 2022 after he had been indefinitely suspended without pay for two months. “The organization generously furnished me a $5,000 donation so I could provide for my family during the Christmas holiday,” Friend said, stressing they told him “they did not want any public recognition.”

“Any insinuation that I sacrificed my career for a $5,000 payoff is patently ridiculous and defamatory,” Friend countered, adding that his family is grateful “to live in a country where men like Kash Patel can establish charitable organizations to assist those in need.”

Goldman’s office disagreed that there was an implication of an illicit payout for the whistleblowers’ testimony, telling The Federalist the New York congressman’s “bought and paid for” Tweet merely referred to the whistleblowers’ testimony from the linked video. 

Referral to DOJ

In addition to the ethics complaint filed in the House, Patel’s lawyer also sent a criminal referral to Attorney General Merrick Garland. It seems unlikely the Department of Justice will enter the fray. However, given the growing number of unjust attacks on whistleblowers, the House Ethics Committee may well reprimand Goldman for his tweet.

The increased targeting of whistleblowers was on full display on Wednesday when House Democrats wage a similar attack against whistleblowers during FBI Director Christopher Wray’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee. Goldman’s fellow New York Democrat, Rep. Jerry Nadler, carried the defamation baton into that hearing, falsely accusing whistleblower Marcus Allen of receiving a $250,000 payout. Nadler’s representation was false and “far from profiting, he’s had to deplete his family’s retirement savings to survive,” Marcus’ attorney Jason Foster countered.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, would later attempt to discredit the whistleblowers with the same tripe, although she couldn’t keep her villains straight, confusing money raised for the whistleblowers through a GoFundMe account organized by former FBI Agent Kyle Seraphin and the donations made by the charitable foundation established by Patel. 

“They can’t even keep their smears straight,” Foster scoffed in an interview with The Federalist.

Patel put it more bluntly, saying those attacking the brave whistleblowers who are exposing FBI corruption are “masquerading behind a baseless personal attack, knowing the media will carry their disinformation campaign.”

The legacy press is doing just that and will likely continue to do so, handing politicians free rein to defame the whistleblowers. The question, then, is whether the House Ethics Committee will curb Goldman to send a message that whistleblowers aren’t political pawns.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, 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.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

EXCLUSIVE: House Democrats Lied About Whistleblower in Leak to Corrupt Media


BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND | MARCH 07, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/07/exclusive-house-democrats-lied-about-whistleblower-in-leak-to-corrupt-media/

close-up of Jerry Nadler surrounded by other people

House Democrats lied when they said an investigation into an FBI whistleblower’s claim of retaliation had been dismissed, according to a letter obtained exclusively by The Federalist. On the contrary, an investigation into Special Agent Steve Friend’s claims is ongoing. 

Last week, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee leaked a “staff report” that contained numerous misrepresentations to The New York Times, Monday’s letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz said. The letter — signed by Tristan Leavitt, the president of Empower Oversight, the legal services firm representing Friend — began by condemning the “Forward” from committee ranking member Jerry Nadler and subcommittee ranking member Stacey Plaskett that declared by fiat and without evidence: “[T]he three individuals we have met [including Friend] are not, in fact, ‘whistleblowers.’”

Friend is indeed a whistleblower, the letter said. Not only that, but throughout the report that Democrats crafted and peddled to multiple media outlets, they falsely and repeatedly claimed the Office of Inspector General (OIG) had rejected Friend’s whistleblower retaliation claims, Leavitt stressed. “These mischaracterizations in the Democrat staff report were subsequently parroted by multiple media outlets,” including CNN and The Washington Post. 

Contrary to the Democrats’ claims, echoed by friendly media outlets, Leavitt’s letter says that Friend’s whistleblower retaliation complaint, originally filed in September 2022, remains pending with the DOJ’s inspector general. While Friend had also alleged “systematic abuses of the Constitution, laws, and policy by the FBI,” in December of 2022, those allegations were referred to the FBI’s Inspection Division. But in follow-up inquiries, the OIG made clear, according to Empower Oversight, that the referral did not apply to Friend’s whistleblower retaliation claims. 

In fact, since then, “Special Agent Friend and Empower Oversight continued to furnish additional information” to the OIG, and the inspector general continues to receive and evaluate information, the letter said, explaining the attorneys’ understanding of the investigation’s status. Friend’s attorneys said they understood the OIG intended “to interview Friend in order to obtain a more complete understanding of his allegations and fully assess both his underlying disclosures as well as his retaliation claims.” 

Yet some media, without seeking comment from the OIG, “uncritically repeated” Democrats’ false narrative that the inspector general had rejected Friend’s claims. Conversely, when other outlets sought comment and clarification on the status of Friend’s case, Horowitz remained silent.

“This suggests a disturbing situation in which your office’s silence is allowing its reputation for neutrality and objectivity to be hijacked by partisans and their media allies to leave a false impression with the public — all in the service of undermining a whistleblower for political purposes,” Leavitt wrote. 

Given the inspector general’s silence, Empower Oversight requested an update on the status of his office’s investigation into Friend’s whistleblower retaliation complaint — something his attorneys should not have to request. But given the Democrats’ lies, apparently it’s necessary to correct the record.

Monday’s letter also chastised House Democrats for leaking excerpts of Friend’s deposition transcripts, “without authorization of the Committee.” This was in violation of the committee’s representation to Friend that it would treat the transcripts “confidentially,” the letter added.

The leaks will likely continue, however; and sadly, so will the blatant lies.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, 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.

Author Margot Cleveland profile

MARGOT CLEVELAND

VISIT ON TWITTER@PROFMJCLEVELAND

MORE ARTICLES

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

‘Not If the Woman Holds It’: Chip Roy Responds to Nadler’s Claims About Domestic Violence and Guns


By SARAH WEAVER, STAFF WRITER | July 21, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/not-if-the-woman-holds-it-chip-roy-responds-to-nadlers-claims-about-domestic-violence-and-guns-2657707363.html/

Screen Shot 2022-07-21 at 9.27.35 AM
Screenshot/YouTube/PBSNewsHour

Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy responded to Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler’s claim Wednesday that the presence of a gun in a house would increase the likelihood of women being killed in domestic violence situations.

“The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide by women by 500%,” Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a hearing Wednesday. “So, pass this amendment, and you’ll see an increase in domestic — in homicides of women by 500%.”

“I would note that the chairman just said that the existence of a firearm — I think you might have said in the household, I’m not sure — increases the likelihood of violence by 500% or something of that nature,” Roy responded.

“And I’d say, well, not if the woman holds it.”

https://youtube.com/watch?v=9avxOodHew4%3Fstart%3D27334

Trending videos

Tucker’s Reaction To AOC’s Fake Handcuff Fiasco!

Roy also said that Nadler’s position would result in banning all guns.

“If you’re saying firearms generally, then the next step for the chairman is to limit all firearms — which, let’s get to the heart of it, we know that that is where our colleagues wish to go,” Roy said. (RELATED: ‘That’s The Point’: Rep. Nadler Admits Bill Will Confiscate Guns In ‘Common Use’)

Two were debating H.R. 1808, also known as the “Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2021.”

“This bill makes it a crime to knowingly import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) or large capacity ammunition feeding device (LCAFD),” the bill’s summary reads.

The committee approved the ban Wednesday, with every Republican on the committee voting against the legislation. The bill will advance to the House floor for a vote.

The bill was first introduced by Democratic Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline in March 2021.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Shelter in Place

A.F. BRANCO | on
Nadler doesn’t have far to go in order to shelter in place during the coronavirus crisis.
Nadler COVID-19 MaskPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Fake-News-O-Matic

A.F. BRANCO | on
CNN and the Mainstream Media can automatically twist Trump’s words into something they can use against him.
CNN is Fake NewsPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great Rush Limbaugh.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Democrats Unanimous As House Passes Bill Forcing Schools To Let Male Athletes Compete In Girls’ Sports


Reported by Peter Hasson Senior Reporter |

URL of the original posting site: https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/17/house-equality-act-transgender-womens-sports/

U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is pictured. (Al Drago/Getty Images) 

The Democratically controlled House of Representatives voted Friday 236-173 in favor of the Equality Act, which would require schools to include male athletes who identify as transgender girls on female sports teams. Eight Republicans crossed party lines to vote for the bill, which had unanimous Democratic support.

The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make “sexual orientation and gender identity” protected characteristics under federal anti-discrimination law. Among other things, that would force public schools to expand female athletic teams to include biological males who identify as transgender girls.

Republican Florida Rep. Greg Steube introduced a last-minute amendment to the bill that would have preserved Title IX’s protections of female athletic teams, but Democrats rejected it.

Every House Democrat but one co-sponsored the legislation. The only Democrat who wasn’t a co-sponsor, Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, announced his support for the bill following pressure from left-wing activists.

“People need to wake up. This radical bill is going to totally eliminate women’s and girls sports,” Republican Arizona Rep. Debbie Lesko warned in an op-ed Thursday.

Republican Missouri Rep. Vicky Hartzler and a half-dozen other House Republicans held a press conference Thursday in opposition to what Hartzler dubbed the “Inequality Act.”

“Congress enacted Title IX to provide equal opportunities for women in education and sports. All this is erased under H.R. 5,” Hartzler said at the press conference.

WATCH:

Three former elite female athletes, Doriane Coleman, Martina Navratilova and Sanya Richards-Ross, warned that the Equality Act would wreak havoc on women’s sports in an April 29 Washington Post op-ed.

“The legislation would make it unlawful to differentiate among girls and women in sports on the basis of sex for any purpose. For example, a sports team couldn’t treat a transgender woman differently from a woman who is not transgender on the grounds that the former is male-bodied,” the former athletes wrote.

“Yet the reality is that putting male- and female-bodied athletes together is co-ed or open sport. And in open sport, females lose,” the three women warned. (RELATED: Former Olympic Medalist Says Female Athletes Afraid To Speak Out About Males Competing As Women)

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, a Democrat from New York, insisted the bill wouldn’t put female athletes at a disadvantage.

“Many states have sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination laws, and all of them still have women’s sports. Arguments about transgender athletes participating in sports in accordance with their gender identity having competitive advantages have not been borne out,” Nadler said at a April 2 hearing on the bill.

In Connecticut, one of the states to which Nadler was referring, two male runners have dominated girls’ high school track. A female competitor called the male runners’ advantage “demoralizing.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud