Category: House

Posted on

Deplorable and Vile: Today’s Republican Party

Shortly after a threat to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Democratic-led Senate unanimously approved and House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation to provide 24-hour security protections for Justices and their families. In June, President Biden signed the legislation into law.

Four months later, the spouse of the Speaker of the House of Representatives was viciously attacked while sleeping in his bed in his San Francisco home. The Speaker was in Washington, D.C. at the time of the attack. Paul Pelosi, 82, was attacked and hit on top of his head causing a skull fracture. The alleged assailant, David DePape told members of the San Francisco police department that he planned to talk to Speaker Pelosi if she had been home, and if she lied to him he was going to break her kneecaps, resulting in an injury that would serve as notice to other members of Congress.

So, how did Republicans react to the tragedy of an 82 year old man being attacked in his sleep in his own home? They had fun with it!

Virginia’s Governor, Glenn Youngkin joked that on Election Day, voters were going to send the Speaker home to be with her husband. At the time of the comment, the Speaker’s husband was undergoing surgery in a California hospital.

Kari Lake, the GOP candidate for governor in Arizona, while campaigning and lying about violent crime in the state, joked that the Speaker has security when she’s in D.C., but apparently her house doesn’t have much protection.

Of course, the Republicans in attendance at Lake’s campaign event howled in laughter. Yes, these people are deplorable — and vile.

And, of course, no instance of vile and deplorable behavior is complete without the inclusion of one of the Trump idiots. #2 idiot, Donald Trump, Jr., tweeted a picture of a hammer and a pair of men’s underwear with the caption, “Got My Paul Pelosi Halloween Costume Ready.”

Posted on

Select Committee Filing Narrows Meadows Inquiry

Mark Meadows

In a 68-page filing on April 22, 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Case No. 1:21-cv-3217-CJN), the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capital (Select Committee) posits that because of information they’ve obtained from other sources, they are now able to narrow the focus of the issues they need Meadows to address with the Committee to “seven discrete topics”:

  1. Testimony regarding non-privileged documents (including text and email communications) that Mr. Meadows has already provided to the Select Committee in response to the subpoena, and testimony about events that Mr. Meadows has already publicly described in his book and elsewhere;
  2. Testimony and documents regarding post-election efforts by the Trump campaign, the Trump legal team, and Mr. Meadows to create false slates of Presidential electors, or to pressure or persuade state and local officials and legislators to take actions to change the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election;
  3. Testimony and documents relating to communications with Members of Congress in preparation for and during the events of January 6th;
  4. Testimony and documents regarding the plan, in the days before January 6th, to replace Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Mr. Jeffrey Clark so that the Department could corruptly change its conclusions regarding election fraud;
  5. Testimony and documents relating to efforts by President Trump to instruct, direct, persuade or pressure Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th;
  6. Testimony and documents relating to activity in the White House immediately before and during the events of January 6th; and
  7. Testimony and documents relating to meetings and communications with individuals not affiliated with the federal government regarding the efforts to change the results of the 2020 election.

Background

On September 23, 2001, the Select Committee issued a subpoena to Mark Meadows, former White House Chief of Staff under former president Donald Trump. Meadows agreed to appear before the Committee to provide testimony on December 8, 2021. Meadows, on December 7, 2021 informed the Committee that he had changed his mind and would not appear the following day as originally agreed.

Instead, Meadows filed suit against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and members of the Select Committee. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, asks the court to invalidate two subpoenas that the panel had issued to Meadows and Verizon, the carrier for his prior personal cell phone, calling them “overly broad and unduly burdensome.”

On December 14, 2021, the House voted 222-208 to hold the former White House Chief of Staff in criminal contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate with the Committee.

The most recent filing by the Select Committee asks that Meadows’ suits be dismissed

Committee Report rationale for contempt citation

In it’s report filed in the House (Report:117-216), the Committee explains it’s rationale for the charge:

“To be clear Mr. Meadow’s failure to comply, and this contempt recommendation, are not based on good-faith disagreements over privilege assertions. Rather, Mr. Meadows has failed to comply and warrants contempt findings because he has wholly refused to appear to provide any testimony and refused to answer questions regarding even clearly non-privileged information — information that he himself has identified as non-privileged through his own document production.

Mr. Meadow’s relevant documents and testimony are necessary to the Select Committee’s investigation for many additional reasons. Mr. Meadows also reportedly participated in meetings and communicated with senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials about unsupported election-fraud claims and litigation aimed at disrupting or overturning the election results. Mr. Meadows reportedly participated in a contentious meeting at the White House with private individuals and others linked to Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign during which Mr. Trump and others discussed seizing voting machines and invoking certain laws including the National Emergencies Act for election-related purposes because of purported fraud in the election. Mr. Meadows reportedly joined a January 2 call with Mr. Trump and State and Federal officials to discuss overturning certain States’ electoral college results on January 6, and later sent the former Vice President’s staff a memo drafted by a Trump campaign lawyer urging the Vice President to delay or decline the counting of votes from certain States. Mr. Meadows was also reportedly in contact with at least one of the individuals who planned and organized a January 6 rally, one of whom may have expressed safety concerns to Mr. Meadows about the event. In short, Mr. Meadows appears to have participated in, and been a witness to, critically important communications and events that took place before and on January 6, and the Congress is entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions and knowledge. The Select Committee expects such testimony to be directly relevant to its report and recommendations for legislative and other action.”

Posted on

Trump Rescinds Brooks Endorsement in Alabama Senate Race

Rep. Mo Brooks w/Donald Trump

(Statement from former president, Donald J. Trump on ‘Save America’ letterhead)

Mo Brooks of Alabama made a horrible mistake recently when he went “woke” and
stated, referring to the 2020 Presidential Election Scam, “Put that behind you, put
that behind you” despite the fact that the Election was rife with fraud and
irregularities. If we forget, the Radical Left Democrats will continue to Cheat and Steal
Elections. Just look at what is happening in Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania,
Georgia, and elsewhere, but tremendous progress has been made that will help us in
2022 and 2024. The 2020 Election was rigged, and we can’t let them get away with it.


When I endorsed Mo Brooks, he took a 44-point lead and was unstoppable. He then
hired a new campaign staff who “brilliantly” convinced him to “stop talking about the
2020 Election.” He listened to them. Then, according to the polls, Mo’s 44-point lead
totally evaporated all based on his “2020” statement made at our massive rally in
Cullman, Alabama. When I heard his statement, I said, “Mo, you just blew the Election,
and there’s nothing you can do about it.” Very sad but, since he decided to go in
another direction, so have I, and I am hereby withdrawing my Endorsement of Mo
Brooks for the Senate. I don’t think the great people of Alabama will disagree with me.
Election Fraud must be captured and stopped, or we won’t have a Country anymore. I
will be making a new Endorsement in the near future!

############

Of course, as any who follows this election knows, Brooks was going to lose this election, anyway. Trump will now take credit for endorsing whoever appears to be the likely winner and insist Brooks would have won with his support. In fact, polling completed shortly before Trump withdrew his endorsement showed Brooks in a distant third place behind Katie Britt and Mike Durant. Brooks wasn’t going to win with Trump’s endorsement, and he certainly isn’t going to win without it.

Another Republican discarded when they no longer served the needs of their fearless leader. Hopefully Mo can enjoy some time down in Alabama reminiscing with his friend, Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions III, the former Attorney General who met a similar fate.

When will they learn?

Posted on

Examining the U.S. Capitol Attack

A Review of the Security, Planning, and Response Failures on January 6

On June 8, 2021, the Senate Committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and on Rules and Administration released their bipartisan report on the insurrection of January 6, 2021 at the Capitol of the United States of America.

The following is the first of a series of excerpts from the report. Several other sections will be highlighted in future posts.

  1. Executive Summary

    On January 6, 2021, the world witnessed a violent and unprecedented attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Vice President, Members of Congress, and the democratic process. Rioters, attempting to disrupt the Joint Session of Congress, broke into the Capitol building, vandalized and stole property, and ransacked offices. They attacked members of law enforcement and threatened the safety and lives of our nation’s elected leaders. Tragically, seven individuals, including three law enforcement officers, ultimately lost their lives.

    Rioters were intent on disrupting the Joint Session, during which Members of Congress were scheduled to perform their constitutional obligation to count the electoral votes for President and Vice President of the United States and announce the official results of the 2020 election. Due to the heroism of United States Capitol Police (“USCP”) officers, along with their federal, state, and local law enforcement partners, the rioters failed to prevent Congress from fulfilling its constitutional duty. In the early hours of January 7, the President of the Senate, Vice President Pence, announced Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris as the President-elect and Vice President-elect of the United States.

    This report addresses the security, planning, and response failures of the entities directly responsible for Capitol security—USCP and the Capitol Police Board, which is comprised of the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol as voting members, and the USCP Chief as a non-voting member—along with critical breakdowns involving several federal agencies, particularly the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and Department of Defense (“DOD”). The Committees also made a series of recommendations for the Capitol Police Board, USCP, federal intelligence agencies, DOD, and other Capital region law enforcement agencies to address the intelligence and security failures.
Posted on

Congress’s Contempt Power

Capitol

Article II of the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House of Representatives against Donald John Trump includes the following:

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its “sole Power of Impeachment”…

Impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States

With Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s acting chief of staff, and John Bolton, the president’s former national security advisor — and likely several more, including Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney — apparently possessing documents and knowledge of the allegations which led to the impeachment of the president, it seems reasonable that Congress would consider a subpoena for their testimony.


A May 12, 2017 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure, provides that:

Congress’s contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process. Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance, to punish the contemnor, and/or to remove the obstruction.

However, as usual, things aren’t always as simple as they might otherwise seem. Further from the CRS report:

A number of obstacles face Congress in any attempt to enforce a subpoena issued against an executive branch official. Although the courts have reaffirmed Congress’s constitutional authority to issue and enforce subpoenas, efforts to punish an executive branch official for non-compliance with a subpoena through criminal contempt will likely prove unavailing in many, if not most, circumstances. Where the official refuses to disclose information pursuant to the President’s decision that such information is protected under executive privilege, past practice suggests that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will not pursue a prosecution for criminal contempt.

So, there you have it. Attorney General Bill Barr, who is in charge of the Department of Justice, would be the person to determine whether a criminal contempt charge would be prosecuted. I think we all know how that would turn out.

Posted on

The Constitution and Impeachment

The following sections of the U.S. Constitution have direct bearing on the Impeachment of the President of the United States:

Article I

Section 3

6. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on Oath of Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

7. Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II

Section 2
5. The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 4
The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, and other high crimes and Misdemeanors.