Tag Archives: House Judiciary Committee

Former John Conyers’ aide says most of them have seen him in his underwear and it’s “no big deal”

john conyers

Um, ok. How many times have you walked in on your boss in his underwear? Not cool by any means.

From Daily Mail: A male former aide to Rep. John Conyers has pooh-poohed claims by a female lawyer that the Democrat invited her to a meeting while he was in his underwear.

Melanie Sloan, who served as minority counsel for House Judiciary Committee, said last week that she was called up to Conyers’ office during her time there only to find him in his underwear.

But on Wednesday Bob Weiner, who was Conyers’ communications director from 1994-2000, said the representative’s underwear was a common sight at the time. ‘Most of us have walked in on him accidentally without knocking and have seen him in his underwear,’ he told CNN. ‘Big deal.’

Sloan told the Washington Post that she had been called to brief Conyers on a matter when she saw him in the uncomfortable situation. ‘I was pretty taken aback to see my boss half-dressed,’ she said, adding: ‘I turned on my heel and I left.’

But on Tuesday Weiner said that Conyers – like other representatives in the Rayburn House Office Building – had a wardrobe in his office, and so it was expected that staff would see his underwear from time to time.

‘Something else that people need to know: his closet is in his office right here. He changes clothes in his office,’ he said. ‘So to say that somebody came to a meeting and that’s how it was, that’s an untrue statement.  That is the kind of thing that needs to be explored before there’s any acceptance to that kind of an allegation.’

Sloan does not accuse Conyers of sexually harassing her, but did say that he was verbally abusive to her during her employment. ‘There was an occasion where he called me out of a meeting with a bunch of advocates and was screaming at me in the halls, including [about] me not wearing stockings on a 95-degree Washington summer day … while he wasn’t wearing socks,’ she told ABC.

She said of Conyers: ‘I don’t think he was having male staffers babysit his kids and I don’t think male staffers were berated in the same way that I was. Certainly, Congressman Conyers was picking on me and this was well known throughout the committee staff. It was obvious.’

But Weiner also denied that she was being picked on, or that Conyers was motivated by misogyny. ‘That’s not sexist. That’s just being aggressive as the member of Congress or the Cabinet member or the VIP that you are,’ he said. ‘It has nothing to do with being anti-women. I got it too.’

‘Representative Conyers has never done anything inappropriate to Melanie Sloan,’ his lawyer, Arnold Reed, told the paper.

However, Conyers – who stepped down from the House Judiciary Committee on Sunday – has other issues to contend with.

The House Ethics Committee is investigating him following a report that claimed he used $27,000 of office funds to pay off a staffer who accused him of sexual harassment and wrongful termination.

And another woman, now 77, claims that Conyers stripped down to his underwear in front of her in a hotel room while they were on a work trip.

Members of both the Republicans and the Democrats are now calling for Conyers to step down – and Weiner says the mood in his office is grim. ‘His staff is very depressed and think that people are trying to make the die cast against him, and everybody’s trying to work out statements of what to say that’s the right thing to say and it’s very complicated,’ he said.

‘People are hoping that the die hasn’t been cast too far too soon already… the staff is hoping very much that, at a minimum, that he gets the chance to complete his term as a member of Congress,’ he said. ‘That’s the objective right now of the staff.’

Conyers the longest serving member of the House, denied doing anything wrong after BuzzFeed News reported a woman was paid $27,000 from Conyers’ taxpayer-funded congressional office allowance.

The unidentified woman alleges that Conyers repeatedly asked her for sex.  In one particularly serious charge, she claims that Conyers asked her to work out of his hotel room, when the Michigan congressman began talking about his sexual desires, according to the report. She alleged that Conyers then told her to ‘touch it’ – meaning his penis – or find him a woman who would meet his sexual demands.

Read the rest of the story here.

DCG

Advertisements

Schumer slams NRA for backing federal concealed carry bill

chuck schumer hypocrite

Hypocrite Schumer: Protection for me but not for thee…

In case you haven’t noticed Chuckie, the “Wild West” is happening in strict gun-controlled Chiraq.

From NY Post (from Mark Moore): The city could turn into the Wild West ​if an NRA-backed plan becomes law and allows any tourist with a concealed-weapons permit to carry a hidden gun in New York, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Sunday.

“How low can you go?’’ Schumer (D-NY) said of the National Rifle Assocation, referring to its support of the proposed “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,’’ which would override New York’s strict gun laws.

He noted that the National Rifle Association, “just days after the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history … is engaging their allies in Congress to push through a dangerous national concealed-carry law.’’

New York has very stringent concealed-carry regulations and does not recognize out-of-state concealed-carry permits. But under the proposed legislation, New York would have to recognize carry permits issued in other states.

Schumer urged congressional lawmakers​ to tell the NRA that “enough is enough” for pushing the measure after Las Vegas, where a lone gunman opened fire on a country music concert, killing 58 and injuring hundreds more. ​

Schumer said the proposed law would allow visitors to make an end run around New York’s gun regulations, which are among the strictest in the country, and pack heat on the subway, in transportation hubs, Central Park and Times Square. “We must stop this madness, and Congress must stand up to the bosses of the NRA and say, ‘Enough is enough​,​’ ​” he said.​

Schumer said the powerful gun rights lobby signaled its intention to pursue the legislation when it released a statement on the Las Vegas shootings and asked the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to review regulations on “bump stocks,” which 64-year-old Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock used to enable his semi-automatic rifles to mimic automatic fire.

“On behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence​,​”​ the NRA said in its statement.

The NYPD and the city’s five district attorneys blasted the legislation last spring, shortly after it was introduced by US Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC).

Schumer said the House Judiciary Committee could take up the legislation as soon as this month.

DCG

House Judiciary Committee asks for second special prosecutor to investigate Clinton-Comey-Lynch

House Republicans are doing their utmost to bring Hillary Clinton to justice.

On July 26, 2017, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee ingeniously turned a Democrat resolution witchhunt (HRes. 446) of President Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey inside out into an amended HRes. 446 calling for an investigation into Comey’s mishandling of the FBI’s criminal investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an unauthorized private email server. (See “House Republicans are going after Hillary Clinton!”)

A day later, on July 27, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and other Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee redoubled their effort by sending a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein calling for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate matters connected to the 2016 election which are not addressed by HRes. 446 or Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, including many actions taken by Obama Administration officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director James Comey.

Below is the full text of the letter:

July 27, 2017

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

We are writing to you to request assistance in restoring public confidence in our nation’s justice system and its investigators, specifically the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). We need to enable these agencies to perform their necessary and important law enforcement and intelligence functions fully unhindered by politics. While we presume that the FBI’s investigation into Russian influence has been subsumed into Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, we are not confident that other matters related to the 2016 election and aftermath are similarly under investigation by Special Counsel Mueller. The unbalanced, uncertain, and seemingly unlimited focus of the special counsel’s investigation has led many of our constituents to see a dual standard of justice that benefits only the powerful and politically well-connected. For this reason, we call on you to appoint a second special counsel to investigate a plethora of matters connected to the 2016 election and its aftermath, including actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Many Democrats and members of the Washington media previously called for a “special prosecutor” to investigate Russian influence on the election and connections with the Trump campaign. Not surprisingly, once you actually made the decision to appoint a special counsel, the calls for further investigations by congressional committees continued, focused on allegations that have heretofore produced no evidence of criminality, despite the fact that over a year has passed since the opening of the original FBI investigation. Political gamesmanship continues to saturate anything and everything associated with reactions to President Trump’s executive decisions, and reveals the hypocrisy of those who refuse to allow the Special Counsel’s investigation to proceed without undue political influence. It is an unfortunate state of affairs.

Your stated rationale for recommending Director Comey’s termination as FBI Director was his mishandling of former Secretary Clinton’s email investigation and associated public disclosures concerning the investigation’s findings. We believe this was the correct decision. It is clear that Director Comey contributed to the politicization of the FBI’s investigations by issuing his public statement, nominating himself as judge and jury, rather than permitting career DOJ prosecutors to make the final decision. But many other questions remain unanswered, due to Mr. Comey’s premature and inappropriate decision, as well as the Obama Justice Department’s refusal to respond to legitimate Congressional oversight. Last week, the Republican Members of this Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department, asking for responses to those unanswered inquiries. These questions cannot, for history’s sake and for the preservation of an impartial system of justice, be allowed to die on the vine.

It is therefore incumbent on this Committee, in our oversight capacity, to ensure that the agencies we oversee are above reproach and that the Justice Department, in particular, remains immune to accusations of politicization. Many Congressional entities have been engaged in oversight of Russian influence on the election, but a comprehensive investigation into the 2016 Presidential campaign and its aftermath must, similarly, be free of even the suggestion of political interference. The very core of our justice system demands as much. A second, newly-appointed special counsel will not be encumbered by these considerations, and will provide real value to the American people in offering an independent perspective on these extremely sensitive matters.

Our call for a special counsel is not made lightly. We have no interest in engendering more bad feelings and less confidence in the process or governmental institutions by the American people. Rather, our call is made on their behalf. It is meant to determine whether the criminal prosecution of any individual is warranted based on the solemn obligation to follow the facts wherever they lead and applying the law to those facts.

As we referenced above, Democrats and the mainstream media called for a special counsel to be appointed to investigate any Russian influence on President Trump’s campaign. Their pleas were answered, but there are many questions that may be outside the scope of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation. This was clear following Mr. Comey’s recent testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, 2017, which ignited renewed scrutiny of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the actions she took to mislead the public concerning the investigation into the Clinton email investigation. Last year, this Committee inquired repeatedly about the circumstances surrounding that and other matters, but our inquiries were largely ignored.

During his testimony, Mr. Comey referenced a meeting on the Phoenix airport tarmac between Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. Mr. Comey raised concerns about Ms. Lynch’s conduct, and questioned her independence, stating:

At one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me. That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude, ‘I have to step away from the department if we’re to close this case credibly.’

In addition, in preparing to testify in front of Congress for a September 2015 hearing, Mr. Comey asked Ms. Lynch at the time whether she was prepared to refer to the Clinton investigation as just that, an “investigation.” Mr. Comey testified that Ms. Lynch said, “Yes, but don’t call it that, call it a matter.” Mr. Comey retorted, “Why would I do that?” Ms. Lynch answered, “Just call it a matter.” Mr. Comey stated that he acquiesced, but it gave him “a queasy feeling,” since it gave him the “impression that the attorney general was trying to align how we describe our work” with how the Clinton campaign was talking about it.

Notwithstanding the fact that the FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and not the Federal Bureau of Matters, one is hard-pressed to understand why Ms. Lynch directed then-Director Comey to call the Clinton investigation a “matter” unless she intended to use such deceptive language to help wrongly persuade the American people that former Secretary Clinton was not, in fact, the subject of a full-scale FBI investigation, or to otherwise undermine the integrity of the investigation.

Following Director Comey’s Senate Intelligence Committee testimony, Senator Dianne Feinstein was asked about the testimony while appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Senator Feinstein stated, “I would have a queasy feeling too, though, to be candid with you, I think we need to know more about that, and there’s only one way to know about it, and that’s to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that.”

We share Senator Feinstein’s and Mr. Comey’s concerns – specifically, that during the midst of a contentious Presidential election, which was already rife with scandal arising from Secretary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, that our nation’s chief law enforcement officer would instruct the FBI Director, her subordinate, to mislead the American public about the nature of the investigation. Following Ms. Lynch’s directive to downplay the Clinton investigation as a “matter,” Director Comey infamously terminated the Clinton investigation, stating, “[a]lthough there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Mr. Comey’s testimony has provided new evidence that Ms. Lynch may have used her position of authority to undermine the Clinton investigation. At any other point in history this accusation would entail a shock to the conscience of law abiding Americans who expect a DOJ free of political influence. We only have, however, an investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election, including any ties to the Trump campaign. To limit our nation’s insight into just this this single component of the 2016 election will only cause the special counsel’s work to be derided as one-sided and incomplete. The special counsel’s work must begin and end unimpeded by political motivations on either side of the aisle. For these reasons, the following points must also be fully investigated – ideally, via a second special counsel. This is imperative to regain the cherished trust and confidence in our undoubtedly distressed law enforcement and political institutions.

We call on a newly appointed special counsel to investigate, consistent with appropriate regulations, the following questions, many of which were previously posed by this Committee and remain unanswered:

  1. Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation;
  2. The shadow cast over our system of justice concerning Secretary Clinton and her involvement in mishandling classified information;
  3. FBI and DOJ’s investigative decisions related to former Secretary Clinton’s email investigation, including the propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to potential Clinton co-conspirators Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel and possibly others;
  4. The apparent failure of DOJ to empanel a grand jury to investigate allegations of mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and her associates;
  5. The Department of State and its employees’ involvement in determining which communications of Secretary Clinton’s and her associates to turn over for public scrutiny;
  6. WikiLeaks disclosures concerning the Clinton Foundation and its potentially unlawful international dealings;
  7. Connections between the Clinton campaign, or the Clinton Foundation, and foreign entities, including those from Russia and Ukraine;
  8. Mr. Comey’s knowledge of the purchase of Uranium One¹ by the company Rosatom, whether the approval of the sale was connected to any donations made to the Clinton Foundation, and what role Secretary Clinton played in the approval of that sale that had national security ramifications;
  9. Disclosures arising from unlawful access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer systems, including inappropriate collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign to undermine Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign;
  10. Post-election accusations by the President [Trump] that he was wiretapped by the previous Administration, and whether Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch had any knowledge of efforts made by any federal agency to unlawfully monitor communications of then-candidate Trump or his associates;
  11. Selected leaks of classified information related to the unmasking of U.S. person identities incidentally collected upon by the intelligence community, including an assessment of whether anyone in the Obama Administration, including Mr. Comey, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Susan Rice, Ms. Samantha Power, or others, had any knowledge about the “unmasking” of individuals on then candidate-Trump’s campaign team, transition team, or both;
  12. Admitted leaks by Mr. Comey to Columbia University law professor, Daniel Richman, regarding conversations between Mr. Comey and President Trump, how the leaked information was purposefully released to lead to the appointment of a special counsel, and whether any classified information was included in the now infamous “Comey memos”;
  13. Mr. Comey’s and the FBI’s apparent reliance on “Fusion GPS”² in its investigation of the Trump campaign, including the company’s creation of a “dossier” of information about Mr. Trump, that dossier’s commission and dissemination in the months before and after the 2016 election, whether the FBI paid anyone connected to the dossier, and the intelligence sources of Fusion GPS or any person or company working for Fusion GPS and its affiliates; and
  14. Any and all potential leaks originated by Mr. Comey and provide to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993.

You have the ability now to right the ship for the American people so these investigations may proceed independently and impartially. The American public has a right to know the facts – all of them – surrounding the election and its aftermath. We urge you to appoint a second special counsel to ensure these troubling, unanswered questions are not relegated to the dustbin of history.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte, Chair
Jim Jordan
Lamar Smith
Matt Gaetz
Tom Marino
Steve Chabot
Blake Farenthold
Steve King
Louis Gohmert
Ted Poe
Doug Collins
Raul Labrador
Ron DeSantis
Andy Biggs
Mike Johnson
John Rutherford
Martha Roby
John Ratcliffe
Trent Franks
Karen Handel

###

Note¹: Uranium One is a uranium mining company, headquartered in Toronto,  Canada. It has operations in Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and the United States. In January 2013, Russian state-owned enterprise Rosatom, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, purchased Uranium One for $1.3 billion. For Bill Clinton and John Podesta’s involvement in Uranium One and Rosatom, click here.

Note²: Fusion GPS is a commercial DC-based intelligence firm that conducts opposition political research on political candidates, such as on Mitt Romney. The company was hired by Planned Parenthood (PP) to investigate pro-life activists who took a series of “sting” videos showing PP selling aborted baby parts to medical researchers. In the 2016 presidential campaign, Fusion GPS was first hired by Republicans to conduct “opposition research” on Donald Trump, which ended when Trump became the GOP’s presidential nominee. Hillary Clinton then became Fusion GPS’s client to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS hired former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele to compile a dossier on Trump, which became infamous for its entirely-fake allegation that Trump had hired Russian prostitutes to urinate (“golden shower”) on a Russian hotel bed supposedly used by Obama.

Send a “thank you” to Congressman Bob Goodlatte!:

~Eowyn

Terrorism waiting to happen: Obama admin ignores Congress in lifting 30-yr. ban on Libyans training in U.S. flight schools

Despite the jihadist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya two years ago, and despite the terrorist threats in Libya today which led to the recent evacuation of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli, the POS is reversing a 30-year ban on Libyans getting flight and nuclear science training in America.

Worse still, the Dept of Homeland (In)Security stonewalled the House Judiciary Committee’s repeated requests for justification of the policy reversal. With Democrats in control of the Senate, there is little that the House can do about the self-styled Fuhrer in the White House.

Consortium of Defense Analysts

kingReportedly, Obama ignored the advice of senior military and intelligence officials in releasing 5 high-level Taliban terrorists from Gitmo in exchange for U.S. Army deserter Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Now, he’s doing it again.

From the non-partisan citizens’ watchdog group Judicial Watch, Aug. 13, 2014:

Less than two years after four Americans got massacred in a terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, Libya the Obama administration is disregarding congressional opposition to lift a decades-old ban on Libyans attending flight schools and training as nuclear scientists in the United States.

The ban was implemented in 1983 after a wave of terrorist incidents involving Libyans. The African nation continues to be a hotbed of terrorism and in fact, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli was recently evacuated because violence between rival militias has created a deadly environment. Many other foreign governments have also shut down their embassies in Libya because…

View original post 567 more words

Powerful Congressional testimony by Columbine victim’s father

Darrell and Rachel ScottDarrell (l) and Rachel Joy Scott

On May 27, 1999, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Joy Scott — a student killed in the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado — delivered a powerful speech during his testimony before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee.

This has been authenticated by Truth or Fiction.

Although there wasn’t a great deal of major news coverage — you aren’t likely to have seen it on television, for example — Mr. Scott’s speech was covered nationally by the Scripps Howard and Associated Press wire services, as well as in daily newspapers across the U.S., such as the Denver Rocky Mountain News, the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the Washington Times, the Boston Globe, the Arizona Republic, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Chicago Sun-Times.

This is what Darrell Scott said:

“Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.

In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA – because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy — it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You’ve stripped away our heritage,
You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question “Why?”
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.

What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws.

Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school.  I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him.

To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!”  – Darrell Scott

Mr. Scott delivered this speech 14 years ago. Sadly, it looks like his words have been ignored by the Democrats Left in Congress, the White House, the state controlled media, and by public schools faculty and administrators across America.

H/t Patriot Action Network

~Eowyn