Cocktails & Popcorn: John "Pookie" Brennan & Judiciary Jolly Jerry Coordinating Communications On Being Mean To Trump

Jolly Jerry & Pookie coordinating communication

Well, I truly do not have any idea of what venue Pookie will be offering his willingness to testify to congress, but you can bet your britches that I am routing for Judiciary!

That's right, boys and girls, it looks like Pookie and Judiciary Jolly Jerry have pre-emptively teamed up to stand their ground in being Meanies.

I wonder if their coordinated communications for this brilliant plan will be leaked before or during his congressional testimony.

I am going with afterwards simply for the fact that we can get more on the record from all the Members of Judiciary, you know, to use in the not so immediate future, like for a Constitutional Crisis, but hey, what do I know?

I know they were also mean to my Sweetie.

I also know they are "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

BRENNAN SAYS HE’S ‘ABSOLUTELY’ WILLING TO TESTIFY TO CONGRESS TO REBUT TRUMP’S ‘COUP’ CLAIMS

John Brennan said Friday he is “absolutely” willing to testify to Congress to rebut President Donald Trump’s claims that the former CIA director took part in a “coup” to undermine his presidency.

Brennan said in an interview on MSNBC, where he is a contributor, that he would “welcome any type of continued investigation of what we did that period of time that we were in government.”

Republicans have called for investigations into the CIA and FBI’s activities in the run-up to the investigation of the Trump campaign. The FBI formally opened its investigation of the Trump team on July 31, 2016, but some GOP lawmakers have suggested that Brennan was working behind the scenes to gather intelligence on Trump advisers before that.

Trump listed Brennan along with other Obama administration officials he claims tried to “overthrow” his administration, in an interview Thursday with Fox’s Sean Hannity.

“This was a coup, this was an attempted overthrow of the United States government,” said Trump.

“These are sick people. These are sick, sick people,” he continued, adding: “Let’s see what happens with [former FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe and [former FBI Director James] Comey and Brennan and [former National Intelligence Director James] Clapper, they were in on the act.”

Fmr. CIA Dir. John Brennan on Pres. Trump's comments on Fox News about the attempted 'coup' by the CIA to overthrow him: "I don't think it's surprising at all that we hear these sociopathic ramblings ... I've testified in front of Congress ... and absolutely I'll do it again." pic.twitter.com/V3Ac3Ab0Oo

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) April 26, 2019

Brennan testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on May 27, 2017, just 10 days after former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel of the Russia probe.

Brennan has had to walk back some of his bold claims about the investigation, which formally ended on March 22 with no charges related to conspiracy between Trump associates and the Kremlin.

(RELATED: Flashback: Brennan Predicted Additional Indictments In Mueller Probe)

Brennan claimed just two weeks before the end of the investigation that Mueller would issue a slew of indictments. He has also accused Trump of being treasonous.

Brennan also claimed Friday that Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul recently made “very specious allegations” about him “that have no basis in truth.”

Paul, a Republican, claimed on March 28 that Brennan tried to include portions of the infamous and unverified Steele dossier in the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Paul has not provided any additional information to back up his claim.

Brennan took part in a Jan. 6, 2017 briefing of then-President-elect Trump regarding Russian meddling in the election. In a one-on-one meeting just after the main briefing, Comey informed Trump about the unfounded claim from the dossier that the Kremlin has blackmail material on him.

John Brennan and Jerrold Nadler ’78 Talk Trump

In a New York Times opinion piece last month, former CIA director John Brennan described as “hogwash” President Trump’s claims that there was no collusion with the Russians during the 2016 election. So it’s no surprise that Brennan, distinguished fellow at the Center on National Security, took Trump to task again at a September 4 event at Fordham Law.

Trump “seeks to delegitimize those things that make this country great,” Brennan said, later adding that the president, unlike previous chief executives whom Brennan has served, pursues his “own interests above all else.”

Brennan was joined by Fordham Law alumnus and congressman Jerrold Nadler ’78, U.S. Representative from New York’s 10th congressional district, who, like Brennan, has been outspoken in his criticism of President Trump for the past two years.

In response to a question about the future of the rule of law in the United States, Nadler, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, stressed his belief that the “rule of law [is]imperiled” by Trump’s actions. Citing the 2018 book How Democracies Die, Nadler pointed to the ways in which authoritarian leaders eroded democracies in the past through attempts to silence the press and the questioning of election results. The parallels between the early stages of these crumbling democracies and the current state of Trump’s America, Nadler concluded, are striking.

Moderated by Karen J. Greenberg, the director of the Center on National Security, the conversation began with a 45-minute discussion that touched on topics such as cybersecurity, 2016 election meddling, and the future of American democracy. Brennan began by stressing his own nonpartisan status and maintaining the importance of allowing Robert Mueller’s investigation to come to a conclusion without interference. Nadler, a Democrat with a consistently liberal voting record in Congress, also voiced his support for the Mueller probe, while clarifying a few issues.

There was “clearly collusion in the election,” Nadler stated, giving the example of Donald Trump Jr.’s infamous Trump Tower meeting. The real questions, Nadler emphasized, have to do with provable, concrete violations of law and President Trump’s personal knowledge of any Russian collusion. If evidence were to come out that Trump was personally involved in any Russian collusion, Nadler said, “the most serious consequences” would be warranted. “All options would have to be on the table.”

When asked if Trump can rightly be called an outlier in the grand scheme of American political history, Brennan cited Trump’s frequent undermining of law enforcement agencies on Twitter, especially with regards to the ongoing Russian collusion investigation. Brennan called Trump’s actions a “break from past practice.”

Cybersecurity was another issue of concern, prompting questions from Greenberg, as well as several audience members. Nadler tackled the issue of electronic voting, admitting that the vulnerability of America’s electronic voting machines remains a significant problem. Brennan, for his part, called for the creation of an independent, bipartisan commission for the cyber environment.

In closing remarks, Nadler and Brennan each took the opportunity to address what they considered the most pressing issues for the United States to grapple with in the immediate future. For Nadler, a main concern is big money in politics, and the way it can break down a democracy that is supposed to give power to the everyman. “The power of money in politics today is a metastasizing cancer,” he said.

For Brennan, the issue of the day is polarization. As an outspoken critic of the current president, Brennan knows that it can be difficult to speak out against injustice in a way that will lead to practical results. “I have to remind myself not just to be critical, but to be constructive,” he said.

“[D]iscussions like this are very important,” Brennan said. “I think Congressman Nadler and other members of Congress should get together and speak openly and honestly about where we are right now in this country and the challenges we face.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Jolly Jerry Of Judiciary Just Jumped - The Releases Of The Mueller & IG Reports Are Coming

I have your home made butter pound cake.
Oups, j'ai dit une bétise!

Yes, it is that time in history where the cycle comes to full circle, but it has nothing to do with impeachment proceedings.

It has to do with Omarosa!

Where is Omarosa?

I bet she has a few things to say.

I bet Conyers has a few things to say, too.

Did anyone ask Jolly Jerry of Judiciary if he is going to look into the current and former official Members and Staff on his Committee, who have engaged in abuses of power, corruption, obstruction of justice and some really rogue ass other stuff?

Oh, wait, someone already put in that request.

T'would it not be more, legally, economic to wait for the IG Report and Mueller's Findings Report or are we setting up for some serious protracted litigation with "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending)?

I am thinking of ordering one of those mouth-watering, Detroit home made, butter pound cakes from around the corner, serving it with a really dry champagne and cut fruit.

#perkinscoiesucks

House impeachment panel asking 60 Trump officials for documents

Washington – Declaring it’s “very clear” President Donald Trump obstructed justice, the chairman of the House committee in charge of impeachment says the panel is requesting documents Monday from more than 60 people from Trump’s administration, family and business as part of a rapidly expanding Russia investigation.

"Jollie" Jerry Nadler

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the House Judiciary Committee wants to review documents from the Justice Department, the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. and Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg. Former White House chief of staff John Kelly and former White House counsel Don McGahn also are likely targets, he said.

“We are going to initiate investigations into abuses of power, into corruption and into obstruction of justice,” Nadler said. “We will do everything we can to get that evidence.”

Asked if he believed Trump obstructed justice, Nadler said, “Yes, I do.”

Nadler isn’t calling the inquiry an impeachment investigation but said House Democrats, now in the majority, are simply doing “our job to protect the rule of law” after Republicans during the first two years of Trump’s term were “shielding the president from any proper accountability.”

“We’re far from making decisions” about impeachment, he said.

In a tweet on Sunday, Trump blasted anew the Russia investigation, calling it a partisan probe unfairly aimed at discrediting his win in the 2016 presidential election. “I am an innocent man being persecuted by some very bad, conflicted & corrupt people in a Witch Hunt that is illegal & should never have been allowed to start - And only because I won the Election!” he wrote.

Nadler’s comments follow a bad political week for Trump. He emerged empty-handed from a high-profile summit with North Korea leader Kim Jong Un on denuclearization and Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, in three days of congressional testimony, publicly characterized the president as a “con man” and “cheat.”

Newly empowered House Democrats are flexing their strength with blossoming investigations. A half-dozen House committees are now probing alleged coordination between Trump associates and Russia’s efforts to sway the 2016 election, Trump’s tax returns and possible conflicts of interest involving the Trump family business and policy-making. The House oversight committee, for instance, has set a Monday deadline for the White House to turn over documents related to security clearances after The New York Times reported that the president ordered officials to grant his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s clearance over the objections of national security officials.

Nadler’s added lines of inquiry also come as special counsel Robert Mueller is believed to be wrapping up his work into possible questions of Trump campaign collusion and obstruction in the Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. In his testimony, Cohen acknowledged he did not witness or know directly of collusion between Trump aides and Russia but had his “suspicions.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., on Sunday accused House Democrats of prejudging Trump as part of a query based purely on partisan politics.

“I think Congressman Nadler decided to impeach the president the day the president won the election,” McCarthy said. “Listen to exactly what he said. He talks about impeachment before he even became chairman and then he says, ‘you’ve got to persuade people to get there.’ There’s nothing that the president did wrong.”

“Show me where the president did anything to be impeached. ... Nadler is setting the framework now that the Democrats are not to believe the Mueller report,” he said.

Nadler said Sunday his committee will seek to review the Mueller report but stressed the investigation “goes far beyond collusion.”

He pointed to what he considered several instances of obstruction of justice by the president, including the “1,100 times he referred to the Mueller investigation as a ‘witch hunt’” as well Trump’s abrupt firing of FBI director James Comey in 2017. According to Comey, Trump had encouraged the then-FBI director to drop an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Trump has denied he told Comey to end the Flynn probe.

“It’s very clear that the president obstructed justice,” Nadler said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has kept calls for impeachment at bay by insisting that Mueller first must be allowed to finish his work, and present his findings publicly – though it’s unclear whether the White House will allow its full release.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who chairs the House intelligence committee, on Sunday also stressed that it’s too early to make judgments about impeachment.

“That is something that we will have to await Bob Mueller’s report and the underlying evidence to determine. We will also have to look at the whole body of improper and criminal actions by the president including those campaign finance crimes to determine whether they rise to the level of removal from office,” Schiff said.

Nadler and McCarthy spoke on ABC’s “This Week,” and Schiff appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Opening Statement of Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler for the Forum on Enforcement of the Civil Rights Act in U.S. Schools

Watch Here

Washington, D.C. – Today, on the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) joined his colleagues in Democratic leadership to unveil a resolution to affirm support for disparate impact analysis as an enforcement tool of Title VI under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The resolution also calls on the Trump administration to fully enforce federal civil rights law to advance equal opportunity in education. Ranking Member Nadler announced this resolution at a forum he co-hosted with Congressman Bobby Scott (VA-03), Ranking Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Below are Ranking Member Nadler’s remarks at the forum, as prepared for delivery:

“Good afternoon. I am pleased to join my friend, the Ranking Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, as we delve into educational equity issues in the wake of No Child Left Behind.  Those of you who are Hill veterans will recall the many years that Representative Scott and I sat beside one another on the Judiciary Committee dais to debate and defend issues on the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties. 

“Earlier today, we introduced a resolution to affirm Congress’s intent for the Trump Administration to fully enforce federal civil rights laws that advance equal opportunity in education. I hope this is the first of many efforts together in our roles as Ranking Members on the Education and the Workforce and Judiciary Committees.

“As we meet today, on the 64^th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, we are reminded of both, historically, the progress in addressing racial inequality in our education system and, more contemporaneously, just how much work still needs to be done.  By one reckoning, the Brown decision was an epic victory in the fight for equality.  By another, it signaled a school-by-school effort to advance educational achievement for minority students, culminating with the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“More than 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, education issues still generate partisan controversy and have the power to divide communities.  Under the Trump administration, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has begun dismissing hundreds of civil rights complaints under a new protocol that allows investigators to disregard cases that are part of serial filings or that they consider burdensome to the office.  She has also rescinded Obama-era guidelines that have prodded colleges and universities to more aggressively investigate campus sexual assaults.  She has further threatened to rescind other important Obama-era guidelines that have proved critical to protecting students, like the 2014 School Discipline Guidance, that we will discuss later.

“We are joined today by the Government Accountability Office and other experts to highlight important research around resegregation and school discipline. In 2016, the GAO found that schools were resegregating at alarming rates and, just last month, the GAO found that students of color suffer harsher punishment in school than their peers.  In the face of mounting challenges faced by students of color as the Trump Administration attempts to roll back critical civil rights protections, Congress must remain vigilant to address these problems and to check the Trump Administration’s abuses. Our students deserve no less.”

BACKGROUND:

The original co-sponsors for the resolution include Ranking Member Bobby Scott (VA-03), Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (NY-10), House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA-12), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (MD-05), Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (SC-06), Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Judy Chu (CA-27), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Cedric Richmond (LA-02), Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01), and additional Democratic Members of Congress.

On April 4, 2018, Ranking Members Scott and Nadler released a GAO report entitled, “Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities.” This report found that Black students, boys, and students with disabilities are disproportionately disciplined in K-12 public schools. This pattern of disproportionate discipline persists regardless of the type of disciplinary action, level of school poverty, or type of public school students attend. To read more about this report, click here.

On May 17, 2016, Committees on the Judiciary and Education and the Workforce Democrats unveiled a GAO report entitled, “K-12 EDUCATION: Better Use of Information Could Help Agencies Identify Disparities and Address Racial Discrimination.” This report confirmed that increasing segregation along the lines of race and poverty continue to be a driver for inequities in education. The report identified actions needed to reduce racial and socioeconomic segregation, and addressed disparities in K-12 public schools. To read more about this report, click here.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Congressman Nadler Urges Senate Judiciary Committee to Question Sessions on Donald Trump's Conflicts of Interest

"Unless he makes clear that he will order a thorough and independent investigation of Mr. Trump’s conflicts of interest, and commits to pursuing any violations of law that are uncovered, he should be deemed unfit for the office of Attorney General, and his nomination should be rejected."  

U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On Friday, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee and former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Constitution Subcommittee, sent a letter to Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee urging them to question Senator Jeff Sessions on issues pertaining to Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest and possible violations of the Constitution. Starting tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to begin confirmation hearings with President-elect Trump's nominee for Attorney General. On Monday, Congressman Nadler authored an Op-Ed urging the Committee to ask Senator Sessions how he intends to address these outstanding concerns over Mr. Trump’s business conflicts and guarantee compliance with the law.

U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler Letter To Senate Judiciary on Jeff Sessions Confirmation on Trump Confli... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: DEMS DEMAND GOODLATTE BRING THE COMMITTEE INTO SESSION; REQUEST MEETING WITH DOJ ON COHEN’S GUILTY PLEA & DEMAND HEARINGS ON TRUMP’S ABUSE OF PARDON POWER

Washington, D.C. – [Today, August 24, 2018], in the wake of continuing fallout from the guilty plea of President Donald Trump's longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen; the conviction of his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort; grants of immunity for David Pecker, Chairman of American Media and the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg; and President Trump’s reactions to these events, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) led a letter, below, signed by every Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee to Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).  The letter asks that Chairman Goodlatte call the House Judiciary Committee back into session immediately to allow members to meet with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding the implications of the Cohen investigation; to respond to possible abuse of the pardon power by the President and his continuing attacks on the DOJ; and to take up bipartisan legislation to protect the Special Counsel.  

In their letter, the Members wrote, “We believe the Committee needs to take several  actions within our jurisdictional responsibility, including meeting with Department of Justice leadership concerning recent charges implicating President Trump in campaign finance violations, taking actions to help prevent presidential pardon authority from being used to interfere with ongoing criminal investigations, protecting the Special Counsel from wrongful termination, and responding to the growing culture of corruption and the President’s ongoing venomous attacks against the Department of Justice and FBI.”

Democratic Members urged Goodlatte to stand on the right side of history, noting, “Our Nation and our Committee stand at a crossroads, and the House Judiciary Committee has the expertise and authority necessary to take action to protect the rule of law and trust in our governmental institutions.  We are ready, willing, and able to work with you in placing country above party in pursuing these matters and protecting our Nation from crossing a constitutional precipice.”

Today’s letter was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee: Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Brad Schneider (D-IL) and Val Demings (D-FL). 

On March 9, 2018, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler, Congressional Democratic Women’s Working Group Chair Lois Frankel (D-FL) and Vice Chair Brenda Lawrence (D-MI), and Judiciary Committee members sent a letter to President Donald Trump’s lawyers, Michael Cohen and Marc Kasowitz, as well as David Pecker, the Chairman of American Media, Inc., raising legal concerns about payoffs to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and others.

On May 14, 2018, House Democrats released “Complicit: House GOP’s Reckless Campaign to Cover-up for President Trump,” which outlines the GOP’s efforts to undermine the Special Counsel’s investigation, shield the American people from the truth, and place the President’s political interests ahead of our national security interest. 

U.S. House Judiciary Ranking Member Nadler Letter to Chairman Godlatte Re Cohen and Pardon Power by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: NADLER ON NUNES “MEMO”: ANOTHER GOP PLOY TO DISTRACT FROM RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, DEFLECT FROM INACTION TO SECURE U.S. ELECTIONS & ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT FBI & MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION

Nadler Sends Letter to Goodlatte Expressing Concerns Regarding GOP’s Partisan Game with Classified Information

Washington, D.C. –  Recent reports show the Trump Administration and its Republican supporters in Congress working to undermine the Special Counsel’s investigation into connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government—including placing the FBI Director under so much pressure to fire his Deputy Director that he threatened to resign, accusing FBI investigators of “treason,” and drafting the so-called “Nunes Memo,” a set of talking points drafted by the Republican staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  

The House Committee on the Judiciary has not yet held a single substantive hearing on this effort to interfere with the Special Counsel.  Judiciary Republicans have also taken no action to address the ongoing threat Russia poses to the U.S. federal election system—despite pledging to do so when adopting the Committee’s oversight plan.

After reviewing the “Nunes Memo,” House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY),  immediately wrote to Chairman Bob Goodlatte to express his concerns.  Today’s letter is available here. 

Ranking Member Nadler also issued the following statement:

“The Judiciary Committee can no longer be silent while President Trump and his allies attempt to protect themselves by smearing career officials with lies and innuendo.  If Republicans cannot refrain from slandering honest public servants at the Department of Justice and the FBI for partisan purposes, then they should at least work with us to address the attack on our nation that brought us here to begin with.  We should have begun this work at the start of the Congress.  With full knowledge that the Russian government and others will attempt to subvert our next election, the Majority is instead preoccupied with protecting President Trump at all costs.

“Let me as clear as I can be in an unclassified setting:  the Nunes memo is a deliberately misleading document.  I can understand why President Trump, Chairman Nunes, and hundreds of Russian Twitter accounts want to undermine the Special Counsel’s investigation—but I cannot believe that anyone who thinks these allegations are true has actually read the documents on which the memo purports to be based.

“Chairman Goodlatte and I have both read the source materials.  I hope that he will work with me to make those documents available to our full Committee membership and to mitigate the damage done by Chairman Nunes and others.  It is time that we set partisanship aside, let Special Counsel Mueller and the relevant committees do their job, and Congress as a whole should fulfill our responsibility to preserve the integrity of U.S. elections against foreign interference.”

Background: Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have written to Chairman Goodlatte more than 11 times to request oversight hearings related to Russia’s interference with the 2016 election, the firing of James Comey, Sessions’ recusal and related matters. These letters have gone unanswered and House Judiciary Republicans have so far blocked several resolutions of inquiry from reaching the House floor.

On May 16, 2017, all of the Democrats on the Oversight and Judiciary Committees sent a letter to Chairmen Gowdy and Goodlatte requesting that they launch an “immediate joint investigation” into whether President Trump and his top officials were attempting to obstruct the criminal, counter-intelligence, and oversight investigations conducted by the FBI, Department of Justice, and Congress into members of his presidential campaign and their contacts with Russian officials.

On January 9, 2018, House Democratic Ranking Members Eliot Engel, Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler, Bennie Thompson, Elijah Cummings and Robert Brady sent a letter to Speaker Ryan urging House Republicans to join Democrats to fully investigate and address Russia’s threat to our democracy and national security. 

House Judiciary Ranking Member Nadler Letter to Chairman Goodlatte Expressing Concerns Regarding GOP’s Part... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: NADLER STATEMENT ON THE NOMINATION OF WILLIAM BARR FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL

Washington, D.C. –Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, released the following statement after President Donald Trump nominated William Barr to serve as Attorney General:

“I have a number of very serious concerns regarding William Barr’s nomination as Attorney General, including, but not limited to, his criticism of Special Counsel Mueller’s team, his defense of the firing of former FBI Director Comey, and his support for launching yet another investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.  Against the context of the firing of Attorney General Sessions because of his failure to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, Mr. Barr must lay out a series of steps he will take to ensure the independence of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, including pledging that he will not terminate Mr. Mueller absent “extraordinary improprieties” and promising to release any and all of the Special Counsel’s reports to Congress.”

“Beyond that, I need to be clear that this nomination does absolutely nothing to alleviate the concerns I have with Mr. Whitaker’s designation as Acting Attorney General, absent any Senate review of his qualifications.  I continue to have a number of additional concerns regarding his appointment, including whether it is lawful, his public statements questioning Mr. Mueller’s investigation, and a myriad of ongoing and unresolved ethics-related issues relating to Mr. Whitaker.  These concerns and questions are noted in the many letters we have sent to Mr. Whitaker and the Department of Justice, which remain unanswered.”

On November 7, 2018, Ranking Member Nadler issued a statement condemning the firing of Attorney General Sessions as consistent with “a clear pattern of interference from President Donald Trump.”

On Nov 8, 2018, Ranking Member Nadler led House Judiciary Committee Democrats in sending letters to Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) regarding the firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions by President Donald Trump in what appears to be a clear effort to change the supervisory structure for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing criminal investigation.

On November 8, 2018, Reps. Nadler, Schiff, and Cummings and Sen. Feinstein sent letters to top Administration officials demanding the preservation of all documents and materials relevant to the work of the Office of the Special Counsel or the firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

On November 12, 2018, Ranking Member Nadler and other top House Democrats joined Senate Democrats on a letter to the Department of Justice’s Chief Ethics Official, Assistant Attorney General Lee J. Lofthus. In the letter, they outline the number of serious ethical considerations that should preclude any involvement by President Trump’s handpicked Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker with the Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, and that require Mr. Whitaker’s immediate recusal. In the letter, the Democrats also request that the Department of Justice’s chief ethics officer immediately notify them whether he has advised Mr. Whitaker to recuse himself from supervision of the special counsel’s investigation.

On November 13, 2018, Ranking Member Nadler sent a letter to acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and FBI Director Christopher Wray notifying them of his expectation, when Democrats take the Majority in the new year, that the Department of Justice and the FBI will have already addressed the backlog of unanswered requests that have been made concerning legitimate oversight matters under the Committee’s jurisdiction. Over the last two years, House Judiciary Committee Democrats have written over one hundred letters to the Administration.

On November 14, 2018, Reps. Nadler, Cummings, Frank Pallone, Jr., and Schiff sent seven letters requesting information relating to Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker’s involvement with World Patent Marketing, a company that allegedly bilked millions from consumers and suppressed criticism of their activities.

On November 15, 2018, Ranking Member Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Schiff released a statement criticizing the Office of Legal Counsel opinion that attempts to justify the appointment of Matthew Whitaker.

On November 20, 2018, Ranking Members Nadler and Cummings had a joint call with Acting Attorney General Whitaker. In the course of the call, the Acting Attorney General committed to appearing before the House Judiciary Committee in January and affirmed that he was and will continue to follow all of the regulations, policies and procedures of the Department of Justice, including with regards to the Special Counsel investigation.

On December 6, 2018, Ranking Member Nadler and other top House Democrats joined Senate Democrats on another letter demanding an in-person briefing from the Department of Justice’s Chief Ethics Official, Assistant Attorney General Lee J. Lofthus.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: NADLER CRITICIZES HOUSE PASSAGE OF S. 139, THE FISA AMENDMENTS REAUTHORIZATION ACT

RM @RepJerryNadler: Make no mistake: #S139 is not a “compromise.” #Section702 pic.twitter.com/bffoWH0hfJ

— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudDems) January 11, 2018

Washington, D.C. –Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, by a vote of 256 to 164. This bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act fails to accomplish meaningful reform or provide a significant measure of privacy protections. S. 139 is a flawed bill that is opposed by Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and by technology companies and by privacy and civil liberties groups across the political spectrum.

In November 2017, H.R. 3989, the USA Liberty Act, a bipartisan bill supported by Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler and Chairman Bob Goodlatte, that reforms and reauthorizes Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to protect both national security and Americans’ civil liberties, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 27 to 8. Instead of giving the USA Liberty Act a full vote on the House floor, House Republican leadership instead chose to rush S. 139 to the floor without engaging the House Judiciary Committee, technology companies, civil society, or other stakeholders.

Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler released the following statement denouncing House passage of the bill:

“I am deeply disappointed in the passage of S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, which fails to enact meaningful privacy protections for the Section 702 surveillance program, codifies some of the most objectionable practices of the intelligence community, and does so under the disingenuous guise of ‘reform.’

“This legislation continues to allow the FBI access to information, for purely domestic cases, without a warrant in nearly all cases. If the FBI does not have probable cause to believe that someone is committing a crime or that an act of terrorism is being planned, it should not be able to use the Section 702 database to read the private communications of U.S. persons. Those in support of this bill defeated the critical Amash-Lofgren amendment which would have corrected this very issue. 

“I urge my colleagues in the Senate to thoroughly review this issue and to consider the perspectives of the House Judiciary Committee, technology companies, civil society, and other critical stakeholders who were excluded from this conversation by the GOP Majority in the House of Representatives long ago. Congress has a duty to reauthorize Section 702 in a form that respects Americans’ right to privacy as well as safeguards our nation from terrorism—and S. 139 is not the right path forward.” 

Watch Ranking Member Nadler’s floor statement in opposition to the bill here.

Read Ranking Member Nadler’s floor statement in opposition to the bill here.

This morning, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff called for S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, to be pulled from the House floor during floor debate. Ranking Member Schiff said, “I recommend we withdraw consideration of the bill today to give us more time to address privacy questions that have been raised as well as to get a clear statement from the Administration about their position on the bill.” 

Watch the full floor debate on the bill here.

Read more about S. 139,the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act here.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers & Nadler Urge Supreme Court to Preserve Critical Legal Tool in the Fight Against Housing and Lending Discrimination

Members File Bipartisan Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Mt. Holly v. Mt. Holly Garden Citizens in Action

(WASHINGTON) – Today, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. At the heart of this case is whether disparate impact – a method of proving discrimination by showing that policies or practices are discriminatory in application even if neutral on their face – can be used to enforce the Fair Housing Act, federal legislation that prohibits housing and lending discrimination. In their amicus brief, Reps. Conyers and Nadler argue in favor of disparate impact, citing extensive legislative history demonstrating that Congress intended to reach all forms of discrimination and chose language to accomplish this goal.

Upon filing the amicus brief, Reps. Conyers and Nadler issued the following statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.): “As our country went through a turbulent period in the fight for civil rights, I championed and voted in favor of the landmark Fair Housing Act in 1968. We passed this historic law, which came on the heels of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, understanding that we needed to reach and prohibit decades of discriminatory policies and practices. That is why we outlawed both intentional acts of discrimination as well as practices that, while seemingly neutral on their face, have the same discriminatory effect.  In the forty-five years since its passage – including in the recent $335 million settlement of Countrywide Financial’s predatory lending practices during the housing boom – disparate impact standards, which account for practices that have a discriminatory effect, have been used to enforce the Fair Housing Act’s promise of equal opportunity for all. Disparate impact remains a key civil rights enforcement tool, and I hope that this vital standard emerges stronger from this legal challenge.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.): “Unfortunately, discrimination in housing and housing-related lending remains a major problem in this country.  During the recent housing boom and bust, companies like Countrywide Financial charged minority applicants with higher interest rates and steered them into costly subprime mortgages.  There, the Justice Department successfully used disparate impact theory – as it has for several decades, during both Republican and Democratic administrations – to challenge this unlawful practice.  The Mount Holly case jeopardizes this key enforcement tool and puts at risk the progress our nation has made regarding housing discrimination.  We urge the Court to preserve disparate impact theory, and help ensure that the promise of equal housing opportunity becomes a reality for all.”

Bipartisan Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Mt. Holly v. Mt. Holly Garden Citizens in Action by Beverly Tran

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Republicans File Final Report On Nadler Resolution, Effectively Blocking Effort To Conduct Meaningful Oversight Of Trump

House Judiciary Majority Reports Rep. Nadler’s Resolution of Inquiry Seeking DOJ Information on Trump Conflicts and Russia Ties Unfavorably to House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. – Late in the evening of March 9, 2017, House Judiciary Committee Republicans filed a Committee report to the House, officially blocking Democrats’ efforts to demand transparency from the Trump administration about the President’s wide ranging conflicts and ties to Russia.  A copy of the Republicans’ full report and a copy of the Democrats’ dissenting views are below. House Rule XIII, Clause 7 provides that “If such a resolution [of inquiry] is not reported to the House within 14 legislative days after its introduction, a motion to discharge a committee from its consideration shall be privileged [on the House Floor].”  The Nadler Resolution (H. Res. 111) was introduced on February 9, 2017.  By filing their report on March 8, 2017—before 14 legislative days had passed—Judiciary Republicans have prevented further action on the bill.

The newly released report and dissenting views follow last week’s vote to adversely report out of Committee the Resolution of Inquiry introduced by Congressman Jerrold Nadler and voted on in Committee February 28^th, 2017.  Nadler’s resolution of inquiry directed the Department of Justice to provide the House of Representatives with any and all information relevant to an inquiry into President Trump and his associates’ conflicts of interest, ethical violations—including the Emoluments Clause—and connections and contacts with Russia.  This was the first resolution of inquiry introduced by Democrats since Trump was inaugurated, and the party-line vote was the first time Members of Congress were required to vote concerning an investigation of Donald Trump's conflicts of interest and his Administration’s connections with the Russian government. 

During the Committee’s consideration of this matter, Committee Republicans also voted against two amendments.  The first, offered by Rep. Deutch (D-FL), would have enabled the Committee to examine communications between the White House and the FBI about the investigation into the President's connections to Vladimir Putin.  The second, offered by Rep. Jeffries (D-NY), focused on whether Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself from the Russia investigation.  Notably, the Majority criticized this second amendment as "based on nothing more than a supposition" just hours before the Attorney General announced his recusal from any matter involving the 2016 campaign.

Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) issued the following statement upon the release of the Report:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“This resolution was a simple request for information from the Department of Justice.  Republicans voted to continue stonewalling our efforts to investigate President Trump’s conflicts of interest, ethics violations, and ties to Russian officials.  The report filed by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee puts them on the record as preventing this information from being shared with Congress, thereby abdicating their duty to provide oversight of the Executive Branch.  As we learn more and more information on a daily basis about Donald Trump, his campaign, transition team, and administration, we hope that our dissenting views will serve as a record of the Majority's refusal to uncover the truth or examine the facts.

“We note with interest that on the same day that the Republicans on the Committee sent a letter to the FBI requesting information on President Trump’s reckless accusations of wiretapping by former President Obama, they filed this report--which officially terminates our efforts to obtain critical information from the Justice Department through this resolution.  We also note that, although Chairman Goodlatte and Rep. Issa (R-CA) pledged to send a bipartisan letter to the Department concerning the information we requested last week, those letters have not yet been shared with us or transmitted to the Attorney General.

“When given the opportunity to ask the Department of Justice for information about the Trump Administration’s ties to Russia and the President’s refusal to address his conflicts of interest, the Majority has looked the other way.  These matters have the potential to do real and lasting harm to our democracy.”

In their dissenting views, the Committee Democrats forcefully responded to the Republican’s argument that the “resolution is unnecessary, premature, and not the best way for the Committee or the House to conduct oversight over the issues covered by the resolution”:

“On November 30, 2016, every Democratic Member of the House Judiciary Committee wrote to Chairman Goodlatte to request hearings on “the federal conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions that may apply to the President of the United States.”   We took note of President Trump’s repeated insistence that the President cannot have a conflict of interest—and enclosed a long list of federal ethics and conflict-of-interest statutes that, in fact, apply to the President.   To date, we have received no reply to this letter.

On January 24, 2017, every Democratic Member of the House Judiciary Committee again wrote to the Chairman, insisting that “the Committee hold hearings on President Trump’s conflicts of interest, at home and abroad, in possible violation of federal law.”   Citing to the analysis of legal experts across the political spectrum, we showed that “[t]he Administration’s attempts to address its ongoing conflict of interests are, so far, wholly inadequate.”   To date, we have received no reply to this letter either. 

On February 15, 2017, at a markup of the Committee’s annual oversight plan, Chairman Goodlatte announced that he had “requested, for the benefit of the full committee, a briefing by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the matter involving Mr. Flynn in the White House, both what took place and how that that was leaked.”   To date, no such briefing has been scheduled.

At that same February 15 meeting, the Committee considered several amendments to the Committee’s annual oversight plan.  One amendment offered by Chairman Goodlatte, as subsequently amended by Rep. David Cicilline, stated the Committee’s intention to conduct oversight into allegations of misconduct by executive branch officials and to continue oversight into allegations of foreign interference with federal elections.   We took this initial step as a positive sign.  The Majority then proceeded to reject amendments that would have focused the Committee’s attention on a number of urgent matters—including enforcement of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, allegations of contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, and the specific conclusion of the intelligence community that the Russian government engaged in a massive effort to influence the presidential election in favor of President Trump.”  (Democratic Dissenting Views, pp. 19-20). 

U.S. House Resolution 111 Of Inquiry Directing The Attorney General To Transmit Certainm Documents To The... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

U.S. House Resolution 111 Dissenting House Judiciary Majority Reports Rep. Nadler’s Resolution of Inquiry S... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©