DOJ v. Omarosa - Will She Finally Get Due Process?

Omarosa has a long history with Trump.

Unfortunately, that history has been bleachbitted from the annals of history....or has it?

I got my money on Omarosa and Trump.

SCOTUS Says No House Judiciary To Mueller Detroit Grand Jury Material

Omarosa Manigault Newman Loses a Round Against DOJ Over Civil Lawsuit

Omarosa Manigault Newman was dealt a blow by a federal judge on Thursday after her motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against her last summer was denied.

In a minute order filed by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, the former White House Office of Public Liaison director of communications and, more famously, the serially reoccurring contestant on President Donald Trump’s reality television show The Apprentice, lost a bid to have the DOJ’s June 2019 complaint seeking a $50,000 civil fine against her tossed.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia did not elaborate on the reasons why her motion was dismissed in the brief order.

While Manigault Newman’s brief tenure at the White House was marked by controversy and her time post-federal employment has also seen its own fair share of scandal related to her relationship with Trump, the lawsuit was filed against her due to an alleged lack of paperwork.

Filed under the Ethics in Government Act of (EIGA), the lawsuit claims that Manigault Newman never submitted a required ethics disclosure form after being let go in late December 2017.

According to that lawsuit, “on or before December 19, 2017, Ms. Manigault Newman received a post-government employment briefing in which she was advised of her obligations under the EIGA to file a termination financial disclosure report by January 18, 2018.”

The lawsuit notes the statutory background:

The EIGA requires individuals who occupy covered positions to file a final public financial disclosure report on or before the thirtieth day after leaving their position, unless they have accepted another covered position. …

Section 104(a) of the EIGA authorizes the Attorney General to bring a civil action in federal district court against any individual “who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report” under the EIGA.

The complaint accused Maniguault Newman of being expressly aware of her obligations under the federal law and sought to prove her awareness by citing an exchange between the defendant and a White House ethics attorney.

“On December 29, 2017, an ethics attorney in the White House Counsel’s Office sent Ms. Manigault Newman an email reminding her of her obligation to file her termination financial disclosure report by January 18, 2018,” the filing alleges. “Although the email addressed used was the personal email address provided by Ms. Manigault Newman to the White House Counsel’s Office…she did not respond.”

Repeat attempts to contact Manigault Newman via email also went unanswered, according to the lawsuit–including a warning that she was likely to be assessed a $200 late filing fee if she filed after January 18, 2018. The date came and went, according to the complaint, and several additional emails were sent. The lawsuit claims that Manigault Newman finally responded to those multiple outreach efforts in late March 2018 “by calling the ethics attorney to discuss the overdue termination financial disclosure report.”

The lawsuit further alleges that Manigault Newman also responded to an email sent by then-Deputy Counsel to the President Stefan Passantino “but thereafter did not filed the overdue termination financial disclosure report.”

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. OMAROSA MANIGAULT NEWMAN, 1-2019-6-25-Complaint by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Omarosa Is Back

"Foxtrot-Uniform-Charlie-Kilo....
Tango-Hotel-Echo-Mike...
Uniform-Papa"

Sheeee's baaaaack......

Omarosa Accuses Trump Administration Of Destroying Boxes Of Evidence For Mueller

The ex-Trump aide says upon her firing, she was told to leave boxes of documents that should’ve been given to the special counsel.

Omarosa Manigault Newman, former senior White House official and frequent thorn in President Donald Trump’s side, has accused the administration of destroying several boxes of evidence that she said should have been turned over to special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of investigators.

 Speaking to Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC on Saturday, Manigault Newman said she was told to leave boxes of documents pertaining to Trump’s campaign and his transition into office when she was fired in December 2017 by John Kelly, the then-White House chief of staff.

The order, she said, was despite a “clear directive” that she and other White House staff had received to preserve all documents potentially related to Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and the Trump campaign’s ties to Russian officials.

 “I think it’s important to realize that very early on in the administration, we got letters directing us to preserve all information related to the Mueller investigation ― all investigations, any information, any emails, any correspondence,” Manigault Newman said.

 “So I thought it was very interesting that after my discussion with ... Kelly in the [White House] Situation Room when I went to take my things, I was instructed that I had to leave seven boxes of documents that came from the campaign, the inauguration, the transition, and they would not allow me to get them,” she continued.

@omarosa talks about how 7 boxes of her documents are being held by the Trump administration. #PoliticsNation pic.twitter.com/KziISc9Zg0

— Reverend Al Sharpton (@TheRevAl) May 4, 2019

Manigault Newman said she has not seen these boxes again and believed the Trump administration had not handed them over to the special counsel, as her legal team would’ve had to be informed if they had been.

 The former contestant of “The Apprentice” added that, based on emails she’d received from administration officials about the documents, it appeared that at least five of the seven boxes had been destroyed.

 “What’s very curious to me is that, as I stated, it was seven boxes of documents, and in my emails, they only referenced two, which leads me to believe that they’ve destroyed the other five,” Manigault Newman said.

 She added that she believes she’s “not the only one who’s been subjected to this type of treatment, and I believe that there are more documents that have been destroyed by this administration.”

Former WH Trump staffer @omarosa talks about Trump’s investigations and how there may be an attempt to stop her from speaking out about her experience under the Trump Administration. #PoliticsNation pic.twitter.com/ERGsS9bPoY

— Reverend Al Sharpton (@TheRevAl) May 4, 2019

In an April interview with MSNBC’s Craig Melvin about the Mueller probe, Manigault Newman referenced the two boxes of documents that she said the White House had refused to hand over to the investigators.

 “We should really not just focus on what [Trump] is telling people to do or say, but how he’s asked people to destroy documents, to destroy e-mails ― in my case, two boxes of campaign-related materials the White House still has in their possession that they claim they don’t have or don’t know what happened to it,” Manigault Newman said at that time.

 When asked by Melvin whether the Trump administration had directed her to destroy evidence, Manigault Newman explained that while she had not been told directly to do so, “they were very clear about not wanting us to share those things.”

“Right after the campaign, the day after, they took our e-mails down and told us we had no access to it ... They were certainly working to try to hide the things we now know are involved with this investigation,” she alleged.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Trump v. Omarosa -The Great Whistleblower Election Collusion

"Go do your thang, gurl."

Trump and Omarosa have a long history together.

I like to call Omarosa Trump's "Ride or Die".

This is why I am calling this public fallout "The Great Whistleblower Collusion".

Trump & Omarosa in Detroit

Omarosa was presented a Non Disclosure Agreement.

Omarosa was kicked out the White House for recording conversations with staff, John Kelly, going back and telling Trump.

Interesting to note that former Secretary Clinton did the same exact thing of recording in the SCIF and nothing has come of it....to date, that is.

Omarosa claims John Kelly played her a recording of Trump saying some "negative terms" and Lara Trump blasts the tape.

John Kelly secretly recorded POTUS and Omarosa has the evidence.

When you give a crazed, crying lowlife a break, and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just didn’t work out. Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 14, 2018

Then, she put out a "tell all" book about what staff told her about Trump.

So, now we await Avenatti.

It is a near certainty that Michael Avenatti is going to end up representing Omarosa and all of our absurd timelines are going to collapse on one another

— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) August 14, 2018

Omarosa is going to make a boat load of money, but I believe it will be in the form of a whistleblower lawsuit, setting up all those attorneys and people around Trump, who like to cover up nasty things that make them a whole lot of money from their public offices.

Stay tuned and watch Omarosa "do her thang" because I will be focused to see if the other players in this reality show drama are going to be held to the same standards, like John Kelly.

Before the reading of the follow article, claiming to be "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending), you must first be aware that Omarosa was correct in calling that agreement illegal for the simple fact that there are found to be 11 corporations in the name of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. registered in various states across the country as foreign non-profits, where, I am betting, Trump was not even aware that people were opening up these other domestic and foreign corporations, which, by the way, are not even registered with the FEC as campaign committees and, more than likely, had Trump's electronic signature, that he did not sign.

Timothy Jost, Corporate Shape
Shifter of the  Donald J. Trump
for President, Inc.,
foreign non-profit money
laundering operations

It seems the gentleman who set up all these foreign corporations named Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., goes by the name of Timothy Jost, the treasurer in some listing, who used private corporation filing services, to launder money.

I will go so far and assert that the foreign incorporated Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., is not even registered under FARA.

How much do you want to bet money laundering was going on to Russia, Ukraine or even Germany, hence, another layer of that Mueller collusion?

So, how is it this campaign NDA was presented to Omarosa when the agreement itself does not even state which Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. it is?

This truly reminds me of the work of "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) who go by the name of Perkins Coie.

I can smell the political fraud schemes of #perkinscoiesucks from any county in the world because they ran the same game on my Sweetie.

I wonder what John Roberts is doing right now?

OMAROSA SAID A HUSH MONEY AGREEMENT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFERED HER WAS ‘UNLAWFUL’ – WAS IT?

Omarosa Manigault Newman, former aide to President Donald Trump, said that a contract she was allegedly offered by the Trump campaign after being fired from the White House was an attempt to buy off her silence. She called the offer “unlawful.”

Verdict: Unsubstantiated

Legal experts disagree about whether such an agreement could have prevented Manigault Newman from discussing her time in the White House. Precedent says that the government cannot keep former employees from discussing non-classified information, and that principle might apply to the proposed campaign agreement.

Other parts of the agreement could have been enforceable, though, and “hush money” contracts are not unlawful in principle.

Fact Check:

Manigault Newman, a former contestant on “The Apprentice,” served as the director of communications for the White House Public Liaison Office before her departure in December 2017. Her recently released book about her time in the White House, “Unhinged,” alleges that Trump campaign adviser Lara Trump offered Manigault Newman a $15,000 per month campaign position in exchange for keeping quiet about her time in the White House.

She discussed the agreement on “Meet The Press” on Aug. 12. “I worked my butt off to make a difference in this country and they were looking for ways to frame me, and then, they tried to buy off my silence, which is also unlawful,” Manigault Newman said.

“Hush money” agreements, in which one person agrees to stay silent about a topic in exchange for money, are often valid and enforceable if both parties willingly enter into the contract. But legal experts disagree about whether the contract that Lara Trump offered Manigault Newman could keep her from discussing her time in public service.

The contract included a broadly-worded provision that prohibited her from disclosing any “confidential information,” including “appointments, meetings, conversations, notes and other communications” about Trump, Vice President Mike Pence or either of their families, even after the campaign ends. It did not specifically mention her time in public service, but it could be interpreted to apply to Manigault Newman’s time in the White House. She says that she did not sign the agreement.

Trump has reportedly required employees to sign other broad nondisclosure agreements. A Washington Post column from March said that senior White House staff members were asked to sign agreements prohibiting them from revealing information about their time in the White House, even after Trump’s presidency. A different nondisclosure agreement from the 2016 campaign included a provision to not “demean or disparage” Trump during the term of employment and “at all times thereafter.”

The alleged agreement that Manigault Newman declined to sign included a non-disparagement clause as well.

Legal precedent says that ex-federal employees cannot be required to promise silence on non-classified matters. For that reason, some experts say that the nondisclosure provisions in the White House contracts could violate the First Amendment.

“The government has no legitimate interest in censoring unclassified materials,” the 1983 District of Columbia Circuit Court case McGehee v. Casey explained.

The agreement offered to Manigault Newman after her time in the White House is different, though. The contract, along with its nondisclosure clause, would have been with the Trump campaign, not the federal government.

Which "campaign"?  There are 11 foreign non profit filings.

But Bradley Moss, a partner at the Mark S. Zaid, PC law firm and contributor to Lawfare, thinks that the $15,000 per month agreement would still not be enforceable because he says it is a poor attempt to get around legal precedent.

“They were effectively trying to circumvent the existing case law on the subject by having the campaign, not the Government, impose the retroactive NDA,” Moss told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an email. “I would argue that such a contract is constitutionally unenforceable no matter if coming from the campaign or the government itself. To permit the former to pull that off would be contrary to public policy.”

Ken White, a partner at Brown White & Osborn LLP who blogs as Popehat, also argued on the “All The President’s Lawyers” podcast that this type of agreement would fail the test of “unconscionability” – a legal doctrine that makes a contract unenforceable if it violates public policy or is otherwise inappropriate.

“A nondisclosure agreement may well be enforceable by a private entity, but it’s extremely dubious that you could enforce one to get people to stop talking about their public service, their paid work as a government employee,” White said on Aug. 15. “The idea is that restricting a public employee or a former public employee from talking about public service like that is unconscionable.”

University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster told TheDCNF that he was not as convinced that a court would find the agreement unconscionable, however.

“If an arbitrator proves sympathetic to her argument, then I can see that if she wants to speak publicly about an issue of great public importance, it might be deemed against public policy to enforce the agreement. Might,” Fenster told TheDCNF in an email.

He said that even if a court found that the agreement could not stop her from speaking about her time in the White House, other parts of the agreement would be enforceable.

“She was clearly wrong to state that it was unlawful to present her with the agreement, especially as it clearly would be ok to have her agree to be silent and non-disparaging during her employment by the campaign regarding issues that arise during the campaign,” Fenster said. “In that regard, it would clearly be enforceable, just perhaps not as broadly as the campaign and President might wish. It’s therefore clearly not unlawful.”

The experts noted that even broad nondisclosure agreements that are not fully enforceable are often still effective at intimidating employees into silence when they lack the resources to defend themselves or seek legal advice.

There is a lack of consensus about whether a private agreement could prevent individuals from talking about their public service in part because it is a new legal question. “There is – to my knowledge – no precedent for a campaign seeking to contractually silence a former federal employee with respect to the work that person did while serving in the government,” Moss said.

While Manigault Newman says she did not sign the “hush money” agreement, whether the Trump campaign can prevent former public servants from discussing their time in the White House remains a relevant legal question. The Trump campaign filed an arbitration case against her last week for allegedly breaking a 2016 campaign agreement.

A representative for Manigault Newman did not respond to a request for comment.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

TRUMP Calls Out Child Protective Services For Trafficking Tiny Humans At Border

Well, I bet that is going to dampen a few NGO revenue maximization enterprises.

That horrible law is child welfare law.

Pay attention to how the media and child welfare groups start to lose their narrative because what goes on, once these kids enter the U.S. is even darker.

Trump Chief Of Staff John Kelly, Immigration & CPS

Trump calls for Democrats to end ‘horrible law’ that he says separates children from parents at border

President Trump on Saturday called on Democrats to end a “horrible law” that he says separates children from their parents when they cross the border -- and also accused them of “protecting MS-13 thugs.”

“Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there [sic] parents once they cross the Border into the U.S.” he tweeted.

Trump made the remarks amid a pushback from Democrats and activists at a “zero tolerance” policy enforced by the Justice Department. That policy refers all illegal border crossings for prosecution, including illegal immigrants with children.

Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there parents once they cross the Border into the U.S. Catch and Release, Lottery and Chain must also go with it and we MUST continue building the WALL! DEMOCRATS ARE PROTECTING MS-13 THUGS.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 26, 2018

Those parents are housed at adult detention centers, and consequently their children are separated from them, registered as “unaccompanied minors” and handed to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Trump has blamed Democrats for the separation of children from their parents before. Last week he told Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen that the breaking up of families occurred because of “bad laws that the Democrats gave us.”

The Associated Press reported that he appeared to be referring to a 2008 law to combat child trafficking -- a bipartisan law authored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., but signed into law by Republican President George W. Bush.

While the law says nothing about separating families, it does say that children travelling alone from countries other than Mexico and Canada must be released in the “least restrictive setting” -- namely a family or shelter.

The Justice Department’s zero-tolerance policy, designed to deter prospective illegal immigrants, means that illegal immigrants are no longer released with their children into the U.S. and consequently that their children are separated from them.

“If you cross the border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple,” Sessions said earlier this month. “If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you. And that child may be separated from you, as required by law.”

SESSIONS SAYS ALL ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED; CHILDREN MAY BE SEPARATED FROM PARENTS 

But Trump called on Democratic lawmakers to end the practice, apparently as part of a deal that includes the ending of so-called “catch and release” whereby illegal immigrants are released into America while they wait for their court hearing. He also said that the diversity lottery visa and so-called chain migration -- where immigrants can sponsor family members for visas -- must end.

“Catch and Release, Lottery and Chain must also go with it and we MUST continue building the WALL!” he tweeted.

He also returned to accusing Democrats of “protecting” MS-13 gang members. He has said repeatedly that their opposition to strong border policies, as well as the promotion of “sanctuary policies” in states like California and New York, mean criminal gang members get released back into communities.

“Democrats are protecting MS-13 thugs,” he tweeted.

Trump was criticized by Democrats for describing MS-13 members as “animals.” This week he accused Democrats of “trying to defend” them, noting that he was criticized for his remarks by Democratic leaders Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Trump Chief Of Staff John Kelly, Immigration & CPS

John Kelly, Trump's Chief of Staff made a statement on the trafficking of tiny humans across the Southern Border of the United States.

Lots of people were offended but I do not understand why, because it is what is taught in the universities, the policy think tanks, the churches, and any other NGO that can make a few bucks.

So, be kind to John Kelly.

He is only saying and doing what he was taught...for generations.

Something to think about.

Anchor Babies Will Be Legally Kidnapped

Si usted es un inmigrante ilegal, CPS le lleve a sus hijos.

 إذا كنت مهاجرا غير شرعي ، النيابة العامة سوف تتخذ أطفالك.

Если вы нелегальный иммигрант, CPS будет взять своих детей.

(And Chinese)

If you are an illegal immigrant, CPS will take your children. 

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: Jesus Was An Achor Baby http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2010/08/jesus-was-achor-baby.html#ixzz5FRGfmhGV
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

John Kelly's Racist Comments About Immigrants Are Not His First

Trump's Chief of Staff turned to bigotry when asked to defend harsh new policy for prosecuting illegal immigrants.

In a contentious NPR interview that aired Friday morning, President Trump's Chief of Staff, John Kelly, said that the "vast majority" of illegal immigrants "don't integrate well" and "don't have skills."

Kelly was defending a "zero tolerance policy" for illegal border crossings that was announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April. Sessions said "a crisis has erupted" at the border with Mexico, according to the AP. He ordered prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against any immigrants caught while attempting to illegally enter the U.S.

When asked about Sessions' policy by NPR, Kelly allowed that many illegal immigrants "are not bad people ... but they're also not people that would easily assimilate into the United States," he continued. "They're overwhelmingly rural people. In the countries they come from, fourth-, fifth-, sixth-grade educations are kind of the norm."

He kept elaborating: "They don't speak English, obviously that's a big thing," Kelly said. "They don't integrate well; they don't have skills."

This is not the first time Kelly has espoused racist views about non-white immigrants. Earlier this year, during the debate around the fate of the DACA recipients, known as Dreamers, the Washington Post reported that the president's Chief of Staff said that some young immigrants eligible for protection under the program were "too lazy to get off their asses" and sign up.

Kelly later offered a different version of the same comment, insisting that eligible immigrants "just should've probably gotten off the couch and signed up."

After Sessions announced the government's new policy on border crossings, the ACLU condemned it in a statement. "We will almost certainly see asylum seekers prosecuted and parents separated from children to be funneled into the criminal justice system," the ACLU said.

The Attorney General acknowledged his order might rip families apart in a subsequent press conference, but defended the policy as his only means of deterring future illegal border crossings. "We don't want to separate families, but we don't want families to come to the border illegally and attempt to enter into this country improperly," he said, according to PBS.

"Why are you doing this?" a heckler responded. "Do you have a heart?"

Last fall, during the nationwide debate about Confederate statues, Kelly made news for his comments that General Robert E. Lee was "an honorable man." Kelly argued that it was an "inability to compromise that led to the Civil War."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thompson, Nadler, Cummings Demand Answers on the White House’s Security Clearance Process & Jared Kushner’s Interim Clearance

January 23, 2018 (WASHINGTON) – Today, Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler, and Oversight & Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings sent a letter, below, to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly to demand answers on how the Trump White House handles the security clearance process for its staff.  Press reports revealing details of Jared Kushner’s one year old interim clearance calls the clearance adjudication process for White House staff into question.

“We are writing to obtain information related to the White House’s interim security clearance process. According to press reports, a year after becoming a White House advisor, Jared Kushner still has access to our most critical national security information pursuant to an interim security clearance.”

“Mr. Kushner’s case raises serious questions about whether his situation is an isolated one among White House senior staff.  It also raises concerns about the clearance adjudication process for White House staff generally. It is unprecedented for fourteen individuals to have access to the highly classified President’s Daily Briefing, let alone a single individual who is unable to obtain security clearance all together.”

“In an effort to bring more transparency and conduct effective oversight, Congress must have access to information about staff serving in our Nation’s highest office. While we understand you cannot speak to ongoing investigations, it is important for us to understand the reason for Kushner’s delayed security clearance, how many other White House staff are similarly situated, and determine what risks these delays may pose to our nation’s security.”

Thompson, Nadler, Cummings Demand Answers on the White House’s Security Clearance Process & Jared Kushner’s... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Democrats Push Trump Administration to Protect the Education of Undocumented Children

WASHINGTON – Today, Reps.  John Conyers (MI-13), Bobby Scott (VA-03), Bennie Thompson (MS-02), and Zoe Lofgren (CA-19), the Ranking Members of the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, respectively, sent a letter, below, to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly asking them to remind public schools that they are still required to educate undocumented children, despite recent changes to immigration policies.

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

“We write to express concern that recent changes in immigration enforcement policies are creating fear, anxiety and confusion in immigrant communities around the country,” the Members wrote. “In this environment of trepidation, it is important that we do all we can to minimize the impact these policies have on public school attendance and student learning. One way to address this concern is to ensure that school enrollment and attendance practices do not chill school participation based on the students’ or their parent’s immigration status.”

“To assuage increasing apprehensions, we request that the Department of Homeland Security issue a statement making clear that, in spite of other changes in enforcement policy, the sensitive locations policy remains in full effect, at schools and other localities,” the letter reads. “Fear of immigration enforcement actions cannot be allowed to create a hostile learning environment for our children.”

Plyler v. Doe decision, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny any child, including an undocumented child, access to a public education.  A student’s immigration status was irrelevant to the student’s right to access a public elementary and secondary education.

Democrats Request Trump Administration to Protect the Education of Undocumented Children Letter 4-3-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Criticizes DHS Memos As Unfairly Targeting Millions Of Non-Violent Individuals For Removal

New Actions May Violate U.S. Law and Treaties

Detroit, MI – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today released the following statement:

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

“Today Secretary John Kelly issued two memoranda implementing the recent executive orders on border security and enforcement of the immigration laws.  In doing so, Secretary Kelly has cemented President Trump’s plan to deport millions of immigrants from the United States.  These policies will wreak havoc on our local businesses, will tear apart families and will betray our values as a nation that protects those who are fleeing persecution.  Make no mistake, these policies are not about common sense governance, they are ideological decisions that are rooted in the fundamental belief that immigrants are a drain on our society. These are disastrous policies that will benefit no one other than the few extreme factions of the anti-immigrant and nativist community.

“Of gravest concern, today’s memoranda will dramatically expand the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement efforts by no longer “exempt[ing] classes or categories of removable aliens” and specifically including anyone who has “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense,” such as improper entry or even jaywalking.  This would include virtually all undocumented individuals in America in stark contrast to Mr. Trump’s promises to target criminal aliens. 

“Additional provisions in today’s memoranda also trample long held notions of due process and fairness, result in a massive and unprecedented increase in detention, dramatically increase efforts to turn local law enforcement agents into immigration agents (including those with records of racial profiling and police misconduct), significantly limit access to asylum and other humanitarian protections, and deny vital protections for children fleeing persecution and terror.  Individually and collectively, these actions are in potential violation of U.S. law and international treaties, including the Trafficking Victim Protection Act.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

More Than 100 Members Of Congress Call For DHS Briefing This Week On Trump Muslim Ban Executive Order

Washington, DC– More than 100 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by House Judiciary Committee Member Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), and House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), wrote to the Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly condemning the President’s Muslim ban executive order and calling for a full Member-wide briefing no later than Friday, February 3, 2017.

In their letter, the Members wrote, “We hope you will urge the President to immediately rescind the Executive Order, which has created profound chaos and fear among refugees and immigrants who have been admitted to the United States, as well as their families. As a nation of immigrants that has been a refuge for people fleeing persecution from around the world, these actions are contrary to who we are as a nation.”

On Tuesday, Secretary Kelly briefly met on the hill with a few select Committee Chairmen and Ranking Members. The Members are calling for a full Member-wide briefing on the Executive Order this week, writing, “Given the urgency, widespread confusion and dangerous impact of the Executive Order, we would appreciate hearing from you as quickly as possible so that we may ensure the briefing occurs by no later than Friday, February 3.  The lives and well-being of many individuals, as well as our ability to partner with foreign governments to fight terrorism, depends on it.”

More Than 100 Members Of Congress Call ForDHS Briefing On Trump Muslim Ban Executive Order Letter 2-1-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Signators of the letter:
1. Rep. John Conyers, Jr,
2. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep.,
3. Rep. Pramila Jayapal,
4. Rep. Pete Aguilar,
5. Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán,
6. Rep. Karen Bass,
7. Rep. Joyce Beatty,
8. Rep. Donald S. Beyer, Jr.
9. Rep. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.,
10. Rep. Earl Blumenauer
11. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici,
12. Rep. Robert A. Brady
13. Rep. Anthony Brown,
14. Rep. G.K. Butterfield,
15. Rep. Salud Carbajal,
16. Rep. Tony Cárdenas,
17. Rep. Joaquin Castro
18. Rep. Judy Chu,
19. Rep. David N. Cicilline,
20. Rep. Yvette D. Clarke,
21. Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay
22. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver,
23. Rep. James E. Clyburn,
24. Rep. Steve Cohen,
25. Rep. Jim Cooper,
26. Rep. Luis J. Correa,
27. Rep. Joseph Crowley
28. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings
29. Rep. Susan A. Davis,
30. Rep. Peter A. DeFazio,
31. Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro,
32. Rep. Suzan K. DelBene
33. Rep. Theodore E. Deutch,
34. Rep. Debbie Dingell
35. Rep. Lloyd Doggett,
36. Rep. Keith Ellison,
37. Rep. Elliot L. Engel,
38. Rep. Anna G. Eshoo,
39. Rep. Adriano Espaillat,
40. Rep. Dwight Evans,
 41. Rep. Marcia L. Fudge,
42. Rep. Ruban Gallego
43. Rep. John Garamendi,
44. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva,
45. Rep. Luis Gutierrez,
46. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa,
47. Rep. Alcee L. Hastings,
48. Rep. Denny Heck
49. Rep. Jarred Huffman,
50. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee,
51. Rep. Hakeem S. Jeffries,
52. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
53. Rep. Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr.,
54. Rep. Marcy Kaptur,
55. Rep. Robin L. Kelly,
56. Rep. Derek Kilmer,
57. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi,
58. Rep. Ann M. Kuster
59. Rep. Rick Larsen,
60. Rep. Barbara Lee,
61. Rep. Sandy Levin,
62. Rep. John Lewis,
63. Rep. Nita M. Lowey,
64. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch,
65. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney,
66. Rep. Doris O. Matsui,
67. Rep. Donald A. McEachin,
68. Rep. James P. McGovern
69. Rep. Gregory W. Meeks
70. Rep. Gwen Moore,
71. Rep. Seth Moulton,
72. Rep. Stephanie Murphy,
73. Rep. Jerrold Nadler,
74. Rep. Richard E. Neal
75. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr.,
76. Rep. Jimmy Panetta,
77. Rep. Donald M. Payne, Jr.
78. Rep. Collin C. Peterson
79. Rep. Chellie Pingree,
80. Rep. Mark Pocan,
81. Rep. Jared Polis
82. Rep. Mike Quigley,
83. Rep. Jamie Raskin,
84. Rep. Cedric L. Richmond,
85. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard,
86. Rep. C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger,
87. Rep. Bobby L. Rush,
88. Rep. Linda T. Sanchez,
89. Rep. John P. Sarbanes,
90. Rep. Adam B. Schiff
91. Rep. Bradley Scott Schneider
92. Rep. Bobby Scott,
93. Rep. Terri Sewell,
94. Rep. Jan Schakowsky,
95. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter,
96. Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,
97. Rep. Adam Smith,
98. Rep. Darren Soto,
99. Rep. Thomas R. Souzzi,
100. Rep. Jackie Speier,
101. Rep. Eric Swalwell,
102. Rep. Mark Takano,
103. Rep. Bennie Thompson
104. Rep. Paul D. Tonko,
105. Rep. Norma J. Torres,
106. Rep. Niki Tsongas,
107. Rep. Marc Veasy,
108. Rep. Filemon Vela,
109. Rep. Nydia Velsaquez,
110. Rep. Timothy J. Walz
111. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
112. Rep. Maxine Waters
113. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman,
114. Rep. John A. Yarmuth

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Top Judiciary, Foreign Affairs & Homeland Security Democrats Call Meeting With Homeland Security Secretary, Raise Concerns Over Immigration Executive Order

Washington, DC – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-NY), House Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), and House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) today sent a letter to U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly to raise concerns about President Donald Trump’s recent immigration executive order and urge for a joint meeting as soon as possible and in no event later than February 1.

TOP HOUSE JUDICIARY, FOREIGN AFFAIRS & HOMELAND SECURITY DEMOCRATS CALL FOR MEETING WITH HOMELAND SECURITY... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS and LOFGREN Statement on Nomination of Gen. John Kelly for Secretary of Homeland Security

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, issued the following statement today regarding President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Marine Gen. John Kelly to lead the Department of Homeland Security:

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

“The Department of Homeland Security has a wide-array of responsibilities, from providing humanitarian relief for asylum-seekers to protecting our nation’s borders to assisting communities after natural disasters. The individual charged with leading this multi-faceted agency will face enormous challenges – including administration of the Department itself.

“While Marine General John Kelly apparently has little experience with immigration, President-elect Trump has used vitriolic rhetoric to describe immigrants, promised to deport millions, and bar Muslims from entering the country.

“Concerns have been raised that General Kelly’s appointment could contribute to a militarization of our nation’s immigration system. Immigrants are not the enemy. Rather, for generations, immigrants have flocked to our shores to build their dreams, and in turn they have grown our economy and enriched our country in numerous ways. I hope General Kelly understands this, and will take this opportunity to enforce immigration laws in a practical, humane way that makes sense for America – for our families, businesses and entrepreneurs, and our values as a nation.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©