White House Denies House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler’s Document Request ‘political theater pre-ordained to reach a preconceived and false result’

CAP

By Joshua Caplan

The White House said Wednesday that it is rebuffing the House Judiciary Committee’s request to hand over documents regarding topics broadly focused on 2016 Trump presidential campaign figures.

“The White House will not participate in the Committee’s ‘investigation’ that brushes aside the conclusions of the Department of Justice after a two-year-long effort in favor of political theater pre-ordained to reach a preconceived and false result,” a letter sent by White House counsel Pat Cipollone reads, according to ABC News.

Democrats launched a sweeping probe of President Trump in March, an aggressive investigation targeting eighty-one individuals and entities requesting records as part of their investigation ”into the alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration.”

Cipollone wrote that Nadler’s investigation is “duplicative” of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into now-debunked collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and requested that the committee seek a more “narrow” scope.

“Congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized “do-over” of exhaustive law enforcement investigations conducted by the Department of Justice,” argued the White House general counsel.

Former Trump campaign chief Stephen K. Bannon and the National Rifle Association (NRA) are among several figures and groups that have provided documents or responses to the panel.

President Trump has previously denounced the probe, tweeting that Nadler and other Democrats “have gone stone cold CRAZY. 81 letter sent to innocent people to harass them. They won’t get ANYTHING done for our Country!”

Nadler has said that the document requests, with responses to most that were due by March 18, are a way to “begin building the public record.”

“Over the last several years, President Trump has evaded accountability for his near-daily attacks on our basic legal, ethical, and constitutional rules and norms,” the New York Democrat said upon launching the probe. “Investigating these threats to the rule of law is an obligation of Congress and a core function of the House Judiciary Committee.”

Separate congressional probes are already ongoing, including an effort announced by three other House Democrat chairmen to obtain information about private conversations between him and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In a letter to the White House and State Department, the House intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform panels sent broad requests for details about President Trump and Putin’s private meetings by phone and in person. In addition to document requests, the committees are asking to interview interpreters who sat in on meetings, including a one-on-one session in Helsinki, Finland, last summer.

The State Department pledged to “work cooperatively with the committees.”

The AP contributed to this report. 

At Seminar, Lawyers Agree to Snitch on Clients Who Have Guns

By Jose Nino

Gun owners could be at risk of losing their Second Amendment rights and other freedoms if their lawyers believe that possessing firearm defines them as dangerous.

At The Federalist, Rebecca Kathryn Jude highlighted a troubling scenario at an ethics seminar, “The ‘Perfect’ Match: Selecting Clients for Successful Representation (Ethics),” that she was attending.

Adam Kilgore, general counsel for the Mississippi Bar, put forward a hypothetical scenario the group of civil and criminal lawyers in attendance:

A man has been fired from his job. He is upset. He hires you as his attorney. You are of the opinion he has an excellent case and file a complaint on his behalf. You later discover he possesses a permit to carry a firearm. He also has a so-called enhanced carry license. While his case is wending through the courts, your client goes to a public area outside his former workplace. He displays signs that say he has been wrongfully fired. The man has no history of criminal activity, violence, or threatening anyone.

The instructor then asked the class what action they would  pursue in this situation. In Jude’s view, “there was no reason to do anything except proceed with the client’s case.”

She then added that she “would also advise my client to avoid confrontations with anyone who worked for his former employer and what he might consider saying if approached by the media.”

Much to her surprise, however, was her peers’ response.

According to Jude, “many lawyers immediately said they would terminate the attorney-client relationship and contact law enforcement to report their client was potentially dangerous. The only reason offered was his firearm permits.”

Jude was “flabbergasted” and for good reason.

Mississippi is one of the most pro-gun states in the country, ranked in 16th place according to the Guns & Ammo magazine.

It is also one of the 16 states in the country with Constitutional Carry.

Jude was appalled that her colleagues “were proposing to violate the attorney-client privilege, which establishes one of the most sacrosanct confidential relationships” in this hypothetical scenario put forward.

She noted that the attorneys “focused on the fact the client owned a gun and had firearm permits” and that this “was enough to label him as reasonably certain to cause death or serious bodily harm and report him to the police.”

This case highlighted by Jude shows the kinds of different tactics anti-gun proponents are using these days to subvert gun rights.
BLP has reported on numerous occasions how certain corporate interests like Dick’s Sporting Goods and CEOs have pitched in to undermine gun rights.
Gun controllers recognize that they don’t have full legislative control, so they’ll find other means to subvert gun rights.

Eric Swalwell Tries to Walk Back Push to Jail Gun Owners

SUNRISE, FLORIDA - APRIL 09: Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who announced that he is running for president in 2020, greets people during a gun violence town hall at the BB&T Center on April 09, 2019 in Sunrise, Florida. Rep. Swalwell held the town hall not far from Marjory Stoneman Douglas …

By Awr Hawkins

Democrat presidential hopeful Eric Swalwell tried to walk back his statement about jailing gun owners who refuse to comply with a future firearms ban.

On April 14, 2019, CNN’s Jake Tapper noted Swalwell’s plan to mandate buybacks of “assault weapons” and criminally prosecute those who do not comply. Tapper asked Swalwell if criminal prosecution means Americans who held on to their guns would go to jail. Swalwell responded, “They would.”

Swalwell added that gun owners would be given an “alternative” choice of placing keeping their guns at “a hunting club or a shooting range,” but either way, the guns would no longer be in their possession.

He has been clear that he plans to use a forced buyback to take “assault weapons” away from everyone who possesses them. In fact, it has been one of his most prominent campaign promises:

Screen Shot 2019-04-17 at 11.34.56 AM

Despite these statements on sending non-compliant gun owners to jail and taking away whole categories of firearms, Swalwell claims he has no plans to “take guns from law-abiding gun owners.”

He tweeted:

Screen Shot 2019-04-17 at 11.36.03 AM

Note that his attempt to dismiss concerns that he wants to “take guns from law-abiding gun owners” ends with the pledge to #BanandBuyBack. The plan to #BanandBuyback is the method used to take away guns in Australia and New Zealand.

MUST WATCH! ARMED CHICAGO MAN FENDS OFF VIOLENT ATTACKERS

Must Watch! Armed Chicago Man Fends Off Violent Attackers

Public assault in broad daylight stopped by defensive use of 2nd Amendment

Infowars.com – APRIL 9, 2019

Footage shows two attackers run off when a man pulls his handgun out while being assaulted near Chicago’s Magnificent Mile neighborhood.

This example of how the 2nd Amendment can stop violent crimes comes two days after Chicago police arrested 21 people in the same part of town.

Notice in the video below how those observing the scuffle from inside a McDonald’s do nothing to help and instead sit silently until the man shows his handgun, prompting the patrons to shriek in fear.

There is an irony here that shouldn’t be ignored.

The man being attacked is wearing some sort of security guard outfit, which is likely why he’s allowed to carry a weapon in the first place as Chicago has some of the most strict gun policies in the country.

Chicago also has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country, but statistics show crime would drop if it were easier for law-abiding citizens like the man in the video to carry.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑