This episode is also available as a blog post: https://herstontennesseefamilylaw.com/2022/08/15/judicial-recusal-denied-because-of-delay-in-sparta-tennessee-parenting-plan-dispute-baker-v-mcsherry/
Since the raid of Former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate on Monday, we uncover more interesting and troubling insights into the weaponization of the FBI and the DOJ. Dr. Everett Piper: DeSantis for President in 2024? Congressman Warren Davidson: GOP reaction to the Mar-a-Lago raid, a bill funding an extra 87,000 agents for the IRS. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
VLOG: Schulte sealing saga; US Air wins $1; recusal on Archegos' Hwang b/c JPM Chase, under-regulated; @USUN blocks access to UN without explanation by @USUNSpox
The January 6th committee investigation uncovered unhinged texts from Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, that implicated her in the riot on the Capitol. The release of the Trump White House records that led to the discovery of the texts was an issue that was decided by the Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision the Court ordered the records released. The lone dissenter was Clarence Thomas. What are the ethical rules for conflicts of interest and the appearance of impartiality on the Supreme Court?Plus, a new district court judge throws out the mask mandate.
Elon Musk's Twitter Takeover Bid Elon Musk has announced an offer to take Twitter Inc. private in a deal valued at $43 billion deal in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, after turning down the chance to take a board seat at the company. Musk first disclosed a stake of about 9% on April 4, at the time making him the largest individual investor. Mark discusses the implications of Musk's Twitter takeover bid. Taking Issue With Calls for Justice Thomas's Recusal Vec takes issue with the calls for Justice Clarence Thomas's recusal in the wake of recently leaked texts of Ginni Thomas gathered by the House January 6 special committee. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show. On Wednesday's show, we discuss the background and law surrounding recusal of federal judges with Bob Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute. We also visit with Professor Andrew Joppa about the implications of Elon Musk's stake in Twitter, the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice candidate, Katanji Brown Jackson, and developments in Ukraine. Please join us on Thursday's show. We'll visit with the Co-Founder of the Florida Citizens Alliance Keith Flaugh, Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. George Markovich, the Founder and President of Less Government Seton Motley, and the former Mayor of Naples, Bill Barnett. Please join us live at 7 a.m. on bobharden.com, or access the show anytime on podcast platforms.
This week: Major League Baseball reaches a deal to end the lock-out, Zelle finds itself becoming a scammer's paradise, and asking if Ketanji Brown Jackson should recuse herself from a future case. Plus, Amazon may be facing a DOJ probe, and Biden says nyet to vodka.
In this Too Long episode, I give a medical update, as well as where we are with my LO's case, and my plans to see him again. Lives "inside" and "outside" come together unexpectedly to give hope for both. I'm Justice, sharing my experiences of dating an inmate in a state prison and what I have learned about criminal justice and prison reform along the way. The website for questions and comments is www.ondatinganinmate.blogspot.com. The podcast cover image and music were created by me. The digital silhouette was designed by Hazel Moon Creations.Merch for sale: http://www.redbubble.com/people/justicespeaksSupport the show
This episode is also available as a blog post: https://herstontennesseefamilylaw.com/2022/03/02/recusal-of-magistrate-sought-in-memphis-tennessee-dependency-and-neglect-case-in-re-haven-lee-s/
In the first hour of the show, Pete takes NC Supreme Court justices Anita Earls and Philip Berger to task for deciding to NOT recuse themselves in the NC Redistricting case despite clear conflicts of interest in the trial. Dr. Andy Jackson of the John Locke Foundation joins the show to discuss. Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Amazon, Facebook and Google are on a mission: to ensure that the United States Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and Department of Justice antitrust division head Jonathan Kanter recuse themselves from key decisions affecting the digital platforms. Why? Because, they argue, the two officials' past work and public utterances mean they're incapable of overseeing their agencies' investigations impartially. But a court ruling is suggesting the tech giants may be facing an uphill battle. Also on today's podcast: Facebook's 2019 settlement with the FTC included a commitment to make changes to its privacy compliance structure and carry out internal privacy assessments. But what's in those assessments? We may never know, with a US Supreme Court ruling on the US's Freedom of Information Act allowing Facebook — or Meta Platforms, as it's now known — to demand heavy-handed redactions of FTC documents.
As a major redistricting cases lands before the state supreme court, calls are growing louder for some justices to recuse themselves. On this episode of The Politics Podcast, three former judges talk about the issue of recusal - and the importance of judicial independence.
This episode is also available as a blog post: https://herstontennesseefamilylaw.com/2022/01/03/political-comments-by-judges-spouse-leads-to-recusal-motion-in-franklin-tennessee-postdivorce-dispute-neuman-v-phillips/
Lawyers representing the families of the Marikana Massacre have asked Judge Colin Lamont to recuse himself from the class suit because he is conflicted. Judge Lamont who is presiding over the lawsuit, was found to actually own shares worth R225-thousand in Sibanye Stillwater, the new owners after Lonmin. Advocate Dali Mpofu, says he has learnt this morning that the judge sold his shares. At least 34 mineworkers were killed during the Marikana Massacre in August 2012 and several others were seriously injured. They were demanding a salary of R12,500 and improved living conditions.
Tax Notes legal reporter Jennifer McLoughlin and contributing editor Kristen Parillo discuss two important tax cases heard by the Supreme Court: Americans for Prosperity Foundation and CIC Services. For additional coverage, read these articles in Tax Notes:Limitations of CIC Services Opinion Are UnclearLawsuit on Access to Appeals Barred Under CIC Services, DOJ SaysSupreme Court’s CIC Services Opinion Clarifies Scope of AIAProfessor Highlights Potential Reach of California Donor Disclosure CaseCalifornia Donor Disclosure Law Is Chilling, Attorney Tells SCOTUSU.S. Lawmakers Seek Justice Barrett’s Recusal in Donor Disclosure Case**This episode is sponsored by Avalara. For more information, visit avalara.com/taxnotes.This episode is sponsored by University of California, Irvine Law School’s Graduate Tax Program. For more information, visit law.uci.edu/gradtax.***CreditsHost: David D. StewartExecutive Producer: Jasper B. SmithShowrunner: Paige JonesAudio Engineer: Jordan ParrishGuest Relations: Christa Goad
Former president Jacob Zuma will plead not guilty to corruption charges and he wants the state’s lead prosecutor, advocate Billy Downer, out.Zuma’s legal team will file papers on Wednesday in support of the objection against Downer leading the trial against him.In the papers, Zuma will state reasons for calling for Downer’s recusal from the proceedings.Zuma’s trial was expected to start on Monday in the Pietermaritzburg high court, but the court was informed that Zuma planned to object to Downer prosecuting him.Zuma’s lawyer, advocate Thabani Masuku, told the court Zuma was ready to proceed with the trial and that his objection should not be seen as sign that he was stalling.
The Arizona audit of the 2020 election is currently underway, yet was shaken by an attempted political probe, and by a recusal of a judge overseeing a legal challenge on the probe. In this live Q&A with Crossroads host Joshua Philipp we’ll discuss these stories and others, and answer questions from the audience. ⭕️ Subscribe for updates : http://bit.ly/CrossroadsYT ⭕️ Donate to support our work: https://www.bestgift.tv/crossroads ⭕️ Join Patreon to Support Crossroads: https://www.patreon.com/Crossroads_Josh
State attorney general to DA Fani Willis: Again, no Brooks case recusal; Kemp signs budget with bonuses; Fulton board set to meet following failed ouster of elections director
The panel is joined by our first guest-author, Associate Dean Bekah Saidman-Krauss! We discuss an article she wrote which analyzed a proposal by Senator Leahy (D-VT) to allow the Supreme Court to fill recusal based vacancies with retired Justices. The lower courts have mechanisms to replace a judge who recuses themselves, why doesn't the Supreme Court? What effect does not having a replacement mechanism have on their decision making? The article discussed is: Bekah Saidman-Krauss, A Second Sitting: Assessing the Constitutionality and Desirability of Allowing Retired Supreme Court Justices to Fill Recusal-Based Vacancies on the Bench. 116 Penn St. L. Rev 253 (2011).Guest: Bekah Saidman-KraussHost: Tony FernandoPanel: Schenley Kent, Seth Trott, Jo Ann FernandoAudio: Mohammed SaleemProducer: Tony Fernando
This episode covers Section II. Factual Results of the Obstruction Investigation, pages 15 to 158 of Volume 2 of the "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election." This section of the report details the evidence obtained. Beginning with an overview of how Russia became an issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, and how candidate Trump responded. Included are key events that were investigated: the President’s conduct concerning the FBI investigation of Michael Flynn; the President’s reaction to public confirmation of the FBI’s Russia investigation; events leading up to and surrounding the termination of FBI Director Comey; efforts to terminate the Special Counsel; efforts to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation; efforts to prevent disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Russians and senior campaign officials; efforts to have the Attorney General unrecuse; and conduct towards McGahn, Cohen, and other witnesses. Factual Results of the Obstruction Investigation (1:12) A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump (3:03) Press Reports Allege Links Between the Trump Campaign and Russia (4:05) The Trump Campaign Reacts to WikiLeaks's Release of Hacked Emails (5:27) The Trump Campaign Reacts to Allegations That Russia was Seeking to Aid Candidate Trump (7:55) After the Election, Trump Continues to Deny Any Contacts or Connections with Russia or That Russia Aided his Election (12:15) B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn (16:44) Incoming National Security Advisor Flynn Discusses Sanctions on Russia with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (18:07) President-Elect Trump is Briefed on the Intelligence Community’s Assessment (22:34) Flynn Makes False Statements About his Communications with Kislyak (25:08) DOJ Officials Notify the White House of Their Concerns About Flynn (28:20) McGahn has a Follow-Up Meeting About Flynn with Yates; President Trump has Dinner with FBI Director Comey (30:44) Flynn’s Resignation (35:12) The President Discusses Flynn with FBI Director Comey (38:33) The Media Raises Questions About the President’s Delay in Terminating Flynn (41:56) The President Attempts to Have K.T. McFarland Create a Witness Statement (43:21) Analysis (45:58) C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBI's Russia Investigation (57:21) Attorney General Sessions Recuses From the Russia Investigation (58:15) FBI Director Comey Publicly Confirms the Existence of the Russia Investigation in Testimony Before HPSCI (1:03:43) The President Asks Intelligence Community Leaders to Make Public Statements that he had No Connection to Russia (1:09:01) The President Asks Comey to "Lift the Cloud" Created by the Russia Investigation (1:14:04) Analysis (1:17:37) D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Comey (1:23:18) Comey Testifies Before the Senate Judiciary Committee and Declines to Answer Questions About Whether the President is Under Investigation (1:24:50) The President Makes the Decision to Terminate Comey (1:28:09) Analysis (1:44:04) E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel (1:54:44) The Appointment of the Special Counsel and the President's Reaction (1:56:03) The President Asserts that the Special Counsel has Conflicts of lnterest (2:00:04) The Press Reports that the President is Being Investigated for Obstruction of Justice and the President Directs the White House Counsel to Have the Special Counsel Removed (2:05:51) Analysis (2:12:04) F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation (2:20:49) The President Asks Corey Lewandowski to Deliver a Message to Sessions to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation (2:21:42) The President Follows Up with Lewandowski (2:24:31) The President Publicly Criticizes Sessions in a New York Times Interview (2:26:31) The President Orders Priebus to Demand Sessions's Resignation (2:28:05) Analysis (2:32:29) G. The President's Efforts to Prevent Disclosure of Emails About the June 9, 2016 Meeting Between Russians and Senior Campaign Officials (2:37:37) The President Learns About the Existence of Emails Concerning the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower Meeting (2:38:21) The President Directs Communications Staff Not to Publicly Disclose Information About the June 9 Meeting (2:41:03) The President Directs Trump Jr.'s Response to Press Inquiries About the June 9 Meeting (2:43:35) The Media Reports on the June 9, 2016 Meeting (2:47:47) Analysis (2:51:36) H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation (2:56:14) The President Again Seeks to Have Sessions Reverse his Recusal (2:56:37) Additional Efforts to Have Sessions Unrecuse or Direct Investigations Covered by his Recusal (2:59:23) Analysis (3:05:07) I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel (3:09:23) The Press Reports that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel (3:10:33) The President Seeks to Have McGahn Dispute the Press Reports (3:11:57) Analysis (3:17:39) J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort, and Stone (3:25:23) Conduct Directed at Michael Flynn (3:26:15) Conduct Directed at Paul Manafort (3:29:08) Conduct Directed at Roger Stone (3:39:33) Analysis (3:44:28) K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen (3:54:42) Candidate Trump's Awareness of and Involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow Project (3:56:37) Cohen Determines to Adhere to a "Party Line" Distancing Candidate Trump From Russia (4:02:42) Cohen Submits False Statements to Congress Minimizing the Trump Tower Moscow Project in Accordance with the Party Line (4:04:27) The President Sends Messages of Support to Cohen (4:14:27) The President's Conduct After Cohen Began Cooperating with the Government (4:20:29) Analysis (4:30:51) L. Overarching Factual Issues (4:42:44) Mueller Report Audio - muellerreportaudio.com Presented by Timberlane Media - patreon.com/timberlanemedia Donate anonymously - glow.fm/insider Or donate with Crypto Music by Lee Rosevere
Lawyers Daniel Berke and Elizabeth Fox discuss a recent decision, where the High Court clearly affirmed that police misconduct hearing panels are able to put irrelevant and prejudicial matters out of their minds rather than having to recuse themselves and, just like civil courts and tribunals - that they are able to determine their own procedures.
Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo has delayed his decision again on whether he will remain as chairperson of the state capture inquiry. Zondo is expected to give his recusal decision on Thursday. Adv Mondidima Mannya is the Executive Director of Legal Services at Unisa, speaks to Africa about why Zondo should have our patience in making this decision, this long wait he says is nothing unusual. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The State Capture Commission yesterday heard arguments about what constitutes bias. The Commission was hearing the recusal application brought by former President Jacob Zuma against Deputy Chief Justice, Raymond Zondo. In his application, Zuma has claimed that he and Zondo are friends - a claim rejected by Zondo. Zuma has also claimed that he would not recieve a fair hearing given Zondo's statements and conduct with regards to earlier witnesses.
Leftists are Attempting Once Again to Use 'Recusal' as Basis to Silence SCOTUS Amy Coney Barrett? When seen this before and now it's being attempted again.
Do we know what Footloose, Jeb Bush, and Judge Recusal have in common? Not at all. Is that going to stop us from talking about it in any manner? Not at all. And are we going to dance like it's illegal? Damn right.
Hosts: Shane and Patrick The Safe Third Country Agreement is ruled unconstitutional, the military warned the government about Covid-19 on Jan 17th, and only one returning ISIS fighter is subject to criminal charges. Also, Bill Morneau forgets to pay for a $41,000 WE Charity vacation. For detailed show notes visit westerncontext.ca.Duration: 53:26
Matt Murphy and Andrea Lindenberg talk about whether or not anyone actually wants to attend graduation now, Sessions' recusal from the Russian Investigation, a little good news, and more!
Former Senator and Attorney General and now Senate Candidate Jeff Sessions joins Leland to discuss a myriad of topics from Senate Race to Recusal... Plus, Sessions takes calls from Listeners
Former Senator and Attorney General and now Senate Candidate Jeff Sessions joins Leland to discuss a myriad of topics from Senate Race to Recusal... Plus, Sessions takes calls from Listeners
Former Senator and Attorney General and now Senate Candidate Jeff Sessions joins Leland to discuss a myriad of topics from Senate Race to Recusal... Plus, Sessions takes calls from Listeners
On tonight's episode of HARD HITS, we're going in depth on aspects of the NCAAFB Playoff committee that you may or may not agree with, as well as talking about all the other things going on in sports that just PISSED me off over the last couple of weeks! We've got NFL, NBA, and even a little bit of MLB on the slate, so sit back, relax, and grab a drink because as we all know.... i sound way better when you're drunk!! ENJOY -Josh C
POLITICO's Annie Snider has unveiled that David Dunlap, E.P.A's research chief, kept on communicating with officials at the agency about a health assessment of formaldehyde, despite saying he would voluntarily recuse himself given his previous employer. Plus, Congressional Energy reporter Anthony Adragna asks senators whether Rick Perry should comply with the House's subpoena for documents related with his involvement in the U.S.- Ukraine relations.
Volume II of the "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election,"addresses the President's actions towards the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the Special Counsel's investigation. This volume consists of four parts. Section I provides an overview of obstruction-of-justice principles and summarizes certain investigatory and evidentiary considerations. Section II sets forth the factual results of our obstruction investigation and analyzes the evidence. Section III addresses statutory and constitutional defenses. Section IV states the conclusion. Introduction to Volume 2 (1:24) Executive Summary to Volume II (6:37) Background Legal and Evidentiary Principles (27:13) Legal Framework of Obstruction of Justice (27:18) Investigative and Evidentiary Considerations (34:06) The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump (41:01) Press Reports Allege Links Between the Trump Campaign and Russia (42:03) The Trump Campaign Reacts to WikiLeaks's Release of Hacked Emails (43:24) The Trump Campaign Reacts to Allegations That Russia was Seeking to Aid Candidate Trump (45:52) After the Election, Trump Continues to Deny Any Contacts or Connections with Russia or That Russia Aided his Election (50:11) Incoming National Security Advisor Flynn Discusses Sanctions on Russia with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (55:58) President-Elect Trump is Briefed on the Intelligence Community's Assessment of Russian Interference in the Election and Congress Opens Election Interference Investigations (1:00:23) Flynn Makes False Statements About his Communications with Kislyak to Incoming Administration Officials, the Media, and the FBI (1:03:01) DOJ Officials Notify the White House of Their Concerns About Flynn (1:06:11) McGahn has a Follow-Up Meeting About Flynn with Yates; President Trump has Dinner with FBI Director Comey (1:08:34) Flynn's Resignation (1:13:02) The President Discusses Flynn with FBI Director Comey (1:16:21) The Media Raises Questions About the President's Delay in Terminating Flynn (1:19:43) The President Attempts to Have K.T. McFarland Create a Witness Statement Denying that he Directed Flynn's Discussions with Kislyak (1:21:07) The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn Evidence (54:37) Attorney General Sessions Recuses From the Russia Investigation (1:35:54) FBI Director Comey Publicly Confirms the Existence of the Russia Investigation in Testimony Before HPSCI (1:41:19) The President Asks Intelligence Community Leaders to Make Public Statements that he had No Connection to Russia (1:46:35) The President Asks Comey to "Lift the Cloud" Created by the Russia Investigation (1:51:35) The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBI's Russia Investigation (1:35:01) Comey Testifies Before the Senate Judiciary Committee and Declines to Answer Questions About Whether the President is Under Investigation (2:02:16) The President Makes the Decision to Terminate Comey (2:05:32) Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Comey (2:00:44) The Appointment of the Special Counsel and the President's Reaction (2:32:55) The President Asserts that the Special Counsel has Conflicts of Interest (2:36:52) The Press Reports that the President is Being Investigated for Obstruction of Justice and the President Directs the White House Counsel to Have the Special Counsel Removed (2:42:36) The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel (2:31:37) The President Asks Corey Lewandowski to Deliver a Message to Sessions to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation (2:58:18) The President Follows Up with Lewandowski (3:01:06) The President Publicly Criticizes Sessions in a New York Times Interview (3:03:09) The President Orders Priebus to Demand Sessions's Resignation (3:04:42) The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation (2:57:27) The President Learns About the Existence of Emails Concerning the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower Meeting (3:14:57) The President Directs Communications Staff Not to Publicly Disclose Information About the June 9 Meeting (3:17:38) The President Directs Trump Jr.'s Response to Press Inquiries About the June 9 Meeting (3:20:10) The Media Reports on the June 9, 2016 Meeting (3:24:22) The President's Efforts to Prevent Disclosure of Emails About the June 9, 2016 Meeting Between Russians and Senior Campaign Officials (3:14:14) The President Again Seeks to Have Sessions Reverse his Recusal (3:33:10) Additional Efforts to Have Sessions Unrecuse or Direct Investigations Covered by his Recusal (3:35:55) The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation (3:32:47) The Press Reports that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel (3:47:07) The President Seeks to Have McGahn Dispute the Press Reports (3:48:29) The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel (3:45:57) Conduct Directed at Michael Flynn (4:02:52) Conduct Directed at Paul Manafort (4:05:46) [Redacted - Harm to Ongoing Matter] (4:16:14) The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort, [Redacted - Harm to Ongoing Matter] (4:01:54) Candidate Trump's Awareness of and Involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow Project (4:26:40) Cohen Determines to Adhere to a "Party Line" Distancing Candidate Trump From Russia (4:32:45) Cohen Submits False Statements to Congress Minimizing the Trump Tower Moscow Project in Accordance with the Party Line (4:34:31) The President Sends Messages of Support to Cohen (4:44:30) The President's Conduct After Cohen Began Cooperating with the Government (4:50:33) The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen (4:24:47) Overarching Factual Issues (5:12:31) Factual Results of the Obstruction Investigation (39:12) Statutory Defenses to the Application of Obstruction-Of-Justice Provisions to the Conduct Under Investigation (5:21:09) The Text of Section 1512(c)(2) Prohibits a Broad Range of Obstructive Acts (5:23:07) Judicial Decisions Support a Broad Reading of Section 1512(c)(2) (5:26:26) The Legislative History of Section 1512(c)(2) Does Not Justify Narrowing Its Text (5:30:39) General Principles of Statutory Construction Do Not Suggest That Section 1512(c)(2) is Inapplicable to the Conduct in this Investigation (5:33:57) Other Obstruction Statutes Might Apply to the Conduct in this Investigation (5:38:10) The Requirement of a Clear Statement to Apply Statutes to Presidential Conduct Does Not Limit the Obstruction Statutes (5:41:28) Separation-of-Powers Principles Support the Conclusion that Congress May Validly Prohibit Corrupt Obstructive Acts Carried Out Through the President's Official Powers (5:47:01) Ascertaining Whether the President Violated the Obstruction Statutes Would Not Chill his Performance of his Article II Duties (6:01:33) Constitutional Defenses to Applying Obstruction-Of-Justice Statutes to Presidential Conduct (5:39:40) Legal Defenses to the Application of Obstruction-of-Justice Statutes to the President (5:18:58) Conclusion (6:08:19) Government Unfiltered operates on the "value for value" model. We create the show and you decide what it's worth. You can return that value by supporting the show at governmentunfiltered.com or by going to glow.fm/insider to donate on either a one-time or recurring basis.
Part 8 of 12 from Section II. Factual Results of the Obstruction Investigation. This subsection of Volume 2, pages 107-113, provides additional evidence regarding the President's efforts to have Jeff Sessions unrecuse and take over the Russia investigation. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation (0:08) The President Again Seeks to Have Sessions Reverse his Recusal (0:31) Additional Efforts to Have Sessions Unrecuse or Direct Investigations Covered by his Recusal (3:16) Analysis (9:00) Obstructive act (9:14) Nexus to a proceeding (10:51) Intent (11:27) Mueller Report Audio - muellerreportaudio.com Presented by Timberlane Media Support via PayPal: firstname.lastname@example.org Donate with Crypto Music by Lee Rosevere
A Miami federal judge issued an extraordinary recusal order this week, saying he couldn't preside over a case against UnitedHealthcare because he believes the company's refusal to pay for cancer treatments is “immoral and barbaric." Also on this week's show, we talk about an in-house attorney who's suing after being asked to serve cake because she is a woman; President Trump's lawsuit to block Congress from subpoenaing Deutsche Bank; and an Oregon man who's suing Burger King over a promise to give him free Whoppers for life.
Rob Long of National Review Online and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel for sending Jussie Smollett a bill for more than $130,000 to cover the costs of the police to investigate his hate crime hoax. They also shake their heads as the supposedly moderate "Economist" magazine labels Ben Shapiro a "sage of the alt-right" but then changes it to call him a "radical conservative." And they have a lot of fun with the news that Illinois State's Attorney Kim Foxx didn't really recuse herself from the Smollett case in the legal sense, just in the "colloquial" sense.
Things often don’t go according to plan. In this episode, featuring a feverish and frustrated Jen Briney, learn about the shamefully rushed process employed by the Democrats to pass their top priority bill, H.R. 1, through the House of Representatives. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD129: The Impeachment of John Koskinen Bill Outline: HR 1 For The People Act of 2019 Govtrack - Full Text Official title: “To expand American’s access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes.” Short Title: For the People Act of 2019 Sponsor: Rep. John Sarbanes (MD-3) First co-sponsor: Nancy Pelosi Referred to 10 committees: House Administration House Intelligence (Permanent Select) House Judiciary House Oversight and Government Reform House Science, Space, and Technology House Education and the Workforce House Ways and Means House Financial Services House Ethics House Homeland Security Division A: Voting TITLE I: ELECTION ACCESS Subtitle A: Voter Registration Modernization “Voter Registration Modernization Act of 2019" Part 1: Promoting Internet Registration Sec. 1001: Every State Has to Allow Us To Register to Vote Online Requires every State to allow residents to register to vote online and be given an online receipt of their completed voter registration application Signatures can be electronic as long as the individual has a signature on file with a State agency, including the DMV. People who don’t have signatures on file can submit handwritten signatures through digital means or sign in person on Election Day. Signatures will be required on Election Day for people who registered to vote online and have not previously voted in a Federal election in that state. Sec. 1002: Every State Has To Allow Us To Update Our Registration Online States must allow registered voters to update their registrations online too Sec. 1003: Voter Information Online Instead Of Regular Mail Tells states to include a space for voters to submit an email address and get voting information via email instead of using regular mail (we may need that to be “in addition to”) Prohibits our emails from being given to anyone who is outside the government. The State will have to provide people who opted for emails, at least 7 days before the election, online information including the name and address of the voter’s polling place, that polling place’s hours, and which IDs the voter may need to vote at that polling place. Sec. 1004: 'Valid Voter Registration' Form Definition Defines what is a “valid voter registration form”: The form is accurate and the online applicant provided a signature. Sec. 1005: Effective Date: January 1, 2020. Part 2: Automatic Voter Registration “Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2019" Sec. 1012: Automatic Registration of Eligible Voters Every State will have to create and operate a system for automatically registering everyone eligible to vote “for Federal office in the State”. The States will have 15 days to register a person to vote after getting updated voter information from another agency. Sec. 1015: "Voter Protection and Security in Automatic Registration" Declining automatic registration can’t be used as evidence “In any State or Federal law enforcement proceeding" States will have to keep records of all changes to voter records, including removals and updates, for 2 years and make those available for public inspection. Gives the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology the power to write the rules for how States can use voter information to deem a person ineligible and to write privacy and security standards for voter registration information Voter registration information “shall not be used for commercial purposes.” Sec. 1016: Corrections to Voter Information Can Be Done on Election Day Voters in all States would be able to update their address, name, or political party affiliation in person on Election Day, and they could vote using the corrected information using a regular ballot, not a provisional ballot. Sec. 1017: The Federal Government Will Pay to Make The Changes Authorizes $500 million for 2019, available until it’s gone. Sec. 1021: Effective Date - January 1, 2021 Part 3: Same Day Voter Registration Sec. 1031: Voters Can Register At the Polling Place On Election Day System would have to be in place by November 2020 Part 4: Conditions on Removal on Basis of Interstate Cross-Checks Sec. 1041: Requirements To Use Cross Check To Remove Voters Prohibits States from using interstate crosscheck systems to remove people from voter rules until the State receives the voter’s full name, including their middle name, date of birth, and last 4 digits of their social security numbers and if the State has documentation verifying the voter is no longer a resident of the State. Interstate cross checks can not be used to remove voters from rolls within six months of an election Effective date: Six months after enactment Part 7: Prohibiting Interference with Voter Registration Sec. 1071: Fines and Prison For Interference in Voter Registration People who prevent another person from registering to vote, or attempt to prevent another person from registering, “shall be fined” or imprisoned for up to five years, or both. Effective date: Elections on or after enactment Subtitle B: Access to Voting for Individuals With Disabilities Subtitle C: Prohibiting Voter Caging Sec. 1201: Prohibits Removal of Names Based Solely on Caging Lists State/local election officials will not be allowed to deny a voter registration if the decision is based on a voter caging document, an unverified match list, or an error on a registration that is not material to the citizen’s eligibility to vote. Challenges to voter registration by non-election officials will only be allowed if the person has personal knowledge documented in writing and subject to an attestation under penalty of perjury. Penalties for knowingly challenging the eligibility of someone else’s voter registration with the intent to disqualify that person is punishable by a fine and/or one year in prison for each violation. Subtitle D : Prohibiting Deceptive Practices and Preventing Voter Intimidation - “Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2019" Sec. 1302: Prohibits Lying To Prevent People From Voting Makes it illegal to communicate by any means false information regarding the time and place of an election, the voter’s registration status or eligibility, or criminal penalties for voting within 60 days of an election if the communication has the intent of preventing another person from voting. Makes it illegal, within 60 days of an election, to communicate by any means false information regarding an endorsement by a person or political party that didn’t actually happen. Penalties: A fine of up to $100,000, five years in prison, or both. The penalties are the same for attempts to lie to people to prevent them from voting. Subtitle E: Democracy Restoration - “Democracy Restoration Act of 2019" Sec. 1402: Voting Rights Extend to Ex-Cons “The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election." Sec. 1408: Effective for any election held after enactment Subtitle F: Promoting Accuracy, Integrity, and Security Through Verified Permanent Paper Ballot - “Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2019” Sec. 1502: Requires Paper Ballots for All Federal Elections Requires all voting systems to use individual paper ballots that are verified by the voter before their vote is cast which “shall be counted by hand or read by an optical character recognition device or other counting device” The paper ballots must be preserved as the official ballots and will be counted by hand for recounts and audits If there is a difference between the electronic vote count and the hand count of paper ballots, the hand count of paper ballots will be the final count. Subtitle H: Early Voting Sec. 1611: Every State Must Allow Early Voting for 15 Days Every State will be required to allow citizens to vote in Federal elections during the 15 days preceding the election, with polls open for at least 4 hours per day except on Sundays. Effective Date: Elections after January 1, 2020 Subtitle I: Voting by Mail Sec. 1621: Vote By Mail National Standards States can’t count absentee ballots until they match the signature on the ballot to the signature on the State’s official list of registered voters States must provide ballots and voting materials at least 2 weeks before the election Effective date: Elections held on or after January 1, 2020 Subtitle J: Absent Uniformed Services Voters and Overseas Voters Subtitle K: Poll Worker Recruitment and Training Sec. 1801: Federal Employees As Poll Workers Employees of Federal agencies will be allowed to be excused from work for up to 6 days in order to work in polling places on Election Day and for training. Subtitle L: Enhancement of Enforcement Subtitle M: Federal Election Integrity Sec. 1821: Head of Elections Can’t Campaign for Elections They Oversee It will be illegal for a chief State election administration official to take part in a political campaign “with respect to any election for Federal office over which such official has supervisory authority” Subtitle N: Promoting Voter Access Through Election Administration Improvements Sec. 1902: Notification for Polling Place Changes States must notify voters at least seven days in advance if the State has changed their polling place to somewhere other than where they last voted Effective January 1, 2020 Sec. 1903: Election Day Holiday The Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2020 and each even-numbered year after that will be treated as a legal public holiday Encourages, but does not require, the private sector to give their workers the day off for elections Sec. 1904: Sworn Written Statements to Meet ID Requirements If a State requires an ID to vote, a person may vote if they provide, in person, a sworn written statement signed under penalty of perjury attesting to their identity and that they are eligible to vote, unless they are first time voters in the State. Effective for elections occurring on or after enactment Sec. 1905: Postage Free Ballots Absentee ballots will not require postage The Post Office will be reimbursed by States for the lost revenue TITLE II: ELECTION INTEGRITY Subtitle E: Redistricting Reform - “Redistricting Reform Act of 2019” Sec. 2402: Independent Commissions for Redistricting Congressional redistricting must be done by an independent redistricting commission established in the State or by a plan development and enacted into law by a 3 judge court of the US District Court for the District of Columbia Sec. 2411: Creating the Independent Redistricting Commissions The Commissions will be made up of 15 members from the “selection pool” (see Sec. 2412) 5 members will be selected randomly from the 12 belonging to the political party with the most registered voters in the State 5 members will be selected randomly from the 12 belonging to the political party with the second most registered voters in the State 5 members will be selected randomly from the 12 who are not affiliated with the two largest political parties The Chair must be a member of the group that is not affiliated with the largest two parties in the State and will be selected via a majority vote of the commission The State can not finalize a redistricting plan unless the plan gets a vote from someone in each of the three membership categories and it passes with a majority of the commission voting yes. Contractors for the commission can be required to provide their political contribution history Sec. 2412: Eligibility for the Independent Commission “Selection Pool” To qualify, the individual must... Be registered to vote Either be with the same political party or with no political party for the previous 3 years Submits an application including a declaration of their political party, if they belong to one, and a commitment to impartiality. An individual is disqualified if the individual or an immediate family member within the 5 years preceding their appointment... Holds public office or is a candidate for public office Serves as an officer of a political party or as a political party consultant Is a registered lobbyist Is an employee of an elected public official, a contractor with the legislature of a State, or a donor who gives more than $20,000 to candidates for public offices. The selection pool will have 36 individuals made up of... 12 individuals affiliated with the political party with the largest percentage of registered voters in the State 12 individuals affiliated with the political party with the second largest percentage of registered voters in the State 12 individuals who are not affiliated with either of the two largest political parties The selection pool must be approved by the State’s Select Committee on Redistricting Inaction is a rejection of the selection pool Sec. 2413: Criteria for New Districts Districts must be created using this criteria in this order: Districts must comply with the Constitution, including the requirement that the equalize total population Districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act and all Federal laws Districts can’t be drawn in a way that dilutes the ability for minority communities to elect candidates Districts must minimize the division of neighborhoods, counties, municipalities, and school districts “to the extent practicable” Districts may not be drawn to favor or disfavor any political party The commission may not consider the political party affiliation or voting history of the district’s population or the resident of any member of the House of Representatives when drawing the district maps All meetings must be held in public, must take comments into consideration and they must publish information, including video archives, about their meetings on a public website Sec. 2431: Authorizes payments to States of $150,000 per district to help pay for the redistricting process Subtitle F: Saving Voters from Voter Purging -“Stop Automatically Voiding Eligible Voters Off Their Enlisted Rolls in States Act” - “Save Voters Act” Sec. 2502: Restricting Voter Roll Purges States can’t use the failure of a voter to vote or the voter’s failure to respond to a notice as the basis for removing their name from the voter rolls TITLE III: ELECTION SECURITY Subtitle A: Financial Support for Election Infrastructure Part 1: Voting System Security Improvement Gains Part 2: Grants for Risk-Limiting Audits of Results of Elections Part 3: Election Infrastructure Innovation Grant Program Subtitle B: Security Measures Subtitle C: Enhancing Protections for United Stated Democratic Institutions Subtitle D : Promoting Cybersecurity Through Improvements in Election Administration Subtitle E: Preventing Election Hacking Division B: Campaign Finance TITLE IV: CAMPAIGN FINANCE TRANSPARENCY Subtitle B: DISCLOSE Act - “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act” Part 1: Regulation of Certain Political Spending Sec. 4101: Foreign Owned Corporations Count as “Foreign Nationals” Makes it illegal for a corporation, LLC, or partnership which is more than 5% owned by a foreign government or 20% owned by foreign individual to directly or indirectly make a contribution in connection with a Federal, State, or local election or a contribution to a political party. It’s also illegal for Americans to accept or solicit a contribution from “foreign nationals” (amends 52 U.S.C 30121(b)) Effective 180 days after enactment, regardless of if regulations are done Part 2: Reporting of Campaign-Related Disbursements Sec. 4111: Corporations Must Report Donations Any corporation, LLC, or tax exempt organization (other than 501(c)3 “charities”) that make campaign contributions totaling more than $10,000 in the 2 year election cycle must file a statement containing the name of the donating organization, the business address, a list of that business or corporations’ controlling owners, and the name/address of the person who received each donation of more than $1,000. If the corporation, LLC, or tax exempt organization pays for a public communication, they must report the name of any candidate identified and whether the communication was in support or opposition to that candidate. Subtitle C: Honest Ads - “Honest Ads Act” Sec. 4205: Disclosure of Sources of Online Political Ads Extends political ad disclosure laws to internet and other digital communication Sec. 4207: Disclosures Must Be Clear Ads must include a statement telling us the name of the person who paid for the communication in a way that is not difficult to read or hear Sec. 4208: Public Record of Online Political Ads * Requires online platforms to create and make available online for public inspection a complete record of requests to purchase political advertisements if they purchase more than $500 worth in one calendar year Subtitle D : Stand by Every Ad - “Stand By Every Ad Act" Subtitle E: Secret Money Transparency Sec. 4401: IRS Can Investigate Dark Money Groups Again Repeals the restriction enacted by the 115th Congress on the IRS that prevented them from making sure tax exempt organizations aren’t using their funds for political expenditures Subtitle F: Shareholder Right-to-Know Sec. 4501: SEC Can Enforce Shareholder Disclosure Laws Repeals the restriction enacted by the 115th Congress on the Securities and Exchange Commission that prevented them from enforcing laws related to corporations informing shareholders about the corporations political activity. Subtitle G: Disclosure of Political Spending by Government Contractors Sec. 4601: Contractors Can Be Forced to Disclose Donations Repeals the restriction enacted by the 115th Congress that prevented requiring government contractors to report their political spending Subtitle H: Limitation and Disclosure Requirements for Presidential Inaugural Committees - “Presidential Inaugural Committee Oversight Act" TITLE V: CAMPAIGN FINANCE EMPOWERMENT Subtitle B: Congressional Elections - “Government By the People Act of 2019” Part 1: My Voice Voucher Pilot Program Sec. 5101: Voucher Pilot Program The Federal Election Commission will create an pilot program and select 3 states to operate it Sec. 5102: Pilot Program Details State’s will provided individuals who request one a “My Voice Voucher" worth $25 Individuals can give their voucher dollars, in $5 increments, to qualified candidates for Congress. Part 2: Small Dollar Financing of Congressional Election Campaigns Sec. 5111: 6x Matching of Small Dollar Donations Payments will be 600% of the amount of small dollar contributions received by the candidate during the Small Dollar Democracy qualifying period Small dollar contribution is between $1 and $200 Limit: The total amount of payments made to a candidate may not be more than 50% of the average of the “20 greatest amounts of disbursements made by the authorized committees of any winning candidate for the office of Representatives in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress during the most recent election cycle, rounded to the nearest $100,000.” Candidates can get an additional payment of up to $500,000 during the period between 60 days and 14 days before the election, which doesn’t count towards the total limit. Candidates are eligible if they can get 1,000 people to make a small dollar contribution and if the candidate can raise at least $50,000. Eligible candidates can’t take more than $1,000 total from any individual. Eligible candidates can’t use more than $50,000 in personal funds. Will be funded by a “Freedom of Influence Fund" Sec. 5112: Coordination with Parties Sec. 5114: Effective starting in 2024 elections Subtitle C: Presidential Elections - “Empower Act of 2019" Part 1: Primary Elections Part 2: General Elections Part 3: Effective Date Subtitle D : Personal Use Services as Authorized Campaign Expenditures - “Help America Run Act” TITLE VI: CAMPAIGN FINANCE OVERSIGHT Subtitle A: Restoring Integrity to America’s Elections Sec. 6002: Changes to FEC make up Subtitle B: Stopping Super PAC-Candidate Coordination Division C: Ethics TITLE VII: ETHICAL STANDARDS Subtitle B: Foreign Agents Registration Sec. 7101: New Department of Justice Investigation Unit Will be dedicated to enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act Subtitle C: Lobbying Disclosure Reform Sec. 7201: Expands Definition of “Lobbyist” To include people who provide “legislative, political, and strategic counseling services, research, and other background work” as lobbyists in terms of disclosure requirements Effective upon enactment Subtitle D : Recusal of Presidential Appointees Sec. 7301: Recusal of Appointees Any officer or employee appointed by the President must recuse themselves from any matter involving the President who appointed the officer or employee or that President’s spouse. TITLE VIII: ETHICS REFORMS FOR THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, AND FEDERAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES Subtitle A: Executive Branch Conflict of Interest Sec. 8002: Prohibits Private Sector Payments for Entering Government Private companies can’t provide bonus payments, pensions, retirement, group life/health/accident insurance, profit-sharing, stock bonus, or other payments contingent on accepting a position in the U.S. Government. Sec. 8003: Slowing the Revolving Door Executive Branch employees can’t use their government position to “participate in a particular matter” if they know a company they worked for in the last two years has a financial interest. Penalty: Fine and/or 1 year in prison. Penalty for willful violation: Fine and/or up to 5 years in prison Civil penalties: The greater of $100,000 per violation or the amount the person received or was offered for conducting the violation Sec. 8004: Waiting Period For Procurement Officers To Work for Contractors A former official responsible for a government contract can not accept payments from any division, affiliate, or subcontractor of the chosen contractor for 2 years after awarding the contract. A government employee can not award a contract to his or her former employer for 2 years after they leave the company. Sec. 8005: Lobbying Job Waiting Period Senior level Executive Branch employees have to wait 2 years before they can be paid to influence their former colleagues Subtitle B: Presidential Conflicts of Interest Subtitle C: White House Ethics Transparency Subtitle D : Executive Branch Ethics Enforcement Subtitle E: Conflicts for Political Fundraising Sec. 8042: Disclosure of Certain Types of Contributions People who are nominated to high level Executive Branch offices will have to disclose their contributions to political organizations, 501(c)4’s, and 501(c)6’s. Subtitle F: Transition Team Ethics Subtitle G: Ethics Pledge for Senior Executive Branch Employees TITLE IX: CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS REFORM Subtitle A: Requiring members of Congress to Reimburse Treasury for Amounts Paid as Settlements and Awards Under Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Subtitle B: Conflicts of Interest Sec. 9101: Members Can’t Be on For-Profit Boards of Directors Changes the House Rules so that members of the House of Representatives will not be allowed to serve on the board of "any for-profit entity" while serving in the House of Representatives. Sec. 9103: Prohibition Above Can Be Changed via House Rules Subtitle C: Campaign Finance and Lobbying Disclosure - “Connecting Lobbying and Electeds for Accountability and Reform Act” “CLEAR Act" Sec. 9202: Separate Reports for Lobbyist Donations Report submitted by political campaigns will have to report which donations are made by registered lobbyists in a separate statement (amends 52 U.S.C. 30104(b)) Sec. 9203: Effective 90 Days After Enactment Subtitle D : Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Sec. 9303: Online Portal for Congressionally Mandated Reports Portal will create, within one year of enactment, an online portal providing free public digital access to all congressionally mandated reports Reports will be available within 30 days of their submission to Congress TITLE X: PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL TAX TRANSPARENCY Sec. 10001: Presidential and Vice Presidential Tax Return Disclosure Requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit their tax returns for the last 10 taxable years to the Federal Election Commission within 15 days of declaring their candidacy The chairman of the Federal Election Commission must make the candidates’ tax returns, with personal information redacted, publicly available Effective upon enactment Additional Reading Article: 10 things you might not know about HR 1 by Lindsey McPherson and Kate Ackley, Roll Call, March 6, 2019. Article: Conservative expert privately warned GOP donors that a voting rights bill would help Democrats by Lee Fang and Nick Surgey, The Intercept, February 27, 2019. Article: House Democrats forge ahead on electoral reform bill by Zach Montellaro, Politico, February 26, 2019. Markup: H.R. 1, For the People Act of 2019, February 26 ,2019. Article: House Democrats officially unveil their first bill in the majority: a sweeping anti-corruption proposal by Ella Nilson, Vox, January 4, 2019. Article: One state fixed its gerrymandered districts, the other didnt. Here's how the election played out in both by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, November 9, 2018. Article: 6 takeaways from Georgia's 'Use It Or Lose It' voter purge investigation by Johnny Kauffman, NPR, October 22, 2018. Article: Registration is a voter-suppression tool. Let's finally end it by Ellen Kurz, The Washington Post, October 11, 2018. Report: Purges: A growing threat to the right to vote by Jonathan Brater, Kevin Morris, Myrna Pérez, and Christopher Deluzio, Brennan Center for Justice, July 20, 2018. Article: How Maryland Democrats pulled off their aggressive gerrymander by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, March 28, 2018. Article: Pennsylvania Supreme Court draws 'much more competitive' district map to overturn Republican gerrymander by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, February 20, 2018. Article: Pennsylvania redistricting decision gives Democrats a boost by Bill Barrow and Mark Scolforo, AP News, February 6, 2018. Article: How redistricting became a technological arms race by Vann R. Newkirk II, The Atlantic, October 28, 2017. Article: Government by Goldman by Gary Rivlin and Michael Hudson, The Intercept, September 17, 2017. Article: The most gerrymandered states ranked by efficiency gap and seat advantage by Daniel McGlone and Esther Needham, Azavea, July 19, 2017. Article: Here are the first 10 members of Trump's voting commission by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, July 6, 2017. Article: 3 Trump Cabinet officials will still be receiving millions from corporate America by Jeff Stein, Vox, February 3, 2017. Article: Trump adviser Gary Cohn's $285 million Goldman Sachs exit raises eyebrows by Matt Egan, CNN Business, January 27, 2017. Article: The IRS gives up on fighting 'dark money' by Editorial Board, The Washington Post, February 19, 2016. Article: How Crossroads GPS beat the IRS and became a social welfare group by Robert Maguire, OpenSecrets.org, Febraury 12, 2016. Blog: Congress uses PATH to cut IRS off from Section 501(c)(4) social welfare regulations, Wagenmaker & Oberly, December 30, 2015. Article: This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will ever see by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, March 1, 2015. Article: Five 501(c)(3) groups that might have broken the law by Lee Fang, The Nation, May 21, 2013. Article: The voter-fraud myth by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, October 29, 2012. Article: Justice Dept. accused of partisan voter-roll purge by Pam Fessler, NPR, October 11, 2007. Resources Congressional Budget Office: H.R. 1, Estimated Effects on Direct Spending and Revenues Federal Election Commission: Using Campaign Funds for Personal Use How Stuff Works: PACs vs. Super PACs Research: All About Redistricting - Who draws the lines? Website: The Redistricting Majority Project Website: RepresentUs Sound Clip Sources Short Film: Unbreaking America: A NEW Short Film about Solving the Corruption Crisis, RepresentUs, YouTube, February 27, 2019. Full Committee Markup: H.R. 1, The For the People Act of 2019, Committee on House Administration, February 26, 2019. Youtube Video Hearing: For the People: Our American Democracy, Committee on House Administration, February 14, 2019. Youtube Video Witnesses: Chiraag Bains - Director of Legal Strategies at Demos Wendy Weiser - Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennen Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law Fred Wertheimer -President of Democracy 21 Kym Wyman - Secretary of State of Washington Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, Senior at Dodge City High School in Kansas and plaintiff in LULAC & Rangel-Lopez v. Cox Peter Earle - Wisconsin Civil Rights Trial Lawyer Brandon Jessup - Data Science and Information Systems Professional and Executive Director at Michigan Forward David Keating - President at the Institute for Free Speech Hearing: Full Committee Hearing on the "Strengthening Ethics Rules for the Executive Branch", Committee on Oversight and Reform, February 6, 2019. YouTube Video Witnesses: Scott Amey - General Counsel, Project on Government Oversight Karen Hobert Flynn - President of Common Cause Rudy Mehrbani - Spitzer Fellow and Senior Counsel, Brennen Center for Justice Walter Schaub Jr - Senior Advisor, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Bradley Smith - Chairman at the Institute for Free Speech Sound Clips: 17:30 Rep. Elijah Cummings (D - MD) Title eight includes a bill that I introduced called the executive branch ethics reform act. It would, it would ban senior officials from accepting "golden parachute" payments from private sector employers in exchange for their government service. This would have prevented Gary Cohn from receiving more than $100 million in accelerated payments from Goldman Sachs while leading the Trump administration's efforts to slash corporate taxes. 19:00 Cummings Title eight also would make clear that Congress expects the president to divest his business holdings just as every single president since Jimmy Carter has done and place them in an independent and truly blind trust. 28:00 Rep. Jim Jordan (R - OH) In 2013 we learned that the IRS targeted conservative for their political beliefs during the 2012 election cycle systematically for a sustained period of time. They went after people for their conservative beliefs, plan in place, targeted people. They did it. The gross abuse of power would have continued, if not for the efforts of this committee. 2014 the Obama Administration doubled down and attempted to use the IRS rule making process to gut the ability of social welfare organizations to participate in public debate. Congress has so far prevented this regulation from going into effect, but HR 1 would change that. 28:30 Jordan Furthermore, this bill would roll back another critical victory for privacy and free speech secured just last summer following efforts by this committee and others, the IRS changed its policy as it relates to schedule B information. Schedule B contains personal information like names, addresses, and the amounts donated to nonprofit entities. Even though this information is supposed to remain private under current law, states and federal government have leaked these personal details in the past. In changing its policies, the IRS noted that there had been at least 14 breaches resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of schedule B information just since 2010. The result was everyday Americans receiving death threats and mail containing white powder. All because someone disagreed with what they believe and who they gave their hard earned money to. 59:00 Walter Schaub HR 1 addresses big payouts to incoming officials. These golden parachutes raise concerns about an employee appointees loyalty to a former employer. When former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew left Wall Street to join the State Department, he received a large bonus in his employment agreement. Let him keep that bonus specifically because he landed at a high level government job. 1:04:00 Bradley Smith Subtitle B of title six is called Stopping Super PAC and candidate coordination. The sponsors and drafters are either being intentionally disingenuous here or are they simply do not understand what has been put into their own legislation. Nothing in subtitle B, nothing limits. It's reached a super PACs. It applies to every union trade association, advocacy group and unincorporated association in the country. It applies to planned parenthood and right to life, to the NAACP and the ACLU to the national federation of Independent Business and to the Brady Campaign for gun safety. It even applies to individual citizens who seek to participate in public discussion. Nothing. This cannot be said often enough limits it to super PACs through the interplay of its definitions of coordination and coordinated spenders. The laws treatment, uh, traditional treatment of coordinated spending as a contribution to a candidate and current contribution limits in the law. Subtitle be, will actually have the effect of banning, not limiting, but actually banning a great deal of speech that was legal even before the Supreme Court's decision in citizens United versus FEC and Buckley v Vallejo. 1:39:00 Smith I would only add that I think that the disclosure provisions are often worse than people think because they're defining as political activity things that have never been defined as political before. And you run the risk of a regulation swallowing up the entire, uh, discourse in which public, uh, engages. So I would only say that I think the provisions are worse than people think and that they're often hidden through the complex interrelationship of different positions. Well, one, one example would be if an organization, uh, for example, were to hire somebody who had previously been an intern, a paid intern for a member of Congress, that organization would then be prohibited from making any communications that were deemed to promote a tax support or oppose a that candidate. And that vague term could apply to almost anything praising the candidate for introducing a bill, uh, criticizing the congressman for opposing a bill, whatever it might be. Jordan Wow. That put the whole consultant business in this town out of business, it seems to me. Smith It's not just the consulting business. Oh, of course. It puts out of business all of the interest groups and all of the civic groups that people belong to. 1:43:00 Cummings One year ago today when my mother's dying bed at 92 years old, former sharecropper, her last words were, do not let them take our votes away from us. They had fought, she had fought and seen people harmed and beaten, trying to vote. Talk about inalienable rights. Voting is crucial, and I don't give a damn how you look at it. There are efforts to stop people from voting. That's not right. This is not Russia. This is the United States of America, and I will fight until the death to make sure every citizen, whether they're Green party, whether they're Freedom Party, whether they're Democrat, whether you're Republican, whoever has that right to vote. 1:46:00 Karen Hobert Flynn Election day registration is a perfect antidote to a purge so that you can show up on election day. If you see that there's a problem, then you can register to vote and vote on that day. 2:19:00 Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R - ND) North Dakota is the only state in the country without voter registration. We have voting. We have counties that vote exclusively by mail, and we currently have no excuse, absentee ballot, absentee voting. We have, we allow felons to vote immediately upon release from prison. Um, our poll workers are almost exclusively volunteers across the entire state. So in short, we have the, the best and easiest vote voting, voting booth access in the entire country, and we are incredibly proud of that. 2:23:00 Armstrong North, we, and this might be a little change, but it's really important to the voters in North Dakota. So we, uh, we start our absentee or early voting process, I think for military deployed overseas, it says early as August. And we have, as I said, no excuse absentee ballots. But what we require is that our ballots are postmarked the day before the election. And in North Dakota, we really, really try to make sure the election is over on election day. Um, north Dakotans don't understand how an election can change by 12, 13, 14,000 votes in the two to three weeks after an election day. Now I'm not in the business and telling people in California or somewhere else how to do their voting laws, but that just is something that is not appropriate here. And this would require ballots to be postmarked up until election day, correct? That's correct. 2:24:00 Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) I wish Mr. Meadows were still here because I'm delighted that he's thinking of stepping into the small donor matching system that has proposed an HR 1. Because when you step into that system, you step into a system that is owned by the people. This is why it's in the bill because the public is tired of feeling like their elections, their system, their government, their democracy is owned by special interests, big corporations, Wall Street, oil and gas industry, super PACs, lobbyists, everybody. But then this is the power move. They want to own their democracy again. 2:27:00 Sarbanes Somebody said, why are we hooking all these things together? Voting ethics, campaign finance, because the people have told us, if you just do one and you don't do the others were still frozen out. The system is still rigged. You fix the voting stuff, but if you go to Washington and nobody's behaving themselves, that doesn't solve the problem or you fix the ethics part, but we're still, the system is still owned by the big money in the special interests because they're the ones that are underwriting the campaigns. Then we're still left out. The system is still rigged. You got to do all of these things together to reset the democracy in a place where it respects the average citizen out there. Who right now is sitting in their kitchen, they're looking at the TV screen there. They're hearing about billionaires and super PACs who are making decisions inside conference rooms somewhere on K Street that affect their lives and all they're saying is we want back in. We're tired of sitting out here with our nose is pressed against the window looking in on the democracy that we have no impact on. That's why we're linking all of these things together to reset the table. So the special interests aren't the ones that are calling the shots. 2:29:00 Sarbanes The provisions of transparency in this bill are targeted to mega donors who give more than $10,000 who right now are hidden behind this Russian doll kind of structure where you can't see who it is, who's behind the curtain, who's putting all this money into campaigns. The public wants to know that that's reasonable. 2:38:00 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) And I'm deeply troubled at what appears to be a Russian engagement through 501(c)(4)s in this country, whether it's the NRA or, um, other, uh, nonprofits that are created for the express purpose here in the United States to lobby on behalf of Russia as it related to the Magnitsky Act. Um, so right now there is no limitation on how much money can be contributed by a foreign government entity to a 501(c)(4). Is that correct? Hobert Flynn I believe that is, yes. Speier And there is no disclosure required as well. Is that correct? Hobert Flynn I believe that's right. Speier So in your estimation, would it be prudent for us to one, limit the amount of contributions that a foreign individual can make to a 501(c)(4), and two, that all of that be subject to disclosure? Hobert Flynn Yeah, I think, I think it would be very important. Um, you know, there are limits. There are bans on foreign nationals giving money in campaign contributions, and I think we should be looking at those kinds of limits for, um, and it's certainly disclosure for, um, contributions to 501(c)(4)s. 2:56:00 Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) You hear so much attack on political action committees, PACs, Mr. Smith, or maybe you'd be best one to answer this. I don't know, maybe I don't want us to answer it. Where do political action committees get their money? Smith Political action committees get their money from individuals. Traditional PACs do. Now Super PACS as they're called, can take money from corporations and unions, but they are not able to contribute directly to candidates. Sort of coordinate anything with candidates. Gibbs I appreciate that. Uh, make the point. Um, because I, I got attacked because I take political action money, but it comes from businesses in my district. A lot of it, it comes from associations. You know, everybody has somebody lobbying for them in DC. I mean, if you're, if you're a member, of a retirement association, any organization, you've got a lobbyist here. 2:57:00 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Let's play a game, let's play a lightening round game. I'm going to be the bad guy, which I'm sure half the room would agree with anyway. And um, and I want to get away with as much bad things as possible, ideally to enrich myself and advance my interest even if that means putting, uh, putting my interests ahead of the American people. So, um, Mrs Holbert Flynn. Oh, and by the way, I have listed all of you as my co conspirators, so you're going to help me legally get away with all of this. So Mrs Herbert Flynn, I want to run, if I want to run a campaign that is entirely funded by corporate political action committees, is that, is there anything that legally prevents me from doing that? Hobert Flynn No. Ocasio-Cortez Okay. So there's nothing stopping me from being entirely funded by corporate PACs, say from the fossil fuel industry, the healthcare industry, big Pharma. I'm entirely 100% lobbyists PAC funded. Okay. So let's see. I'm a really, really bad guy and let's see, I've have some skeletons in my closet that I need to cover it up so that I can get elected. Um, Mr. Smith, is it true that you wrote this article, this opinion piece for the Washington Post entitled These Payments to Women Were Unseemly? That doesn't mean they were illegal. Smith Well, I can't see the piece but I wrote a piece or that headline in the post's so I assume that's right. Ocasio-Cortez Okay, great. So green-light for hush money, I can do all sorts of terrible things. It's totally legal right now for me to pay people off and that is considered speech. That money is considered speech. So I use my special interest, dark money funded campaign to pay off folks that I need to pay off and get elected. So now I'm elected, now I'm in, I've got the power to draft, lobby and shape the laws that govern the United States of America. Fabulous. Now is there any hard limit that I have, perhaps Mrs Herbert Flynn? Is there any hard limit that I have in terms of what legislation I'm allowed to touch? Are there any limits on the laws that I can write or influence? Especially if I'm a based on the special interest funds that I accepted to finance my campaign and get me elected in the first place. Herbert Flynn There's no limit. Ocasio-Cortez So there's none. So I can be totally funded by oil and gas that can be totally funded by big Pharma come in. Right. Big Pharma laws and there's no limits to that whatsoever. Herbert Flynn That's right. Ocasio-Cortez Okay, so awesome. Now, uh, now Mr Mehrabani, the last thing I want to do is get rich with as little work possible. That's really what I'm trying to do as the bad guy. Right? So is there anything preventing me from holding stocks say in an oil or gas company and then writing laws to deregulate that that industry and cause you know, that could potentially cause the stock value to soar and accrue a lot of money in that time, Rudy Mehrbani You could do that. Ocasio-Cortez So I could do that. I could do that. Now with the way our current laws are set up. Yes? Mehrbani Yes. Ocasio-Cortez Okay, great. Okay. So my last question is, or one of my last questions, I guess I'd say is, is it possible that any elements of this story apply to our current government in our current public servants right now? Mehrbani Yes. Ocasio-Cortez So we have a system that is fundamentally broken. We have these influences existing in this body, which means that these influences are here in this committee shaping the questions that are being asked of you all right now. Would you say that that's correct, Mr Mehrbani or Mr Shaub? Mehrbani Yes. Ocasio-Cortez Alright. So one last thing, Mr Shaub, in relation to congressional oversight that we have, the limits that are placed on me as a congress woman compared to the executive branch and compared to say, the president of the United States, would you say that Congress has the same sort of standard of accountability? Are there, is there more teeth in that regulation in Congress on the president? Or would you say it's about even or more so on the federal? Schaub Um, in terms of laws that apply to the president, there's just almost no laws at all that applied to the president. Ocasio-Cortez So I'm being held and every person in this body is being held to a higher ethical standard than the president of the United States. Schaub That's right. Cause or some committee ethics committee rules that apply to you. Ocasio-Cortez And it's already super legal as we've seen for me to be a pretty bad guy. So it's even easier for the president of the United States to be one, I would assume. Schaub That's right. Ocasio-Cortez Thank you very much. 3:04:00 Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) Uh, and when we think about what we're dealing with, with respect to a campaign finance, uh, are you familiar with doxing? Smith In the sense of outing people online that you're referring to? Yes, generally. Roy So for example, are you familiar with a Twitter account called every Trump donor, which tweeted out one by one, the names, hometowns, occupations, employers, the people who contribute as little as $200 to the president's campaign, each tweet, following a particular formula. My point being in the question for you is, when we talk about campaign disclosures, are we aware of the negative impacts that you have on forcing American citizens and exercising their free speech to have that information be disclosed? Whether that's good policy or not might be debatable, but is there, are there negative consequences to that with respect to free speech given you're an expert on free speech? Smith There are, and there are definitely studies that have shown that disclosure does tend to decrease participation. Now, that doesn't mean as you point out that it's not worth it, but it certainly has costs. And so we have to be careful on how broad we would let that disclosure become. 3:11:00 Scott Amey The law is created that has cooling off periods. And so there's no cooling off period of one year or two year or a permanent bans. HR 1 would move a lot of those to two years I think, which would be beneficial. And there's even disagreement in our community whether one year or two, you know, what is the appropriate time to kind of cool off so that your contacts aren't there. But this is also something that President Trump brought up when he was a candidate. He talked about, uh, I think it was Boeing at the time, but he went on record saying that people who give contracts should never be able to work for that defense contractor. This isn't a bipartisan, this is a bipartisan issue. This is something we can resolve. The laws are already on the books. We just need some extensions in some tweaking of those to improve them and allow people to cool off and not be able to provide a competitive advantage to their new employer or favor them as they're in office and they're walking out the door. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) And so you do believe that extending this cooling off period and strengthening these prohibitions would protect the integrity of the process and helped to reign in these flagrant abuses. Amey 100% in one of the nice things with HR 1 is there is an extension of a cooling off period for people coming into government service. Currently it exists and it's uh, it's one year. This will move it to two and I think that's a probably better place to be in. You shouldn't be handling issues that involve your former employer or clients. Pressley One final question. How might these cozy relationships between government officials and corporate leaders or private contractors help to boost profits for these prison and detention centers? Amey Well, certainly they go with a lot of information, uh, when, when they go over to the private sector. But it also allows them to get back into their former office and within their former agency and call on them. Access as, as you were just pointing out, access is everything in this town. And so if you can get your phone calls answered, if you can get emails read, if you get meetings at that point, that can, not only with members of Congress, but with agency heads that can determine who gets contracts. I mean, it does trickle down from the top and we need to make sure that we prevent as many like actual and also appearances of conflicts of interest as we can. 3:17:00 Rep. Carol D. Miller (R-WV) What impact would the passage of this legislation have on those groups that are not political but may put out policy oriented communications? Smith It would be very curious and I've given a number of examples in the written testimony. I just say that I should add to this of course that the bill includes personal liability for officers and directors of some of these organizations. So you need to almost have to be crazy to let your organization get anywhere close to this promote support attack opposed standard. And again, what does that mean as I suggested? Well, you know, again, uh, government union might take out an ad maybe in a month, right? Or three weeks from now saying don't let president Trump, we shouldn't have to pay because he wants his wall in Mexico, you know, so, so tell them to reopen the government. Is that an attack on president Trump? I think that's the kind of thing that, that folks would not know and would make people very hesitant to run that kind of ad. Miller So it is a personal risk as well. Smith Yes. Yes. Not only risk. Plus it would be a risk, by the way, as well, to the tax status of some of the organizations involved in many of these organizations might have some type of tax status. 501(c)(3) organizations would have to be very careful because if they engage in speech that is now defined as political speech, 501(c)(3) organizations can't engage in political speech. They would jeopardize their tax exempt status. So that's another reason that these organizations would stay far clear of commenting on any kind of public issue. Video: H.R. 1: A Democrat Political Power Grab, Senator Mitch McConnell, YouTube, January 30, 2019. Video: Video Tweeted by Senator Mitch McConnell, January 29, 2019. Hearing: Full Committee Hearing on the "For the People Act of 2019", House Committee on the Judiciary, January 29, 2019. YouTube Video Witnesses: Christian Adams- President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation Vanita Gupta - President and Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference one Civil and Human Rights Sherrilyn Ifill - President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Adav Noti - Chief of Staff, Campaign Legal Center Sarah Tubervillie - Director of the Constitution Project, Project on Government Oversight Hans von Spakovsky - Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation Sound Clips: 10:45 Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) The official title of this bill is The For The People Act. This bill though is not for the people. It's not for everyday citizens. This bill siphons power from state legislatures, local elected officials and voters, and seeds, power to Washington lawmakers, unelected federal judges and lawyers. This bill is in particular for the unelected elites. It's for the people who don't answer directly to the voters. Contrary to it's name, this bill takes power away from the people and it does this by violating the constitution, by trampling over both the spirit and the letter of our most fundamental laws. 32:00 Sherrilyn Ifill Well before the midterm election, in fact, Georgia officials began placing additional burdens on voters, particularly black and Latino voters, by closing precincts and purging. Over half a million people from the voter rolls the voter purge, which removed 107,000 people, simply because they did not vote in previous elections and respond to a mailing was overseen by the Republican candidate for governor Brian Kemp, who was also the secretary of state. LDF and a chorus of others called on him to recuse himself from participating in the election. But he refused. 1:08:00 Ifill I think, I think the problem we have is that you know, when we begin talking about the powers between the federal and the state government as it relates to elections, it is of course critical that we look to the constitution and that we look to the articles of the constitution that govern elections. But what we have left out of the conversation at least to this moment is the reordering of the relationship between the federal and state government that came with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and the 14th and 15th amendments in particular. The 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection of laws under, the 15th Amendment prohibiting the denial of the right to vote based on race. National origin includes enforcement clauses that gives this body, the United States Congress, the power to enforce the rights that are articulated in those amendments to the constitution. And it is those amendments to the constitution that provided this body the right, for example, to pass laws like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for which all the same arguments that are being made today about the power of the states, about interference, about what the federal government is allowed to do and not allowed to do were raised and overcome. So the federal government actually does have the power when there is evidence and when they are enforcing the rights under the 14th and 15th, amendments to actually, your word would be interfere, but to engage robustly, in the protection of the voting rights of racial minorities. 1:15:00 Vanita Gupta There are over 13,000 election jurisdictions in our country, and elections can be run in a multitude of ways, but it is clear that Congress has the authority to make sure that civil rights are not violated in the course of running these elections. And that there are, there are equitable national standards to guide how this has done. And that is exactly what HR 1 does. 1:26:00 Ifill Let me use as an example. Texas has voter I.D. law from your own state the voter I.D. law that Texas imposed after the Shelby decision as a voter I.D. law that they had attempted to get pre-clearance prior to the Shelby decision and pre-clearance was denied, in other words they were not allowed to make that law, become real because of the pre-clearance requirement. After Shelby, the Attorney General, decided that they were going to move forward with that law. It was imposed. We sued. We challenged that law and we won. But in the three years that it took us to litigate that case during that time Texas elected a United States senator in 2014. All 36 members of the Texas delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the comptroller, various statewide commissioners, four justices of the Texas Supreme Court. Candidates for special election in the state Senate State Boards of Education 16 state senators all 150 members of the statehouse over 175 state court trial judges and over 75 district attorneys. We proved at trial that more than half a million eligible voters were disenfranchised by the I.D. law. We were ultimately successful in challenging but it was too late for those elections and this was a scheme that had been denied pre-clearance. This is the kind of thing that undermines confidence in our electoral system and that threatens our democracy. What excuse can we have as a nation for disenfranchising over half a million voters from all of the elections I just described. 1:35:00 Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) Where are the states, Ms. Ifill, that have most of the states that have prohibitions on people having the APP for you to vote if they've committed a felony? Ifill Well, they have been all over the country, but certainly there was a concentration in the south. As you may know, some of the history of these laws emanated, at the turn of the 19th century, I guess the turn of the 20th century, after southern states received back their power, they pass new constitutions. This is after the civil war and after reconstruction around 1900 and we saw the expansion of ex felon voting restrictions in state constitutions during that period, when there was a very robust effort to try and disenfranchise, at that point, newly freed slaves who had been free for several decades. 2:05:00 Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) It contains a provision where federal tax dollars from hardworking middle class families and single mothers would be lining the pockets of politicians to pay for nasty TV ads and robo calls and paying for politicians, personal childcare and healthcare. Under this bill, it's estimated that at least $3.9 billion of taxpayer dollars would line the pockets of house congressional candidates based on estimates from Bloomberg and an estimated $6.25 billion with line the pockets of presidential candidates based on the formula in this bill and the 2016 election, for a total of $10.1 billion of taxpayer dollars. To me, this is an outrageous, outrageous use of taxpayer dollars. 2:23:00 Hans Von Spakovsky This provision of HR 1 says that if a commission is not established, or if it doesn't adopt a plan, then, the redistricting lines for Congress will be drawn up by a three judge federal court. Now, yeah, the courts get involved, federal courts get involved and redistricting, but they only get involved when there has been a violation of the voting rights act because there's been discrimination in drawing the lines or because the equal protection doctrine of the 14th amendment, one person, one vote, has been violated because the districts aren't equal enough and that's appropriate. And courts do that. But this bill would give the judicial branch the ability to draw up lines when there's, there's been no such violation. And so they're, in essence, you're taking a power of the constitution gives to the legislative branch and you're giving it to the judicial branch. 2:52:00 Gupta Well, our recourse used to be that changes in local voting patterns would be reported to the Justice Department and there would be recourse for the Justice Department to ensure that racial discrimination was not animating these changes and preventing people from exercising their franchise. As we said, in 2013, the United States supreme court gutted that key tool of the voting rights act. And it is why HR 1 is such an important, uh, act in order to restore the voting rights act and to restore the ability of the Justice Department and federal courts to actually prevent these kinds of nefarious actions from taking place before elections. Uh, litigation is crucial and groups that have risen to the challenge to, to file section two cases, but they are time intensive and they occur after elections after people have already been disenfranchised and can take years to come to adjudication during which elections are taking place. And so that is why, uh, it is incumbent and unnecessary for Congress to restore the provisions of the voting rights act. Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) So HR 1 will help protect the rights of my American citizens to vote before the election. Gupta HR 1, yes, expresses a commitment to restoring the voting rights act, and, uh, and that is what we hope to achieve in this congress. It is HR 1 also contains a slew of protections that have become proxies for racial discrimination around list maintenance and unwarranted voter purging. Hr 1 seeks to remedy those so that, uh, so that people can have their rights guaranteed before elections take place. 3:25:00 Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) And I have to tell you after that, being in Congress for six years, uh, I have come to find that there are so many issues that uh, my republican colleagues and I agree on and that the American people agree that we've reached consensus on it and that ranges from reducing gun violence to addressing climate change, to finding healthcare solutions. But my constituents ask and people I encounter across the country always ask, if we've reached consensus where 90% of Americans think we should have background checks. Majority of Americans believe that climate change is happening. 90% of Americans think we should have the Dream Act. Why can't you guys even vote on these issues? And I've concluded that it's the dirty maps and the dirty money. It is rigged gerrymandered maps where politicians from both parties protect their friends and the status quo and it's the outside unlimited nontransparent money, where Republican colleagues have told me, I am with you on this issue -and I've had someone say this to me - I am afraid about how I'm going to be scored, meaning that these outside groups, we'll give scores based on how you vote and if you're not with them, they'll primary you with more money in an unlimited way. And then that's poisoning our politics and preventing us from reaching consensus. 3:27:00 Swalwell I want to start with Miss Ifill, and if it's OK I want to call you Professor Ifill because I don't know if you remember you were my civil procedure professor at the University of Maryland. You wouldn't remember me I remember you. I was not a standout student at all but Miss Ifill according to your testimony Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would have prevented some of the voter suppression schemes that we have encountered over the past five years. And I was hoping you could articulate some of those schemes today. Ifill Yeah just a few of them. Earlier I spoke about Texas's voter I.D. law, an I.D. law that had been denied pre-clearance prior to the Shelby decision. Two hours after the Shelby decision the attorney general of Texas tweeted out his intention to resuscitate that law which he did. And we spent three years litigating it. We ultimately prevailed, but in the ensuing three years there were elections for all kinds of offices a law that clearly could not have survived pre-clearance. Just in 2018 we were on the ground in Georgia on election day doing election protection work in Grady County, the polling place had been changed two weeks prior to the election. A notice had been placed in a very small community newspaper but otherwise there was not real notice provided to the community and so people arrived at the old polling place and community residents had to spend the day standing outside the old polling place directing people to the place of the new polling place that had not been properly identified Under Section 5, the moving of a polling place is the kind of thing that you had to submit to pre-clearance and have it approved by the Justice Department before it could be implemented. Now there are a number of people that day who could drive to the new polling place but there were a number of people who had just taken off work and had a limited amount of time to vote and could not dri
The legal team of Nigerian pastor Timothy Omotoso is taking to the Supreme Court of Appeal to petition the court directly after Judge Mandela Makaula of the High Court in Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape, denied them leave to appeal his ruling that there are no good grounds for him to recuse himself. The defence has accused Makaula of being biased towards the first witness Cheryl Zondi who was allegedly raped by Omotoso. The trial will now continue on the 10th of December 2018. Our reporter Anda Nqonji was in court.
Lance discusses iwth City Councilman-at-large Mike Knox Attorney General Jeff Session's possible strategy for recusing himself from investigations of President Trump
TRUMP TURNING ON HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL? MUELLER ON THE MOVE... "President Trump slammed his own attorney general on Wednesday, claiming he would never have hired Jeff Sessions for the Cabinet position if Trump had known Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia investigation. â??Sessions should have never recused himself,â?? Trump said during an interview with The New York Times. â??And if he was going to recuse himself he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else.â?? Trump continued to gripe about Sessions, one of his earliest and staunchest supporters during the bruising Republican primary campaign. â??Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly I think is very unfair to the president,â?? Trump told the Times." READ MORE: nypost.com/2017/07/19/trump-i-wouldnt-have-hired-sessions-if-i-knew-hed-recuse-himself/
This week, Vashitta and Gabe discuss the effort by ProgressOhio to call on state Supreme Court Justice Sharen Kennedy to recuse herself in the Capital Care Network case out of Toledo. ProgressOhio was joined by 51 different individuals and organizations signing on to the formal complaint, including NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. Justice Kennedy participated in a fundraiser for Greater Toledo Right to Life this March, which many feel impacts her ability to be impartial in the case.
Find us on iTunes: http://bit.ly/naralpodcast This week, Vashitta and Gabe discuss the effort by ProgressOhio to call on state Supreme Court Justice Sharen Kennedy to recuse herself in the Capital Care Network case out of Toledo. ProgressOhio was joined by 51 different individuals and organizations signing on to the formal complaint, including NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. Justice Kennedy participated in […]
Bill Press welcomes Tom Jawetz, Joe Cirincione, & Hunter Walker to discuss Devin Nunes' secret trip to the White House, Jeff Sessions' threat to sanctuary cities, Donald Trump's national security weapon, & Jared Kushner's meeting with a Russian banker - all the big highlights from this Tuesday edition of the Bill Press Show!
On Tonight's Benjamin Dixon show:Sweden is reinstating the draft in response to Russian aggression in the Baltics and north sea. Europe tries to make Americans have to apply for Visas. Finally, we will be joined by Professor Sienkiewicz of Boston College to discuss rising anti-Semitism in the US and US-Israeli relations, as well as Progressive Army Writer Sahil Habibi, host of The Progressive Voice to discuss his recent piece on ProgressiveArmy.com.Follow Professor Sienkiewicz on Twitter: @mediastudiedFollow Sahil Habibi on Twitter: @ProgressVoiceFind Sahil's pieces on Progressive Army: http://progressivearmy.com/author/shabibi/The pieces discussed tonight:DNC Elected Zero Representatives From Sanders Wing - http://progressivearmy.com/2017/02/28/dnc-elected-zero-representatives-from-sanders-wing/To Neoliberals: Bush Is Not Better Than Trump - http://progressivearmy.com/2017/03/01/to-neoliberals-bush-is-not-better-than-trump/Checkout & subscribe to to Sahil's YouTube channel The Progressive Voice: https://www.youtube.com/user/xUnlimitedMagzAll that and more on tonight's show. Call in and join the conversation: 857-600-0518
This week's episode is brought to you by the concept of bias, whether it be as a juror, a post-conviction judge, or a PA Supreme Court justice overturning a death penalty reprieve. Brett and Nazim discuss Williams v. Pennsylvania, in which the Supreme Court has to determine whether or not a State Supreme Court judge should recuse himself from a death penalty appeal when that same judge was part of the original decision to sentence the defendant to death to begin with.
On this episode, we review the case of Williams v. Pennsylvania, heard in oral argument this week. In Williams the Court is asked to determine whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated where the presiding Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court declines to recuse himself in a capital case where he had personally approved the decision to pursue capital punishment against Petitioner in his prior capacity as elected District Attorney and continued to head the District Attorney's Office that defended the death verdict on appeal.
One judge, in her jealous rage of revenge, intentionally blocks an appeal from reaching the higher courts. Listen to a secret recording of a message Judge Lewis had her secretary convey to a defendant's wife. Visit www.MoFoBooks.com and sign Luther's petition.
Mike & Jay start off this week's episode with a look at the latest developments in the no longer “immanent” Russian invasion of Ukraine (at least not according to the White House). That's followed by discuss