It's Up To Trump To Decide If There Will Be More GOP/NRA Massacres Or Not

Yesterday, Mike DeBonis and Paul Kane reported that congressional Republicans are in a holding pattern in regard to gun legislation-- waiting for Trump to make up his mind, while their constituents fume. "White House aides briefed Republican senators on potential legislative options at their private weekly luncheon Tuesday-- including expanding the federal background-check system for gun buyers and encouraging states to create systems to temporarily seize guns from individuals judged to be dangerous-- but they gave no indication of what Trump himself is willing to sign into law, exasperating some of those present. Speaking to reporters afterward, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) confirmed Trump has yet to weigh in on the subject. Guns were among the topics discussed at a White House meeting between Trump and Republican congressional leaders Tuesday afternoon, but attendees said there were no decisions on how to move forward on the issue." SSRS, the polling firm that does CNN's polls, reported Tuesday that 60% of registered votes said vile old Trump has not earned a second term and a majority say that he hasn't kept his campaign promises. CNN's polling director, Jennifer Agiesta wrote that "Overall, the poll paints a picture of a President who has done little to improve negative impressions of him or his work during his time in office. Across several questions asked early in Trump's time in office and asked again now, the poll finds little positive change and deep partisan polarization." 56% of registered voters say he has overall changed the country for the worse.

Although most Republicans (58%) are too stupid to have caught on that Trump lies all the time, 76% of Independents say they trust just some or none of the information coming out of the White House and 90% of Democrats trust just some or none of what comes out of the White House.

These are his the issues where Trump is underwater with voters. There are his approval numbers:

• Foreign affairs- 37%
• Environmental policy- 33%
• Gun policy- 38%
• Foreign trade- 39%

Tuesday night, the House Judiciary Committee-- by a party line vote-- advanced the first three gun control bills that will head over to the Senate-- a red flag law that sets up federal court procedures to seize guns from dangerous people and a bill to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines. They also passed a bill banning people convicted of hate crimes from buying a gun, a hill Republicans will fight to the last man on to prevent ever becoming law.

McConnell has maneuvered Trump into the center of this shit-show, saying he will not allow anything passed by the House to be debated or voted on in the Senate unless Trump's approves in advance. This is virtually unheard of and totally short-circuits the legislative process. And, as Alexander Bolton, reported at The Hill yesterday, Trump's in an uncomfortable pickle, squeezed between the 90% of voters who demand action and the NRA, which demands no action.

The overwhelming majority of the Senate GOP conference is already on the record as opposing a compromise measure to expand background checks sponsored by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), which the Senate defeated in 2013 and 2015.

But many of them are likely to flip if Trump endorses a proposal to strengthen background checks, an idea that has consistently garnered strong ratings in public polls.

“I can tell you that there are Republican senators who were not here in 2015, the last time we had a vote, who are interested in this. There are Republican senators who were here and voted ‘no’ and they are rethinking,” Toomey said.

Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN), who was elected to the Senate last year, on Tuesday said he is open to expanded background checks.

“I’m interested in that as well as long as it doesn’t cross the threshold of impacting a law-abiding citizen in any way in terms of how he or she might want to access a weapon,” he said.

White House officials told Senate Republicans on Tuesday they are working on a package of proposals to address gun violence after several mass shootings rocked the nation over the August recess.

White House legislative affairs director Eric Ueland has told GOP leaders the proposal could come as soon as this week.

One Republican senator who voted against Toomey-Manchin six years ago told The Hill that he would consider changing his position.

“Ninety-five percent of the transfers at gun shows are not between individuals, they’re with dealers. When people go to gun shows, they’re prepared to have a background check and they do it instantly. Background checks at gun shows are most often the rule,” the senator said. “As much as I support the Second Amendment, I just cannot understand how it’s that much of an intrusion to have a background check between individuals.”

Toomey and other advocates of expanded background checks note that National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre testified before the House in 1999 in favor of universal background checks, a position the gun rights group has since abandoned.

Toomey, who has been in regular contact with the president, on Tuesday said the president has expressed a willingness to strengthen background checks and described Toomey’s proposal as having the most “resonance” and the best chance of becoming law.

“I’ve spoken with the president repeatedly, probably a half a dozen times by now,” Toomey told reporters. “The president has been very engaged. He’s been very receptive.”

“He is open to doing something in this space and from my conversations with him and confirmed by his staff, he has not yet made a decision regarding exactly what he’s going to support,” he said.

GOP leaders on Monday said Trump is expected to get a full briefing on policy options as soon as Thursday and then make his recommendation to Capitol Hill Republicans about what he’s willing to support.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and other Republican lawmakers are waiting for a sign from Trump before taking a position on expanded background checks.

“We’re waiting for something we know if it passed would actually become law, and until the White House gives us some indication of what the president is willing to sign, we’re waiting to see what it looks like,” McConnell said.

Asked whether he personally thought it reasonable to mandate background checks for all commercial gun sales, McConnell replied, “I’m going to wait and assess the proposal that actually could become law.”

White House officials at this point are mulling whether to include background checks legislation in a bigger package along with several other proposals addressing gun violence, according to senators familiar with the negotiation.

Other proposals under consideration include so-called red-flag legislation, which would allow courts to temporarily confiscate weapons from individuals considered dangerous, and a bill sponsored by Toomey and Sen. Christopher Coons (D-DE) that would require law enforcement officers to be notified when someone fails a background check while attempting to purchase a gun.

Toomey said he is working with GOP colleagues to address their concerns about his old legislation.

...McConnell dismissed the Democrats’ call for action as a political “stunt” because Trump has already said he will veto the House bill.

“For months, what I have said consistently is let’s see if we can actually make a law here. And making a law when you have divided government is challenging,” McConnell said. “My members know the very simple fact that to make a law you have to have a presidential signature.”

Isn't It Congress' Solemn Duty To Impeach Trump? What The Hell Are They Waiting For?

Funding Trump's concentration camps was inexcusable and horrific and every Democrat who voted to follow Pelosi into it has to live with that-- as do their constituents who vote to reelect them next year. Refusing to impeach Trump, the worst criminal in the history of the American presidency by far, is another issue legislators will have to live with for their whole lives. I would never, under any circumstance, vote for someone who hasn't come out clearly and publicly in favor of impeaching him. Their careers are important to them and their families-- but the country should come first, especially on a matter as existential as this one is.

Every now and then the real Tulsi Gabbard pops out-- as it did yesterday on the premiere of Greta Van Susteren's new show, Full Court Press (KTLA here in Los Angeles, KPIX in New York City and KHNL and KGMB in Honolulu). The Democratic congresswoman and presidential candidate-- who once applied for a cabinet post in the Trump regime-- said she opposes impeachment: "I think it’s important for us to think about what is in the best interest of the country and the American people, and continuing to pursue impeachment is something that I think will only further to tear our country apart." She couldn't be more wrong about what's in the best interest of the country, which is exactly why the Founders put impeachment into the Constitution.

Michael Owens is running for a suburban Atlanta seat currently occupied by a Trump-friendly Blue Dog, David Scott. Micael doesn't see this the way Tulsi-- or David Scott-- sees it. "Over 130 members of Congress, a majority of the House Democrats," he told me this morning, "understand that it is their constitutional responsibility to pursue an impeachment inquiry. I agree with them that we must begin an inquiry. No one is above the law and with the investigation of Mueller-- and in some cases, Trumps own admissions-- there should be enough to start the inquiry and allow the process to uncover the obstruction and myriad of other things that will come to light. I'm dissappointed, that my opponent, hasn't signed on and continues to remain silent on this issue. Our district is a solid blue district that is calling for change. Impeaching Trump will not immediately fix everything. But impeachment is an investigative process that allows Americans to uncover and see the corruption and greed of this administration and begin restoring faith in this democracy at home and worldwide."

Marie Newman is also running for a solid blue seat held by a Trump-friendly Blue Dog, Dan Lipinski, who opposes impeaching Trump. "For me," she said today, "this is simple, the overwhelming majority in my district believe serious crimes have been committed and  they want impeachment inquiries to start. I stand with my district."

On Friday, Politico's early morning team wrote that "There’s a multi-faceted divide in the Democratic caucus right now but it can easily be broken down like this: From what we can tell, most every Democrat wants to impeach Trump. For the most part, those who are not publicly saying they support impeachment believe the politics do not break in the Democrats’ favor. Few Dems these days oppose impeachment on the merits." In other words, instead of doing what they think is right for the country, they are following Pelosi and her disgraceful-- disgusting-- political calculus that breaks down basically to worrying about reelction bids of half a dozen Blue Dogs in red seats, all of them cowardly scum who vote consistently badly and don't belong in Congress in any case.

Later in the day, 3 other Politico reporters wrote about how Jerry Nadler's beleaguered House Judiciary Committee is struggling with this. Kyle Cheney, Heather Caygle and John Bresnahan pointed out that the committee "is preparing to take its first formal vote to define what Chairman Jerry Nadler calls an ongoing 'impeachment investigation' of President Donald Trump, according to multiple sources briefed on the discussions. The panel could vote as early as Wednesday on a resolution to spell out the parameters of its investigation. The precise language is still being hammered out inside the committee and with House leaders. A draft of the resolution is expected to be released Monday morning."

The issue was raised Friday during a conference call among the committee's Democrats. A source familiar with the discussion said any move next week would be intended to increase the “officialness” of the ongoing probe, following a six-week summer recess in which some Democrats struggled to characterize to their constituents that the House had already begun impeachment proceedings. Democrats are hopeful that explicitly defining their impeachment inquiry will heighten their leverage to compel testimony from witnesses.

Though the language of the resolution is still in flux, some sources said it could incorporate elements of traditional impeachment probes, such as offering access to the president's attorneys or providing for more time to question witnesses. There was discussion among some Democrats on Friday’s call about the strength of the language in the resolution, according to sources briefed on the call.

Advocates of opening a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump have clamored for the Judiciary Committee to more clearly spell out the contours of its investigation-- a move they hope strengthens the House’s hand in a handful of court cases to obtain evidence and testimony against the president.

In early August, Nadler publicly declared that his committee had already launched impeachment proceedings despite taking no formal vote to do so. The claim sparked confusion, even among some Democrats, who sought clarification as they faced questions from progressive constituents about the status of the House's effort to recommend Trump's removal from office.

The committee has also repeatedly described an ongoing “impeachment investigation” in court filings submitted during the recess, part of legal efforts to compel testimony from witnesses to allegations that Trump attempted to obstruct an investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. By declaring impeachment under active consideration, the committee has sought to convince judges of the urgency of providing Democrats with the evidence they're seeking.

But Republicans on the committee protested loudly that impeachment proceedings require a vote, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi's resistance to a formal impeachment inquiry-- despite her support of the Judiciary Committee's legal filings-- has complicated the House's posture further.

In addition to probing potential obstruction of justice by Trump, the Judiciary Committee is weighing allegations that Trump directed hush money payments to women accusing him of extramarital affairs in the weeks before the 2016 election, as well as evidence that Trump has sought to steer U.S. and foreign government spending to his luxury resorts, raising questions about whether he has violated the Constitution's Emoluments Clause.

Until now, Trump-related investigations had been a patchwork effort by six congressional committees. The Ways and Means Committee, for example, is pursuing Trump's tax returns in court. The Financial Services Committee and Intelligence Committee are seeking Trump's financial records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One. The Foreign Affairs Committee has sought details about Trump's interactions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who the intelligence community has assessed sought to boost Trump's 2016 electoral prospects. And the Oversight Committee had initially taken the lead on allegations about hush money payments, calling Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen to testify in February before he went to prison on charges connected to the scheme.

The Judiciary Committee had mostly kept focused on obstruction of justice and the fallout from former special counsel Robert Mueller's report, made public in April, that revealed hundreds of contacts between Russians and Trump campaign associates, as well as repeated attempts by Trump to constrain or shut down the probe altogether. Mueller testified publicly to the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in late July, days before the House departed for its six-week recess.

But his testimony uncorked a surge of support for launching formal impeachment proceedings. More than half of the House's 235 Democrats now support taking that step. The number has grown steadily, even after Nadler suggested impeachment proceedings had begun.

But the momentum has been tempered by Pelosi, who warned Democrats in an Aug. 23 call that public sentiment hasn't kept pace. Polls show most Americans still generally oppose opening impeachment proceedings, even though Democratic voters largely support the move.

Many of the Democrats who declared support for an impeachment inquiry did so because they said it would help break through Trump's stonewalling of the six committee investigations. They argued that without formal impeachment proceedings, Trump could continue to claim blanket immunity for his top aides and allies, preventing them from testifying or complying with congressional subpoenas. Trump has blocked several of his most senior aides-- including former officials who provided some of Mueller's most damaging testimony-- from speaking to Congress.

They include former White House counsel Don McGahn, who told Mueller about multiple attempts by Trump to have the special counsel removed and described an atmosphere of chaos in the West Wing shortly after Mueller's appointment. They also include former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, who provided limited testimony to the committee but refused to discuss her tenure in the White House.

Candidates elected in 2020 are unlikely to have to deal with impeachment because it is highly unlikely Trump will be reelected. But it is still valuable to know how they feel about impeachment when deciding whether or not to support them. So I asked a few, including some from extremely difficult districts.

Late last June, Teresa Tomlinson, the progressive candidate in the race for the Georgia Senate seat held by avid Trump enabler David Perdue, used her Kos diary to advance the need to impeach Trump. "I am a lawyer who has worked my entire life fighting for justice and the rule of law. I’ve read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and all 448 pages of the Mueller Report. And I’ve heard the President’s own disturbing and destabilizing words. I have no doubt it’s time for Congress to begin impeachment hearings against President Trump. Even if impeachment results in his acquittal in the Senate, it is the legislative duty of our elected officials to lead in accordance with the oath they swore to defend our Constitution."

It’s not about nullifying or affecting an election: it’s about ensuring power is checked and checked immediately before future abuses occur. The Constitution requires the impeachment process from Congress if, in the words of the Founding Fathers, the President has "abused their confidence.” A president is subject to impeachment when they have "proved themselves to be unworthy of the confidence" placed in them. The Founding Fathers say allowing a President who has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors (which actually means “misdeeds”) to avoid impeachment brings “disgrace” on the Congress for failing to act. (See Federalist Papers, No. 66).

What we miss is that the impeachment process is not destabilizing or partisan, as the refusals to pursue it suggests. The impeachment process is elucidating and cathartic to the public and it actually fortifies our system. Thwarting our constitutional checks and balances for polls or election strategy demeans an important underpinning of a representative republic.

...The U.S. Constitution is the greatest civic document the world has known. Let’s use it.

North Carolina state Senator Erica Smith is the progressive Democrat running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Trump ally and rubber-stamp Thom Tillis. She was living in Crystal City when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton on spurious charges and she's told ne she read the entire Mueller Report and felt disgusted by Trump’s "commission of ten impeachable offenses, continuous acts of obstruction, disgraceful conduct, speech, and prideful pontification of 'grabbing women by the p-parts', paying off prostitutes with hush money and denials of his predatory conduct toward past women based on their appearance [and saw] "the overwhelming substantive evidence of his misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance. Impeachment proceedings," she said, "must commence, with deliberate speed and predilection. I, personally, would like to see him defeated in 2020 and tried as a private citizen and imprisoned for his crimes against humanity and our country. However, as our military has court-martialed officers and criminal courts have tried, convicted and imprisoned every day citizens who’ve committed far fewer and less egregious crimes than President Trump-- he should be impeached!"

Brianna Wu is running for a Boston area seat where voters are much less inclined to trust Trump than the current congressman, New Dem Stephen Lynch. "This is not about tactics or strategy," said Brainna. "This is about the survival of our republic. Does the Constitution still matter? Does the rule of law still apply? If we don’t act now to hold Trump accountable, history will judge us harshly. The political gamesmanship that delayed impeachment hearings is why Americans don’t trust either party. We have to be bold, and honest and vulnerable with the people that are trusting us to do our constitutional duty. I don’t know what will happen with pursuing impeachment, but I am certain what will happen if we do not."

In another up-for-grabs district in the suburbs of Atlanta, Marqus Cole is running in an open seat. He said that "Even in a swing district, I recognize that my unique position as a former prosecutor allows me some latitude to be completely honest. An un-indicted co-conspirator to a federal crime currently resides in the White House. Full stop. Further, the ongoing and public pouring of tax dollars into the President’s private companies is a full blown scandal. Finally, the ten (10) acts of obstruction documented by the Mueller investigation all lead me to the reasonable conclusion that the House should exercise its constitutional power to initiate impeachment proceedings. Leave it to Moscow Mitch and Senators up for re-election to determine if they will put party over country."

Eva Putzova is in a hot primary race in Arizona. The incumbent, Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran, is a former Republican state legislature pretending to be a Democrat but opposing impeachment. Eva sees the need to uphold the rule of law by impeaching Trump. "If House Democrats," she told me, "think that President Trump has committed impeachable offenses they have the constitutional obligation to initiate impeachment proceedings. Otherwise, what value are they putting on the 'rule of law?'  When I am elected to Congress, and if Trump is still in office, I will support his impeachment based on the evidence collected so far, including obstruction of justice as described in the Mueller Report, and his clear violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. Our obligation is to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States...,' not ignore that obligation in order to get re-elected. Serving people should be our representatives' top priority and that also means holding our president accountable. I personally believe that the House leadership's political calculation is also misguided and agree with Laurence Tribe: 'An impeached Trump who escapes conviction in the Senate will be weaker in 2020 than a Trump who can brag that not even a Democratically controlled House could impeach him. And GOP Senators who give him a pass will be easier to defeat than ones who’re spared any need to be counted.'"

Morgan Harper is running for the Columbus, Ohio House seat (OH-03) occupied by old skool moderate Democrat Joyce Beatty. She was waffling on impeachment before Morgan announce her candidacy but tried jumping on the band wagon once she realized she was been primaries. "Donald Trump has broken the law," Morgan said resolutely, "and is a threat to our country every day he remains in office. I have been clear since the day I launched my campaign that we should impeach him. Getting rid of him is a top priority for many people I meet in Franklin County."

Rachel Ventura is running for a Chicagoland seat held by conservative New Dem Bill Foster. This morning, Rachel told us that "Like many Democrats, Bill Foster weighed the politics of impeachment as more important than holding the president of the United States accountable for clear violations of the emoluments clause. Trump has from the beginning of his administration, used his office for private gain, from his hotel in D.C. to his resort Mar-a-Lago in Florida, favorable treatment for his and his family’s trademarks by China and continued business with foreign nationals while serving as president. These are direct violation of the emoluments clause. And until the political calculus changed and I entered the race to give voters in Illinois’ 11th Congressional District a stronger voice, Bill Foster voted against impeachment at least four times. On August 28th, he switched his position and decided to support impeachment. We can’t afford to wait for someone who is always doing the political calculus, especially on the burning issue of climate change where scientists have given us as short as 18 months to act. Are voters really going to endure another decade of inaction on healthcare reform from someone who, at his core opposes Medicare for All? I will be a strong leader with a moral compass, capable of making solid judgement calls and moving the nation forward, not waiting for the political winds to change. As a politician, it is not my job to do what is popular but to do what is right, and make it popular."

The Biggest Moments Of Today's Judiciary Committee Hearing

Likely Western New York candidate for Congress, Nate McMurray: "The GOP really has become the party of conspiracies-- while ignoring what’s right before them. It’s like the house is on fire, and they want you to look at mold in the basement. But we have it, word for word... THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT EXONERATED"

One of the most compelling moments this morning was made by Jamie Raskin of Maryland (below). After he was finished I asked him what the Committee was trying to accomplish. He told me that he thinks "we demonstrated that there is overwhelming evidence in the Report that  President Trump repeatedly obstructed justice. I was one of the Members who described in fine-grained detail a specific episode of obstruction and mine was Trump’s outrageous witness tampering with Michael Cohen. I only had three and a half minutes but I think the point was made. Despite Attorney General Barr’s best efforts, the Administration’s fog of propaganda is lifting."

Mike Siegel, a candidate for Congress-- previously an attorney for the city of Austin-- watched the hearings today and soon after Jerry Nadler gaveled the session to a close he told me that "Robert Mueller has done his part to document criminal activity by Donald Trump. Although he is clearly weary of these proceedings, today he confirmed the core findings of his report. It’s in the hands of Congress. If I were there, I’d support starting impeachment proceedings. But either way, this is the fork in the road. Go big or go home."

Ted Lieu (D-CA):




This is what Ted told me after he was finished questioning Mueller: "I simply walked Special Counsel Mueller through the three elements of the crime of Obstruction of Justice. Mueller agreed that Donald Trump had met the first two elements and then I read the third element verbatim from his report, which stated there was 'substantial evidence' of corrupt intent. Without the Department of Justice OLC Opinion preventing the indictment of a sitting President, Donald Trump would have been indicted. That's why over 1,000 former federal prosecutors signed a letter stating that any other person would have been indicted if they had done what the President did. In America, no one should be above the law. It is clear that right now we have a person in the Oval Office who has committed multiple felonies."

Jerry Nadler (D-NY):




Ken Buck (R-CO)




Jamie Raskin (D-MD)




Marqus Cole is a prominent attorney in Georgia running for Congress in an open suburban Atlanta seat. He watch the Buck questioning with a great deal of interest and he shared his impressions with me. "With one word," he said-- referring to Mueller's 'yes' response-- "in one moment, the man that was tasked with investigating the sitting President provided Pelosi, House Democrats and the country with everything we need to know. To review: without any question, the President of the United States is an unindicted co-conspirator to a federal crime in which a fellow co-conspirator was sentenced to three years in federal prison. Now, separate from that crime we have Mueller saying in one word that the President could be charged with a second a separate criminal offense. I want to be crystal clear; an impeachment inquiry needs to be opened right away. The House is the sole body in the entire country that has that power, authority and obligation to do so. House members should put aside party, politics and questions of whether the Senate will remove from office. It is time to impeach the unindicted con-conspirator to a federal crime that currently occupies the White House."

Val Demings (D-FL)




Hank Johnson (D-GA)




Kina Collins is another congressional candidate (Chicago) who watched the Mueller testimony carefully. "Robert Mueller's testimony today," she said, "confirmed what many of us have believed from the beginning-- that the president and his administration were involved in obstruction of justice and were aware of Russian interference with the 2016 election. I want it to be clear-- I stand with representatives like Maxine Waters who have been vocal from day one with calls to 'Impeach this man.' Because Democratic leaders have slow walked this issue, we have quickly descended into one of the darkest and most corrupt periods in our country's history. There are consequences for the choices we make in how we proceed next. I know what side of history I am standing on, and if I was in Congress now, I would be voting for impeachment hearings to begin. We can't keep playing these games when the morality and integrity of our entire democracy are at stake."




Adam Schiff did an excellent job later at the House Intelligence Committee. His introduction (above) was powerful and he was able to get Mueller to be very clear (below) that his investigation was neither a "witch hunt" nor "a hoax," that Russia helped Trump win the election and that the Trump campaign knew it and coordinated with the Russians and that Trump was trying to make a lot of money in his dealings with Putin and the Russians. Mueller also warned the Intelligence Committee several times that the Russians are currently trying to interfere with the 2020 elections.




New Mexico Secretary of State-- and Senate candidate-- Maggie Toulouse Oliver issued a statement after the Judiciary Committee adjourned. "The Mueller Report and the Special Counsel’s testimony on Capitol Hill today," she wrote, "provide more than enough evidence to warrant impeachment proceedings. For the good of our democracy, I am asking Congressman Luján to join my call for impeachment so that we can hold this president accountable and prevent any further abuses of power by him... Anyone who has read the Mueller Report can see there is evidence that the president, in an effort to protect himself, fired FBI Director James Comey, forced Attorney General Jeff Sessions to step down, and even attempted to have the Special Prosecutor fired. The president is not above the law and it is Congress’ job to hold him accountable. We can’t wait any longer. We must take action now to protect our democratic process by impeaching President Donald Trump. What’s more, we can hold this president accountable and still pass important legislation like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All."

The Whole Jon Stewart Thing

-by Valley Girl

Above is Jon Stewart’s statement to a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday June 11th. Rep Steve Cohen (D-TN), a member of the subcommittee the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties explained to Stewart that "All these empty chairs, that's because [the room] is for the full committee. It's not because of disrespect or lack of attention to you." Still, most of the Republicans on the subcommittee stayed away from the hearing. On Wednesday the full committee passed the 9/11 legislation. Now it goes to the floor of the House for a final vote.

I sent this YouTube to Howie, saying that it was powerful. I chose the one from USA Today (~2,000 views) rather than the one from CNN (over 2 million views) because it shows Nadler’s reaction at the end. Plus, the camera doesn’t stray from Jon Stewart himself.

USA Today’s title for the youtube is "Jon Stewart shames Congress over 9/11 first responders fund | USA TODAY."

Howie asked me to write a post explaining why Jon Stewart’s words had such a powerful effect on me.

That, I can't rationally explain. After all, I am an INFJ/P. I’ll try nonetheless.

It was painful for me to watch because of the terrible fate of 9-11 first responders. Cancer, more cancer, their medical problems being dismissed. The first time I watched it, I had to pause the video a few times because I found it emotionally overwhelming.

And on later watching, Jon Stewart’s powerful repetition of "5 seconds," "5 seconds" for the 9-11 first responders to answer their call of duty. As compared with the House’s time taken to answer their call of duty.

Stewart also tapped into something that resonates with me, and surely must resonate with many others.

At the very beginning Stewart mentions "healthcare and benefits."

4:25 There is not a person here, there is not an empty chair on that stage that didn't tweet out "Never forget the heros of 9-11 ..."

6:18 ....setting aside that no American in this country should face financial ruin because of a health issue .. certainly 9-11 responders shouldn't have to decide whether to live or have a place to live.

I searched online to find a transcript of Stewart's statement, alas without success. So, I typed the above, listening to Jon Stewart.

But in a lesser way Jon Stewart’s words tapped into own frustration and anger about the failure of Congress to start impeachment hearings. They have failed the 9-11 first responders. Why should they give a flying f*ck about failing their Constitutional Oath?

The Trumpist Regime's Criminality Is Getting On Everyone's Nerves

SURPRISE!! Look who doesn't want Mueller to testify publicly

House Judiciary Committee member David Cicilline (D-RI) was a guest on Fox News Sunday yesterday, where he confirmed that Barr is going to wind up with a contempt citation if he continues to prevent Congress from seeing government documents relevant to Trump's treasonous activities with the Russians. The deadline is this morning (at 9AM). "Members of our committee need to see the full report and the supporting documents so we can continue to do our work, conduct oversight in a responsible and sober way." This is going right over the heads of Fox News viewers who overwhelmingly see this as a baseless anti-Trump escapade by disgruntled Democrats.

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday, shows that voters are fed up with government. They hate Trump; they hate the Democratic Party; they hate the Republican Party and they hate William Barr. The only polled figure or entity who came out above water was Robert Mueller. 31% of voters have a positive view and just 19% have a negative view-- compared to 39% with a positive view of Trump and 49% with a negative view of Trump. Mueller is up 12 and Trump is down 10. But not among the topsy-turvy Fox viewers, where people admire Trump and distrust Mueller.

Robert Mueller Investigates by Nancy Ohanian

Republican national security expert Max Boot wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post yesterday, This Nation Is At The Mercy Of A Criminal Administration, a sentiment widely shared among Democrats, but not at all among Republicans. "imagine," he suggests, "that you live in a town that has been taken over by gangsters. The mayor is a crook and so are the district attorney and police chief. You can’t fight city hall. But at least you know you can turn for help to the state or federal government. Now imagine that it’s not a city or state that has been taken over by criminals-- it’s the federal government. Where do you turn for help? That is not a theoretical concern. After the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, it’s our grim reality." As they might say in Shtitsel, "Oy!"

Even before Mueller’s probe ended, federal prosecutors in New York had implicated President Trump in ordering his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to violate federal campaign finance laws. Mueller then documented at least six ironclad incidents of obstruction of justice by Trump along with numerous instances of misconduct that, while not criminal, are definitely impeachable. The New York Review of Books reported that two prosecutors working for Mueller said that if Trump weren’t president, he would have been indicted.

Now the administration is obstructing attempts to bring the president to justice for obstruction of justice. William P. Barr isn’t the attorney general; he is, as David Rothkopf said, the obstructor general. We now know that Mueller wrote (in Barr’s description) a “snitty” letter objecting that Barr’s deceptive summary of his work, designed to falsely exonerate Trump, “threatens to undermine … public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

Yet when Barr testified to Congress after receiving the Mueller letter but before releasing the Mueller report, he claimed not to know whether Mueller disagreed with his conclusions. “He lied to Congress,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) charged. But even if it could be proved that Barr committed perjury (no sure thing), who would prosecute him? Is he (or his deputy) going to appoint a special counsel to investigate himself? Unlikely. And if he did appoint a special counsel, would he heed the counsel’s conclusions? Also unlikely.

Barr’s jaw-dropping performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday dispelled any lingering confidence in the impartial administration of justice-- the bedrock of our republic. He actually testified that if the president feels an investigation is unfounded, he “does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate the proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused.” Given that no president has ever felt justly accused of any misconduct, this means that the president is above the law. Barr is endorsing the Nixon doctrine: “Well, when the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.”

The administration makes clear that this is precisely its intent with its scandalous stonewalling of Congress. Barr himself refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Trump is suing to prevent his accountants and financial institutions from sharing his business records with Congress, while his treasury secretary is refusing to comply with a lawful demand for his tax returns. Trump is also blocking numerous current and former officials, including former White House counsel Donald McGahn, from testifying about his misdeeds. His conduct is redolent of the third article of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon for failing “to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas” from Congress.

While conferring legal immunity upon himself, Trump is eager to weaponize the legal system against his opponents. The Mueller report documents three separate occasions when Trump demanded a Justice Department investigation of Hillary Clinton. Now, the New York Times reports, Trump and his attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, are attempting to instigate a criminal probe of his leading 2020 opponent, Joe Biden, on what appear to be trumped-up charges of corruption. In one of the more chilling exchanges during his Senate testimony, Barr would not say whether “the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested” that he open an investigation. If the answer were “no,” he would have said so.

It is hard to think of any president in the past 230 years, including Nixon, who has ever sabotaged the rule of law so flagrantly or so successfully to protect his own hide. And, sadly, it is hard to imagine that anything can be done about it before Nov. 3, 2020. The House could try to compel compliance with its subpoenas, but the Justice Department will never file criminal charges, and the courts could take years to decide a civil suit. The House could vote to impeach Trump or Barr-- which they richly deserve-- but that would be a purely symbolic act and could backfire politically because Senate Republicans, like the O.J. Simpson jury, would vote to acquit regardless of the evidence.

So for the next 18 months, at a minimum, this nation is at the mercy of a criminal administration. I am in despair as I have never been before about the future of our experiment in self-rule. Before Mueller filed his report, it was possible to imagine the president being brought to justice. That fantasy is no longer tenable. Instead we are left with the dismaying likelihood that the president will now feel emboldened to commit ever greater transgressions to hold onto power-- and thus delay a possible post-presidential indictment.

I suspect, though, that Fox Nation doesn't read the Washington Post. Over the weekend, the editorial board of the Salt Lake Tribune quoted Federalist No. 51 by James Madison: "But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." For those who might find it too obtuse or abstract, the editors explained what they are getting at:

Madison’s plan for the survival of popular government was nowhere to be seen last week, as Republican members of Congress put their loyalty to a president of their own party ahead of their sworn duty to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

By abandoning the role the Constitution assigns them, to jealously defend the power of their branch of government against encroachments by other branches, Republicans in Congress surrender their duty, their power and their part in defending American democracy.

Ambition no longer counteracts ambition.

And for what?

To get themselves on the good side of a chief executive who is so clearly corrupt, engaging in obstruction, campaign and ethics violations, using the presidency as a cash cow for his personal business interests, who disrespects the separation of powers, freedom of the press, the rights of minorities and immigrants and our long-standing international alliances.

Some will look at the situation and argue that the Democrats are being as partisan in their questioning of the president and his attorney general as the Republicans are in their defense of both.

Maybe. But there can be no question that, at least in the matter that was before the Senate Judiciary Committee the other day, these blind squirrels have come upon a very large cache of nuts.

Senate Republicans, including Utah’s Mike Lee, spent the day feeding Attorney General William Barr softball questions and trying to make the case that there was nothing to see, there’s no collusion and no corruption and no obstruction of justice. Time to move along.

These are arguments that can only come from willful partisan ignorance of the facts as they are before us.

The report from special counsel Robert Mueller laid out a litany of fishy contacts during the campaign and acts by the new president that would have been obstruction of justice if anyone had carried out the president’s orders. Or if it were considered possible, as Justice Department guidelines faithfully followed by the Mueller team says it is not, to indict a sitting president.

Mueller’s handicap through all of this is that he is an honorable man who stands by the rule of law, operating in a city that is neither. Investigating a president through the federal grand jury system is difficult because prosecutors are used to assembling and presenting their evidence in secret and only making it public if there is an indictment-- which triggers a process in which the accused is able to defend himself.

No indictment, because the president can’t be indicted, means no trial. Means no chance for the president to defend himself. Means it all gets packed up and delivered to the attorney general and then, maybe, to Congress and to the American people.

One bright spot in all of this-- small but important-- is the call from Utah’s other senator, Mitt Romney, for Congress to hear from Mueller directly. That is exactly what should happen, and soon.

It may be painful for the special counsel to publicly call out the attorney general for willfully misrepresenting-- that is, lying about-- the conclusions of his report and the underlying evidence.

But Mueller can handle it. Even if the Republicans in Congress cannot.

Editorial boards around the country are expressing similar sentiments-- without mention of Mike Lee or Mitt Romney. Republican senators who will have to face the voters next year in swingy states-- like Iowa (Joni Ernst), Colorado (Cory Gardner), Maine (Susan Collins), Arizona (Martha McSally), North Carolina (Thom Tillis), maybe even Georgia (David Perdue), Texas (John Cornyn) and Kentucky (McTurtle)-- don't want their Fox Nation viewers seeing these kinds of editorials in local newspapers. One more thing to consider though: Pelosi's role in refusing to impeach the criminal and treasonous Trump-- and for strictly political reasons. America deserves better than Nancy Pelosi.

Ball and Chain by Nancy Ohanian

Ted Lieu: Instead Of Holding Stupid Hearings About Why Republican Legislators Don't Get Enough Likes On Facebook, We Will Be Holding Hearings On Whether Any Crimes Were Committed

The Washington Post has a squad devoted to reporting on Trump's lies. Monday they wrote about his deranged address at CPAC-- the one that crackpot editor of Reason, Nick Gillespie, insists won him the 2020 election: "Powered by his two-hour stemwinder at the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 2-- which featured more than 100 false or misleading claims-- President Trump is on pace to exceed his daily quota set during his first two years in office. The president averaged nearly 5.9 false or misleading claims a day in his first year in office. He hit nearly 16.5 a day in his second year. So far in 2019, he’s averaging nearly 22 claims a day.

That Trump lies a lot should surprise no one with a functioning brain. At the moment only 4% of the statements PolitiFact have checked out by him are true-- YES, only 4%! Saving grace: another 15% of his statements have been found mostly true. that means just over 4 out of 5 of Trump's checked statements are rated half true, another way of saying half false (14%), mostly false (21%), flat out false (34%) or such big lies that they are rated "Pants on Fire" (14%). Lying isn't an impeachable offense per se. But in Trump's case, it endangers the security of the nation and should absolutely be part of the impeachment process.

In response to a tweet by Bob Cesca after Trump's CPAC breakdown ("This crackpot has the nuclear codes in his pocket. Sleep tight, world."), top Republican Party strategist Stuart Stevens tweeted that "It is impossible to watch Trump’s two hour meltdown at CPAC and think this person is of sound mind." In case you're unaware of who Stevens is, he was Romney's chief strategist in 2012 and worked for President Bush, Governors Haley Barbour (R-MS), Tom Ridge (R-PA), Bill Weld (R-MA), Paul Cellucci (R-MA), and Bob Riley (R-AL), as well as Senators Thad Cochran (R-MS), Dick Lugar (R-IN), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

Mental health isn't impeachable but theoretically there is a way of removing a mentally deranged president, like Trump-- the 25th Amendment. Here's a brief analysis:

[W]hat happens if the President becomes unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office? Several Presidents suffered debilitating illnesses and injuries. For weeks and months at a time, the country was left without effective or accountable presidential leadership. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 provided for the Vice President to step in when the President had an “inability to discharge [his] powers and duties,” but it provided no decision-maker, no procedures, and no definition of “inability.” Nor did it make clear whether the Vice President would act as President only until the President recovered, or instead would become President for the duration of the term. No Vice President wanted to seem like a usurper. In practice, power was never transferred and presidential inner circles typically concealed the President’s condition.

...Section 4 addresses the dramatic case of a President who may be unable to fulfill his constitutional role but who cannot or will not step aside. It provides both a decision-maker and a procedure. The initial deciding group is the Vice President and a majority of either the Cabinet or some other body that Congress may designate (though Congress has never done so). If this group declares a President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” the Vice President immediately becomes Acting President. If and when the President pronounces himself able, the deciding group has four days to disagree. If it does not, the President retakes his powers. But if it does, the Vice President keeps control while Congress quickly meets and makes a decision. The voting rule in these contested cases favors the President; the Vice President continues acting as President only if two-thirds majorities of both chambers agree that the President is unable to serve.

That's never going to work against Trump. He could be filmed naked, eating grass on the front lawn of the White House and screaming obscenities at passers-by and still be declared perfectly sane by Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Steven Mnuchin, Patrick Shanahan, William Barr, Rick Perry, Betsy DeVos, Wilbur Ross, Alex Acosta and Mr. and Mrs. (and Miss) Mitch McConnell, et al. And that takes us back to... Jerry Nadler, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Yesterday, the committee's attorneys sent letters to 81 individuals, companies and government entities seeking a wide range of materials that should be able to help prove that Trump is guilty of clearly impeachable offenses. In the letters, Nadler wrote that "This is a critical time for our nation. President Trump and his administration face wide-ranging allegations of misconduct that strike at the heart of our constitutional order." The letters will lead to closed door interviews and open hearings and some of the recipients include Trumpanzee, Jr., Allen Weisselberg, David Pecker, Alan Garten, Rhona Graff, Ivanka, Kushner-in-law, Steve Bannon, Tom Barrack, Reince Priebus, Don McGahn, Jay Sekulow, KT McFarland, Hope Hicks, Sean Spicer, Corey Lewandowski, Paul Manafort, Anatoli Samochornov, Brad Parscale, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, Carter Page, Erik Prince, Jeff Sessions, Michael Caputo, Randy Credico, Sam Nunberg, Viktor Vekselberg, Tony Fabrizio, as well as Wikileaks and the NRA. I still haven't been able to confirm if either of the Mercers, who were clearly behind Putin-Gate, have gotten letters yet.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders: "The counsel’s office and relevant White House officials will review it and respond at the appropriate time." As I mentioned yesterday-- but worth repeating today-- Judiciary Committee member and Air Force JAG officer, Ted Lieu told me that "Unlike last term, the House Judiciary Committee will actually conduct oversight over the Executive Branch. Instead of holding stupid hearings about why Republican legislators don't get enough likes on Facebook, we will be holding hearings on whether any crimes were committed by Executive Branch officials and those within their orbit. We have launched a massive investigation into Trump, his family and his associates. We do not work for Trump. We are part of a separate and coequal branch of government. And we intend to honor our oath of office."

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Listen, I'm not kidding when I say I have interviewed terrorists who were more cooperative and respected than Matt Whitaker was today.
-Frank Figliuzzi

Another day, another Trumpoid Republican Goon. Betsy DeVos, Kellyanne Conway, Stephen Miller, Spicy, The Mooch, Sarah Huckabbe Sanders, Roger Stone... The list is seemingly endless. Now we've seen the coronation of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker as he took his deserved place on the list. Friday's hearing in the House of Representatives was a thing to behold, and I mean thing. I mean just look at this guy! He's a meme all by himself. I don't ordinarily comment on physical appearances, but when the inner person is just plain rancid, I have no problem going there. In his arrogant monkey-time shitshow of a performance on Friday, Whitaker could have looked like a combo of Rock Hudson and George Clooney and still been the ugliest human in the room, at least until Louie Gohmert started flapping his ears and Gym Jordan started daydreaming about high school wrestlers. All through the hearing, I kept wondering where I had seen that head. At first, I thought Whitaker's face was a face made for science fiction. Look at that bulbous high alien skull! Notice how the eyes are nearly set in the middle of his face! Is this evidence that cousins still marry where he comes from? Where does Trump get these people? Are they the descendants of Stalin's failed attempts to breed an army of half chimp-half human soldiers?

Maybe I'm being somewhat unkind but when I look at the picture above, I worry that, in becoming a republican hero. Whitaker is going to start a whole new fashion of republicans creepily shaving their eyebrows and eyelashes along with shaving their heads and putting on six coats of floor wax followed by a high gloss lacquered sealant. Where have I seen that head before? Who does it remind me of?

Whitaker's lucky he didn't draw a contempt of congress citation. It's wrong that he didn't. He certainly deserved one on attitude alone. An AG is supposed to be America's lawyer, not an advocate for a president or someone auditioning for a future slot on FOX. He just refused to take the day seriously, not that he has the mental capacity to do so. He tried to play the whole thing for laughs and came off as the worst amateur standup comedian you ever had the misery to witness. He was a total embarrassment to our justice system, not just the Justice Department. I even started to feel for the career lawyers in that department. He demonstrated his evasiveness and contemptuousness ("Mr. Chairman, I see that your 5 minutes is up") all through the day.He displayed the classic republican aversion to empathy when Congresswoman Primala Jayapal asked him about children being separated from their parents at our borders. And, of course he insulted Rep. Jayapal in doings so. He was right out of central casting, Trumpoid style. The key statements from Whitaker though were the ones where he said he had not discussed details of the Mueller Investigation with Donnie Sleazeball or any senior administration officials. Left hanging was the question of whether or not he had filled in any lesser administration personnel who may have the job of passing what he tells them on to the top. Shame on the Democrats on the hearing committee for not pursuing that line of inquiry in meaningful depth. That's a classic example of what I always call Washington taking care of its own. They make it look like they're doing something, but only on the surface.

Ah! I've got it! I now realize where I've seen Matthew Whitaker before! He's the hideous freaky human worm baby in David Lynch's Eraserhead, all growed up! Friday's hearing was the sequel! I give it no stars. Zero!

How Many Times Did Matthew Whitacker Perjure Himself Yesterday?

Trump's illegitimate Acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitacker, was grilled by the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. If you missed it, you can watch it on YouTube. Above is a 4 hour slice of the second half from NBC News. The stars of the day were Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), David Cicilline (D-RI), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). I was surprised that Val Demings (D-FL) Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) were as good as she turned out to be. Cedrick Richmond (R-LA), who used the initials DOJ a couple of times without knowing what the initials stand for and is an embarrassment and should be reassigned to a different committee. replacing him with Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) would be a step in the right direction.

Whitacker spent his time trying to run out the clock and stonewall... and lying. He claimed he had "not interfered in any way" with Mueller's investigation into Russia's conspiracy with Trump to steal the 2016 election. His testimony was strictly aimed at Trump-- for another job and, in all likelihood, for an eventual pardon. Here's a copy of the opening statement that his staff prepared for him:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Collins for the opportunity to testify before the Committee today. I am looking forward to discussing with you some of the accomplishments and some of the priorities of this Department of Justice (“Department”).

First of all, let me say that it is an honor to represent the 115,000 men and women of the Department of Justice. The Department is blessed with extremely talented, highly principled public servants who are dedicated to upholding our great Constitution and the laws of the United States.

I saw that up close during my five and a half years as United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. Our office put drug dealers, violent criminals, and gang members behind bars-- and we kept the people of Iowa safe. I personally prosecuted several of these cases and worked with men and women from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the U.S. Marshals Service, and our State and local partners.

In 2017, I returned to the Department and served for 13 months as Chief of Staff to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. I have the greatest respect for General Sessions, who led the Department with integrity, with dedication to the rule of law, and with a commitment to carrying out the policies of the President. I am deeply honored that the President selected me to serve as Acting Attorney General of the Department of Justice until General Sessions’ successor is confirmed by the Senate.

The Senate will soon consider the President’s nomination for our next Attorney General. And let me just say this: no one is more qualified than Bill Barr. I am working to ensure that he will inherit a strong, confident, and effective Department of Justice. And I believe that he will.

For the last three months I have had the privilege of serving as Acting Attorney General, and I am impressed every single day by the dedication and the hard work of our agents and our attorneys.

Over this time, I have visited a number of our offices and met with federal prosecutors from across America. For example, in December, we held our Project Safe Neighborhoods conference-- where employees from nearly every U.S. Attorney’s office celebrated our law enforcement successes and reductions in violent crime. We were honored to be joined by the President for that conference.

Our hard work is paying off. I firmly believe that your constituents are safer because of the work that the Department has done over these past two years. Under this Administration, crime is down-- and police morale is up. In Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2017, the Justice Department charged the largest number of violent crime defendants since we started to track this category back when Bill Barr was the Attorney General. In FY 2018, we broke that record again-- with a margin of nearly 15 percent.

We have taken aggressive action against gun violence. In FY 2018, the Department charged more defendants with gun crimes than ever before. In fact, the Department broke the record by a margin of 17 percent. The Department has also banned bump stocks, improved the background check system, and prosecuted those who lied to get a gun.

Our work is having an impact. In 2017-- after two years of increases under the previous Administration-- violent crime and homicide went down nationwide. We do not yet have official numbers for 2018, but the Brennan Center has estimated that the murder rate in our 29th biggest cities dropped by 7.6 percent.

A lot of crime in this country is related to drug abuse. We are addressing the roots of these crimes by reducing the drug supply and putting drug traffickers behind bars and our efforts have been successful. We have analyzed prescriptions for the first 11 months of 2018 (January-- November) and note that prescriptions dispensed continue to decline by an additional 12.9 percent when compared to the same timeframe in 2017.

These decreases in prescribing rates have allowed DEA to lower the legal limits on production of the six most abused opioids for 2019 by an average of 10 percent.3 DEA has reduced the quotas for the most frequently diverted controlled substance opioids by 44 percent from their highs in 2016.

There is no doubt in the law enforcement community that the vast majority of the illegal drugs in this country is coming over our Southern border, a pattern that is true for all crimes generally. And there is also no doubt that criminals and cartels seek to exploit weaknesses in our southern border.

For this reason, we continue our efforts to restore the rule of law at the border and in our immigration system. In FY 2018, we charged more aliens who illegally entered the United States with improper entry than in any year in American history. In fact, we charged 85 percent more defendants with illegally entering America than we did in the previous year. At the same time, we increased the number of felony illegal re-entry prosecutions by more than 38 percent. Whatever our views on immigration policy —we should all be opposed to illegal immigration, and we should support these efforts.

The Department is also taking decisive action against human trafficking, both domestically and internationally. Human traffickers, like other criminal enterprises take advantage of our porous Southern Border to smuggle women and children into United States to exploit them for compelled labor or sex. We are bringing prosecutions to dismantle transnational trafficking networks that lure victims across our borders and traffic them for profit. Last year, the Department of Justice secured a record of 526 human trafficking convictions-- a 5 percent increase over the previous year. We are continuing to advance innovative counter-trafficking strategies, like the Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team Initiative. Through this initiative, there has been an increase in prosecutions in districts where we have convened specialized AntiTrafficking Coordination Teams.

These are all important measures of our effectiveness-- and the men and women of the Department deserve a lot of credit. In district after district across America, our agents and our attorneys are becoming more and more focused on tackling today’s most pressing criminal threats.

Our attorneys are also defending the rights of the American people in court-- including freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, and the right to vote. In November, the Department provided election monitoring at polling places around the country. Our Civil Rights Division deployed personnel to 35 jurisdictions in 19 states to monitor for compliance with federal voting rights laws. The Public Integrity Section prosecutors served as subject matter experts for federal prosecutors and investigators nationwide, working with the FBI at the Strategic Information and Operations Center while the polls were open. Since the election, they have helped secure the conviction of a political consultant in Philadelphia for campaign finance crimes arising out of two separate elections.

The Department continues to civil rights by aggressively prosecuting hate crimes. In Charlottesville, we secured a 30-count indictment against the defendant who drove a car into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators, killing Heather Heyer. In Pittsburgh, we have charged the shooter accused of taking the lives of 11 worshipers at the Tree of Life Synagogue with 60 federal counts, including 13 hate crimes violations. In Jeffersontown, Kentucky, we charged the defendant for the racially motivated shooting of three African American patrons at a Kroger store. And in Garden City, Kansas, we convicted three men for conspiring to bomb an apartment complex, because it was the home of many Somali immigrants, and the mosque at which they worshipped. These are among the 50 hate crimes defendants indicted and the 30 hate crimes defendants convicted by this Administration in FY 2018.

Over my time as Acting Attorney General, I have done everything in my power to continue regular order and to keep up our momentum in pursuing the law-and-order agenda that the American people voted for.

Finally, I would like to briefly address Mr. Chairman’s letter from January 22, 2019, in which you advised that the Committee may seek to ask questions about communications I may have had with the President on a number of topics. I want to assure you that I will seek to answer the Committee’s questions today, as best as I can, but I also must make clear that I will continue the longstanding Executive Branch policy and practice of not disclosing information that may be subject to executive privilege, such as the contents of deliberations or conversations with the President. The Supreme Court has recognized that the presidential communications privilege is fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution. I trust that the Members of this Committee will respect the confidentiality that is necessary to the proper functioning of the Presidency-- just as we respect the confidentiality necessary to the Legislative Branch.

Although I cannot speak about my communications with the President, I do want to make clear that I am personally committed to the integrity of the Department of Justice. Since becoming Acting Attorney General, I have run the Department to the best of my ability, with fidelity to the law and to the Constitution. The Department makes its law enforcement decisions based upon the facts and law of each individual case, in accordance with established Department practices, and independent of any outside interference. There has been no change in the overall management of the Special Counsel investigation. I have and will continue to manage this investigation in a manner that is consistent with the governing regulations.

Don't want to watch the 6 hour version? How about 6 minutes?