Congress GOP Justice Department The Biden Administration

WATCH A DOJ Official Give Jim Jordan A Brutal Fact-Check During House Hearing

A hearing of the House Judiciary Committee wound up proving just how little chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) knows about the law or U.S. history, with an official of the Justice Department having to give Jordan some embarrassing facts which completely undercut the point he was trying to make.

Jordan asked Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke about a civil rights investigation into Elon Musk’s SpaceX company, which the DOJ has accused of refusing to hire asylum recipients and refugees in direct violation of U.S. law.

“Did Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter have anything to do with the Justice Department’s decision to file that lawsuit against SpaceX?” Jordan asked Clarke.

Clarke told Jordan that the DOJ investigation of SpaceX began during the Trump administration.

“The investigation into SpaceX was open during the last administration, and we filed an administrative action under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an important law passed by this body with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Reagan,” she noted.

Jordan: “What are you alleging that SpaceX did wrong?”

Clarke: “In this case, we allege that the company is not compliant with the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

Rather than accept that, Jordan asked, “They’re discriminating against refugees and asylum seekers, is that right?”

Once again, Clarke had to fact check Jordan.

“No, Chairman. Against people who have received refugee status and asylum status by our federal courts and who enjoy equal standing under federal law to U.S. citizens and naturalized citizens.

“The law requires equal treatment of these individuals.”

Jordan continued to press.

“I just want to cut to the chase. You’re suing SpaceX because they hired too many Americans, too many citizens.”

“And yet you bring the lawsuit after Mr. Musk purchases Twitter, now X, is that right?”

Clarke shut Jordan down by responding: “We apply the laws that this body gave us without fear or favor.”

Congress Crime Donald Trump GOP Justice Department

House Republicans Demand Jack Smith Give Them All Trump Indictment Documents – Or Else

Perhaps sensing that the federal criminal case progressing against former president Donald Trump on multiple fronts is closer to becoming a slam dunk for Special Counsel Jack Smith, three members of the House Republican caucus are now demanding that Smith and the Justice Department hand over all of the documents related to Trump’s indictment.

According to Eric Cortellessa of Time Magazine, House Oversight Committee members James Comer (R-KY), Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) sent a letter in which they demand “all documents and and communications” between Smith and the DOJ that pertain to Trump or his federal indictments.

The three lawmakers also threatened to use a “compulsory process” if Smith doesn’t comply by Dec. 15.

Specifically, Jordan, Comer, and Luna say they want to know how Smith empaneled grand juries and how he decided what witnesses he would offer immunity in exchange for the testimony. In other words, they want to know everything Smith knows even though they aren’t entitled to such information until after the case has concluded.

What “compulsory process” would be used against Smith? That remains unclear, but it’s safe to say no federal court in the country is going to compel the Justice Department to hand over information related to an ongoing criminal prosecution.

Here’s more from Eric Cortellessa, which he shared on Twitter:

Donald Trump GOP Justice Department The Trump Adminstration WTF?!

Evidence Suggests Some Congressional Republicans Could Still Be Charged For Jan. 6

While it’s been clear for some time now that former President Donald Trump was directly involved in fomenting the violence that took place on January 6 at the U.S. Capitol, reporting from The New York Times suggests that some Republicans in Congress also played a role in the efforts to subvert the 2020 election and keep power through a violent uprising.

Specifically, the Times reveals that notes taken by a top deputy to then-Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen point directly to a coordinated effort between Trump and members of Congress. Those notes, which were handwritten by deputy AG Richard Donoghue, report what Trump told Rosen:

“Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.”

That, many legal experts said, is a literal smoking gun, and it means that several Republicans in Congress are facing indictment for their role in what transpired on that fateful day.

Philip Bump of The Washington Post focused in on the notation from Donoghue:

“What Donoghue’s notes suggest is that Trump had fully bought into the effort that would eventually become his Alamo: having Republican legislators block the electoral-vote counting due to take place at the Capitol on Jan. 6.”

Failing to certify counting of the electoral votes would have resulted in a Constitutional crisis. The added chaos of a riot at the Capitol would have provided the perfect opportunity for Trump to declare a national emergency and refuse to hand over the reins of power to Joe Biden. It also would have provided an “excuse” for a coup d’etat. And it would have even had the blessing of a faction in Congress.

Once again, quoting Philip Bump:

“Some congressional Republicans clearly did their best to aid Trump’s effort. On the morning of Jan. 6, (Rep Mo) Brooks spoke before Trump at a rally outside the White House. It was time, he said, to ‘start taking down names and kicking ass.’ It’s not clear if any of those in attendance did the former, but some clearly did the latter.”

Brooks, along with Reps. Jim Jordan, Jim Banks, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Kevin McCarthy (and perhaps others) may well find themselves charged with crimes by the Justice Department.


GOP Justice Department Religion

Garland Goes NUCLEAR On Republican For Accusing Him Of Religious Discrimination

Attorney General Merrick Garland went off on Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday when the congressman suggested that the Justice Department discriminates against Catholics who are opposed to abortion.

Van Drew began by remarking, “The two-tiered system of justice is clear and it’s clear to the American public. And the buck stops with the man in charge. That man is you. The actions of the DOJ are on you. The decline of Americans trust in our federal law enforcement is on you. The political weaponization of the DOJ is on you. Attorney General, I need a simple yes or no to the following. Just yes or no because we don’t have much time. Do you agree that traditional Catholics are violent extremists, yes or no?”

The AG replied,  “Let me answer what you’ve said in that long list of-“

“Attorney General, I control the time. I’m gonna ask you to answer the questions I ask,” Van Drew insisted.

Garland: “You’ve controlled the time by asking me a substantial number of things and I –”

Van Drew:  “I didn’t ask you those things, I made a statement. Attorney General, through the chair I ask you, do you agree that traditional Catholics are violent extremists? Answer the question.”

“I have no idea what traditional means here, let me just-” Garland insisted before Van Drew cut him off again.

“Catholics! Catholics that go to church.”

Garland: “May I answer your question? The idea that someone with my family background would discriminate against any religion is so outrageous! So absurd!”

Garland’s family fled from Russia due to anti-Semitism, and the fact that Van Drew would ask such a question clearly infuriated him.

Van Drew continued to press.

“Mr. Attorney General, it was your FBI that did this. It was your FBI that was sending — and we have the memos, we have the emails –were sending undercover agents into Catholic churches.”

The AG replied, “Both I and the director of the FBI have said that we were appalled by that memo.”

Mediaite notes that Van Drew was clearly referring to recent convictions of pro-life Catholics who blockaded family planning clinics:

Garland and Van Drew continued to spar over the DOJ’s treatment of religious Catholics. The former’s DOJ has been criticized for its zealous prosecution of pro-life activists. Last week, two 70+ year old women were found guilty of being “engaged in a conspiracy to create a blockade at the reproductive health care clinic to prevent the clinic from providing, and patients from receiving, reproductive health services.”

Here’s the video:


Crime Elections GOP

Lindsey Graham Likely To Be Charged By DOJ For His Role In 2020 Election Crimes: Legal Expert

Even though he managed to dodge a bullet from Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is still not in the clear legally and is likely to face criminal charges from the Justice Department, according to a former U.S. attorney.

A grand jury in the Peach State recommended that Graham and two other former GOP senators — Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue — be indicted, but the DA filed no charges against them.

Graham should still be worried, Barbara McQuade, former U.S. Attorney for Michigan noted Saturday morning on MSNBC’s “The Katie Phang Show.”

Phang speculated that Graham may still be forced to testify at the Georgia racketeering trials of Trump and 18 other co-defendants, and that led McQuade to remark, “He may want to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.”

“The fact that this special grand jury recommended that he be indicted, it does indicate that he has some criminal exposure here,” McQuade added. “So it could be that his lawyer requests immunity for him to testify. If that is not received, then he may refuse to testify and then, when you’ve got these two different cases pending, the federal, case and state case, you have to worry about, even if Fani Willis isn’t going to charge you there’s a possibility he’d be charged federally.”

“And so, because of that exposure, it may be some of these witnesses demand immunity before they agreed to testify and waived their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. So in other words, they may not all be done yet.”

Lindsey had better hope he has one hell of a good attorney. Chances are things are going to get much worse for him before they get better.