Go Home

judiciary committee

14 documents found in 0.001 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (85)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (350)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

They just can't help themselves, can they?

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) in response to a question from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) during a House Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on H.R. 1797 (June 12, 2013), via Rep.Zoe Lofgren:

via WaPo

Another Republican congressman ventured into the realm of rape and pregnancy Wednesday, saying at a committee hearing that incidences of pregnancy from rape are “very low.”

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), whose measure banning abortions after 20 weeks was being considered in the House Judiciary Committee, argued against a Democratic amendment to make exceptions for rape and incest by suggesting that pregnancy from rape is rare.

At least one Republican called out Frank's remarks, Massachusetts Senate candidate Gabriel Gomez, who called Frank "a moron", several times.

“I think that he’s a moron and he proves that stupid has no specific political affiliation"...“I have no idea what goes into the mind of a moron like that."



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (192)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3179)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

From this Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Darrell Issa wasn't the only one who had a contentious back and forth with Attorney General Eric Holder: Holder smacks down Gohmert over Boston bombings–’You cannot know what I know’:

An already-ugly House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday turned even nastier when Texas Republican Louie Gohmert took the wheel on questions related to last month’s Boston Marathon bombing–specifically, about what the FBI did and did not do after receiving information from Russian intelligence that suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been radicalized.

Attorney General Eric Holder had already faced a heavy grilling on both the AP and IRS scandals plaguing the Obama administration this week when Gohmert began pelting him with accusations that the FBI shirked a thorough examination of Tsarnaev because of “political correctness.”

“On the one hand, we go after Christian groups like Billy Graham’s group, we go after Franklin Graham’s group, but then we’re hands off when it comes to possibly offending someone who has been radicalized as a terrorist,” said Gohmert.

The Texas lawmaker added that though he “appreciated” the concern of racial profiling, he believes “there were a lot more people in America concerned about being blown up by terrorists.”

Holder fired back that Gohmert was speaking “as a matter of fact” about information not fully available to him.

“Unless somebody’s done something inappropriate, you don’t have access to the FBI files,” said Holder. “You don’t know what the FBI did. You don’t know what the FBI’s interaction was with the Russians. You don’t know what questions were put to the Russians, whether those questions were responded to. You simply do not know that…I know what the FBI did. You cannot know what I know.”

Yeah, old "terror babies" Gohmert is back at it again, fearmongering as usual.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (112)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (622)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R) on Thursday warned his colleagues in the Senate that people who were "wearing some form of turban" were illegally immigrating into the United States by crossing the Southern border.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to consider amendments to the bipartisan immigration reform bill, Cornyn asserted that he had "anecdotal" evidence that only 25 percent of undocumented immigrants crossing the border were caught by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

"In fact, anecdotally, the border patrol last -- on Sunday and Monday were telling me, they think they maybe catch one out of every four people coming across the border," he declared. "Maybe one out of every three. And that's a problem."

The Texas senator argued that this made the case for an amendment offered by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), which establishes "triggers" that prohibits legalizing undocumented immigrants until the Department of Homeland Security has established "effective control" of the border for six months.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), however, pointed out that a 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that the Border Patrol had a 82 percent effectiveness rate at catching illegal border crossings.

"I would love to see that report because I don't believe that's the case," Cornyn replied. "The problem is the effectiveness rate you referred to doesn't take into account the people that cross illegally and the department is not tracking. In other words, it doesn't take into account the people that get away, which could, according to the anecdotal reports, be two out of every three, three out of every four."

Cornyn added that he had also been told during his recent visit to the southern border in Texas that "we're not just seeing the border penetrated by people from Mexico or Central America."

Continue reading »



So Republicans, how's that minority outreach program of yours going? It seems xenophobes like Kris Kobach haven't learned anything from his buddy Mitt Romney's loss in the presidential election.

Big Surprise: Kris Kobach Still Believes in Self-Deportation:

Remember how the Mitt Romney-espoused "self-deportation" rhetoric was supposed to end up in the dustbin of history following President Obama's huge margins among Latino voters back in November? Apparently no one told Kris Kobach.

The Kansas secretary of state and intellectual author of harsh laws in states like Arizona and Alabama was back at it again earlier today, this time at the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on the Gang of Eight's immigration bill. In response to questions from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Kobach said that "self-deportation is not some radical idea. It is simply the idea that people may comply with the law by their own choice."

GOP Immigration Guru Insists DREAMers Should Self-Deport:

Speaking at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing, Kobach insisted that DREAM eligible applicants, many of whom have lived in the United States for most of their lives, should not be rewarded for the “sins of their parents.” Instead, DREAMers should go back to their parents’ country of origin, Kobach said, and “get in line with the rest of their countrymen.” “That just defies basic compassion,” Durbin shot back, pointing to to Gabby Pacheco, an undocumented immigrant brought to America at the age of eight from Ecuador, who was testifying alongside Kobach. “She’s never known any other country,” Durbin explained, “this is her home.” [...]

Kobach responded by reviving self-deportation, arguing that “if you ratchet up the penalties for violating the law, people choose to leave.”

But Durbin predicted that the momentum has shifted from deportation to reform after the 2012 election. “Ultimately the voters have the last word. The voters had the last word on self-deportation on Nov. 6, so we’re beyond that now,” he said.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (182)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1643)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Monday became irate and yelled at Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) during a Senate hearing at the suggestion that he had used last week's Boston Marathon bombing to try and delay immigration reform.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday, Grassley had said that knowing the immigration status of the Boston bombers would "help shed light on the weaknesses of our system."

"How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?" he asked.

In his opening remarks on Monday, committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that he was troubled that some people would use the tragedy in Boston to slow down immigration reform.

"Let no one be so cruel as to try to use the heinous act of these two young men last week to derail the dreams and futures of millions of hardworking people," Leahy remarked. "A nation as strong as ours can welcome the oppressed and persecuted without making compromise on our security. We are capable of vigilance in pursuit of these values."

Grassley made it clear that he had taken Leahy's opening statement personally.

chuck.jpg

"If you want to want to avoid partisanship, I would say, let's be very deliberate," the Iowa Republican said. "And I want you to take note of the fact that when you proposed gun legislation, I didn't accuse you of using the Norsetown [sic] killings as an excuse."

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (111)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (319)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Friday said that Monday's tragic bombing at the Boston Marathon was a reason not move to quickly to pass a bipartisan proposal for comprehensive immigration reform.

"Given the events of this week, it's important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system," Grassley told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "While we don't yet know the immigration status of people who terrorized the the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system."

"How can individuals evade authority and plan such attacks on our soil? How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the United States? How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?"

CBS News reported on Friday that 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the man being hunted by police as a suspect in Monday's bombings, became a U.S. citizen on Sept. 11, 2012 after coming to the country on a tourist visa in April 2002. Before becoming a citizen, he sought asylum in September 2002 and gained lawful resident status in February 2007.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's 26-year-old brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed in a firefight with police on Thursday night. His legal status was not immediately known.

Earlier this week, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) speculated that the bombings in Boston had been perpetrated by a “foreign national” and that Congress should proceed with caution on any immigration reform efforts. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) also warned that “radical Islamists” were “being trained to come in and act like Hispanics.”

(h/t: Huffington Post)



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (101)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (463)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

At an event for bloggers at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday night, tea party-backed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-SC) toasted the late conservative activist Andrew Breitbart as a "great and fearless leader."

Following a confrontation with Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) over guns at a Senate Judiciary Committee, Cruz met up with conservative bloggers at the 4th annual Blog Bash, which bills itself as "the largest gathering of right-of-center bloggers."

"Let me tell you, the men and women in this room, you represent power and you represent democracy," Cruz told the crowd. "Let me tell you, each of you, you scare the hell out of Washington... Y'all are on front lines of taking this country back."

The Texas Republican ended his pep talk by holding up a beer in Breitbart's memory.

"I want to collectively remember our friend. And a toast to Andrew Breitbart," he said, turning up the bottle. "A great and fearless leader, and we all carry on with his unshakable, fearless spirit to speak the truth to power. And the more they quiver, the better job we're doing. God bless."

Cruz' speech sent the conservative blog Weasel Zippers into a state of giddiness.

"Must stop swooning… must stop swooning… I’m trying as hard as I can," blogger Zip wrote.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (448)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (6705)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

As Igor Volsky at Think Progress noted yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) got called out during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing when repeating the NRA's talking points about why background checks for all gun purchases supposedly won't work. It was nice to see someone stand up to Graham and the bullying we've seen from him during these hearings.

Police Chief Embarrasses Lindsey Graham At Gun Hearing:

During a heated exchange at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) proposed assault weapons ban on Wednesday, Edward Flynn pointedly interrupted Graham’s claims that the federal government is failing to deter individuals from misrepresenting themselves in the background check process by failing to prosecute people who were rejected from purchasing a weapon as a result of their false claims.

Flynn argued that rather than embark on a “paper chase,” law enforcement officials are focused on preventing people from purchasing guns illegally, eliciting loud applause from the audience:

GRAHAM: When almost 80,000 people fail a background check and 44 people are prosecuted, what kind of deterrent is that? I mean, the law obviously is not seeing that as important…. We absolutely do nothing to enforce the laws on the books…

FLYNN: Just for the record, from my point of view, the point of a background check…

GRAHAM: How many cases have you made? How many cases have you made?

FLYNN: It doesn’t matter, it’s a paper thing. I want to stop 76,000 people from getting guns illegally. That’s what a background check does. If you think we’re going to do paperwork prosecutions, you’re wrong. [...] We don’t make those cases. We have priorities. We make gun cases. We make 2,000 gun cases a year, senator, that’s our priority. We’re not in a paper chase. We’re trying to prevent the wrong people from buying guns. That’s why we do background checks. If you think I’m going to do a paper chase, then you think I’m going to misuse my resources.

[...] Indeed, the “low number of prosecutions in 2010, the most recent year for which data are available, is consistent with other years” and is often seen as a poor use of resources. Prosecutors must prove that “the person knew they were lying when they tried to purchase the firearm” in order to secure a conviction which “usually carries a maximum sentence of just six months.”

UPDATE: The Rev. Al Sharpton spoke to Chief Flynn following his testimony and got his reaction to the heated exchange he had with Graham during the hearing. Flynn expressed his frustration over his dealings with Graham and I wanted to share at least this short portion of his conversation with Sharpton about the hearing:

FLYNN: And I found extraordinarily frustrating as I sat there... every one of those Senators with Lindsey Graham got up there and said, oh, we respect your work and oh, we're so sorry about the tragedy in Newtown, but, oh by the way, we're not going to do anything about it. Well, that's unacceptable. And you can't help but become a little agitated when somebody engages in a piece of sophistry that says, look over here, nobody prosecuted these people for filling out their paperwork wrong. No, but we've locked up thousands of gun offenders and the paperwork that was done prevented hundreds of thousands of more from getting guns illegally. So the background check worked.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (310)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2754)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

I'm fairly sure Graham knows that, but as long as he's worried about some TeaBircher giving him a primary challenge, he's going to continue with the sophistry.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (243)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2842)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

CNN host Soledad O'Brien on Thursday scolded Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and told him he should know better than to try to link assault weapons to "black violence on blacks" because most recent mass killings had been carried out by white men.

Following National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre's Wednesday testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he opposed universal background checks at gun shows, O'Brien asked Grassley why not support something that seemed like an obvious part of the solution.

Grassley argued that universal background checks would burden people trying to buy a gun on Sunday.

"Obviously we have some background checks, it's how encompassing do you do it?" he explained. "Do you do it for one father selling to a son or another relative or how do you cover everything? I think that's the issue. And also, the extent to which you have private sales on Sunday between relatives, and maybe you can't access the system all the time and as fast as you want to do it."

O'Brien pressed Grassley on why he opposed an assault weapons ban, when even the temporary 1994 ban had reduced the number of crimes involving those firearms by between 17 percent and 72 percent, according to a 2004 study by the University of Pennsylvania.

"I guess you can argue over numbers," Grassley replied, adding that the Columbine High School massacre had occurred during the 1994 ban.

"Part of the argument is if you start now that there's potential down the road to make some of a difference," the CNN host pointed out. "Sometimes I hear the argument that you're never going to get rid of all the guns or you're never going to get rid of all the assault weapons. It seems to me to be a little bit of a specious argument."

O'Brien then wondered why Grassley was also against a "common-sense kind of thing" like tasking the Center for Disease Control with studying gun violence.

"The Center for Disease Control is all about studying diseases, and ownership of guns is not a disease," Grassley insisted.

"Public health?" O'Brien noted. "If you look at a city like Chicago, where there has been just massive, massive deaths from gun violence. That's not a public health issue?"

"Well, I think that's the place in our society where you would study the issue of black violence on blacks," the Iowa Republican asserted. "Most of those guns are pistols and not the guns that you're talking about on this program."

"Well, certainly when we are looking at assault weapons, I know that you know that most of the perpetrators have been white men," O'Brien remarked while noting that the CDC had spent $2.5 million studying gun violence in 1993.

"I would think that anybody who wants to figure out how to stop people from dying in gun violence -- whether it's suicide, whether it's small children being killed in a massacre, whether it's domestic violence -- that just studying the issue would be a good idea for everybody," she continued.

"I said I agree with you because that's part of the mental health issue that we have to deal with, yet, during this debate," Grassley replied. "Because in everyone of these instances that keeps cropping up, where mass killings, people had mental health issues. They shouldn't have had guns in the first place."



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (105)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (263)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

From this week's Fox News Sunday, Bloody Bill Kristol tells host Chris Wallace that "everything should be on the table" and we need some "serious hearings" on gun control in the United States after this tragic shooting at the elementary school in Connecticut this week, as long as that doesn't include anything different than what the Republicans support already. He's right there with the more guns will keep us safer crowd here, no matter how he's trying to spin this.

They can have all the hearings they want, but if our politicians are going to continue to be beholden to the nut job running the NRA right now, nothing's going to change and Kristol knows it. That didn't stop him from trying to pretend like he thinks the Republicans should make some meaningful compromises on the issue of gun control as he did here:

WALLACE: Bill, let’s look at this from the Republican point of view. Will Republicans -- should Republicans change or modify their strong opposition to gun control, especially -- not the right to bear arms but, especially on the question of these weapons of mass destruction? You know, as I say, the handgun that could fire five bullets in a second, the magazines 100 rounds. Should Republicans consider giving on that issue?

KRISTOL: I think Republicans and everyone else should take a serious look at what might work. And I think the speaker could well ask the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings, but hold serious hearings, about what would work. Don’t do something symbolic like the assault weapons ban, which did no good and made everyone feel good and ended up evaporating and couldn’t be sustained even in a Democratic -- wasn’t restored when the Democrats controlled everything in 2009, 2010.

So I’m totally open to having serious -- and there’s a lot of social science research on gun control. I don’t think it’s very favorable to most efforts of gun control, and I think -- but everything has to be on the table, too. Is it sensible to have gun- free zones? Maybe elementary -- maybe the money would be better spent having security guards than having, you know, new background checks in a case where this -- the purchase of the guns in this case passed background checks.

Connecticut’s a pretty liberal state. I believe the Democratic Party controls all the branches of government in Connecticut. They chose not to ban the things we’re talking about, I guess, right? They could have, couldn’t they?

EASTON: State laws are useless. I mean, you can order things online now. I mean, it’s, sort of...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: He did buy them in the state...

KRISTOL: I’m just saying, let’s have an honest debate. Let’s have a debate about privacy laws and mental health. But I do think the Republican Party shouldn’t be in the position of saying you can’t even discuss this, and I think the speaker could easily ask, since they control one house of Congress -- Senator Reid could do this on the other side, and so they’d have serious hearings about the legal issues and the public policy issues.