House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff is postponing an
upcoming meeting on taking action against Attorney General William Barr
amid a deal with the Department of Justice regarding the Mueller report.
According to a statement from Schiff Wednesday, the Department of
Justice will begin turning over counterintelligence materials and
foreign intelligence materials this week.
This comes after the agency told Schiff it was reviewing some
documents he is seeking, but warned him the process would not continue
if the panel held a contempt vote.
House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., responds to
reporters as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., calls a
meeting with all the House Democrats at the Capitol in Washington,
Wednesday, May 22, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Schiff outlined what he expects the department to produce:
“The Department of Justice agreed to
begin a rolling production of documents to our committee, starting with
initial set of twelve categories of documents we had requested that
contain intelligence and counterintelligence information that was
alluded to in the report. These are part of the underlying documents
that we’ve been seeking. So that production should begin this week. We
should have the full 12 sets of documents by the end of next week.”
In his statement, Schiff also said the subpoena against the attorney
general will remain in effect and be enforced if the department fails to
comply.
Dem Adam Schiff Renews Effort to Repeal 1st Amendment
Two hundred and fifty years ago, the American colonists had no freedom of speech.
Anything they said that was considered negative about their
British rulers ended up getting them charged with sedition and they were
summarily arrested and charged.
There is a reason that freedom of speech and freedom of
religion were the subjects of the First Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Our Founding Fathers wanted to guarantee that citizens of the
new country would not be persecuted for speaking their minds in public.
However, for the second time in less than a decade, a Democrat
proposed a constitutional amendment that would basically eliminate the
First Amendment rights, and the movement is being pushed by top House
Trump-hater Adam Schiff (D-CA).In September 2014, 54 Democratic senators voted to repeal the First Amendment of the Constitution.
They were supporting a proposed constitutional amendment by Sen. Tom
Udall, D-N.M., whose stated goal was to overturn the Supreme Court’s
landmark Citizens Uniteddecision, which struck down a host of dubious campaign finance rules.
It is probably not a coincidence that their party lost nine Senate
seats later that year, or that 18 of the Democrats who voted for it are
no longer senators.
Now, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has proposed a similar amendment. It is not identical, yet it has the same core flaw. In their zeal to overturn the Citizens United decision,
Democrats want to abolish the freedom of political speech, which, if
such distinctions can be made, is the most important form of speech
protected by the amendment…If you have noticed that every since Obama squatted in the White
House, that Democrats in general have become bolder in their effort to
strip conservatives of their constitutional rights.
They are busy trying to strip us of our Second Amendment
rights to bear arms; our Fourth Amendment rights that prohibit illegal
search and seizure as well as the Tenth Amendment that leaves most of
the authority of government in the hands of the States.
The Obama administration launch its war to strip Christian of their First Amendment right of freedom of religion.
Social media and internet giants, all controlled by socialist
Democrats, have been blatantly violating the First Amendment right of
free speech.
Not only have some Democrats called for the repeal of the
Second Amendment, but now there is an effort to repeal the First
Amendment, which would make every Christian and conservative a criminal.
President Donald Trump delivers a statement in the Rose Garden of the
White House, Wednesday, May 22, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan
Vucci)
President Trump recently addressed the Mueller investigation and the
Democrats for continuing investigations into his administration.
In the Rose Garden Wednesday, the president reiterated there was no
Russian collusion. He cited the Mueller report, saying he has been one
of the most transparent president’s in the country’s history.
Instead, the president insisted this was all an attempt to take him
down, adding, the crime was committed on the other side by Democrats.
This comes after the House Speaker said “we believe the president of
the United States is engaged in a cover up.” The president rejected
Pelosi’s allegations:
“And I said let’s have the meeting on
infrastructure, we’ll get that done easily. That’s one of the easy
ones. And instead of walking in happily into a meeting I walk in to look
at people that had just said that I was doing a cover up. I don’t do
cover ups. You people know that probably better than anybody.”
The president is demanding Democrats end what he called their “phony
investigations” before he will negotiate with them on issues like
infrastructure.
Nancy should clean up her own backyard before talking about someone else.
San Francisco was once considered to be one of the most beautiful
cities in the world.. Now, business are leaving in droves, with the
homeless literally taking over this once vibrant city.
The streets are littered with trash, drug needles, and “poop”… Yes,
human feces… So, how did the city once known for it’s beauty and
cleanliness go from being one of California’s most prized possessions to
a slum filled with drug addicts, and homeless, and sanctuary status
seekers?
Liberalism has turned the city once known for it’s cable cars and the
magnificent Golden Gate Bridge, into the city where it is only safe for
illegal aliens, for the homeless to use as their personal toilet, and
criminals to find safe harbor.
It’s Not Just San Francisco – Every Major City Run By Liberals Turns Into a Ghetto Slum
Cities all across America, that are run by liberal democrats seem to
fall apart. Baltimore, Philadelphia, San Francisco, etc.. etc.. have
all been run by elected liberal democrats for years but the problem only
seems to get worse.
San Francisco’s fall from grace has been more recent and the rapid
recession of the city has been fueled by being well known as a Sanctuary
City.. Illegal Aliens flood into the city every day to find safety.
However, do they contribute anything to the welfare of the city? No,
the homeless problems get worse..
“Pooping in the streets” does not seem like this would be acceptable
in a civilized society. They now have “Pooping Zones” where it is legal
to use the city as your personal toilet. So, how does San Francisco
combat this problem? Well, for the longest time they have did nothing..
They have ignored the problem. Nancy Pelosi
has represented the 12th district of California since 2013.
Coincidentally, this is about the time when San Francisco’s homeless /
drugs / and diseased streets has exasperated drastically. Perhaps,
liberal ideology isn’t the answer? However, now that the city is a
Sanctuary safe haven for illegals and criminals fleeing prosecution how
do you combat this problem?
An NBC Bay Area did an investigation and
found dangerous concoction of drug needles, garbage, and feces lining
the streets of downtown San Francisco. The Investigative Unit surveyed
more than 150 blocks, including some of the city’s top tourist
destinations, and discovered conditions that are now being compared to
some of the worst slums in the world.
They observed 153 city blocks that stretched for 20 miles in San
Francisco.. They found that 96 out of those 153 blocks were soiled with
piles of human feces. Not only did they observe (they finally caved
into pressure to investigate) the “human pooping” in the streets, they
also found 41 of the blocks had used drug needles laying in the streets
where children play and walk to school.
Does this sound like the beautiful San Francisco Bay photos that you have seen on postcards? Likely not…
First you might say, that the investigation only covered the dirties
part’s of the city.. This would be a false assumption because they
covered some of the most popular tourist spots in SF.
The Investigative Unit surveyed 153
blocks of the city – the more than 20-mile stretch includes popular
tourist spots like Union Square and major hotel chains. The area –
bordered by Van Ness Avenue, Market Street, Post Street and Grant Avenue
– is also home to City Hall, schools, playgrounds, and a police
station.
Here is a very telling chart of the human waste and rise in drug
needle usage in SF that Nancy Pelosi and Governor Jerry Brown have
helped contribute to. This is the result of “Sanctuary Status” cities in
America.. Turning a once beautiful city into one large slum that has
businesses and homeowners fleeing the area.
There is no logic when your city’s policies are based on liberalism. In 2016-2017 the City Budget was 60.1 million dollars for environmental services.
The 60 million dollars was supposed to be used to clean the streets,
removing graffiti, repairing public buildings, maintaining bridges,
plazas, tunnels and more.. However, due to the homeless “pooping in the
streets” and drug needles littering the sidewalks, the Public Works
program has been spending 30 million, 50% of the budget on cleaning
human feces, dirty needles and homeless encampment areas.
Public buildings, bridges, tunnels, street repairs etc.. have largely
been ignored. Over time the once beautiful infrastructure of San
Francisco will inevitably decay and turn into the slums similar to third
world countries.
Third world countries? Is San Francisco really getting that bad?
Dr. Lee Riley, who has researched conditions of the World’s poorest slums had this to say :
“If you do get stuck with these
disposed needles you can get HIV, Hepatitis C, Hepatitis B, and a
variety of other viral diseases,” said Dr. Lee Riley, an infectious
disease expert at University of California, Berkeley. He warned that
once fecal matter dries, it can become airborne, releasing potentially
dangerous viruses, such as the rotavirus. “If you happen to inhale that,
it can also go into your intestine,” he said. The results can prove
fatal, especially in children.
Do we have a problem yet? Not only
is San Francisco comparable to 3rd world countries, but it is even worse
in many cases. Dr. Lee said :
“The contamination is … much greater than communities
in Brazil or Kenya or India,” he said. He notes that in those countries,
slum dwellings are often long-term homes for families and so there is
an attempt to make the surroundings more livable. Homeless communities
in San Francisco, however, are often kicked out from one part of town
and forced to relocate to another. The result is extreme contamination,
according to Riley.
Now, the kicker to all of this is, the liberal answer
to this social / financial / environmental disaster is to build more
housing for the homeless. All at the taxpayers expense (not that
California citizen’s haven’t been taxed enough already). California Lawmakers plan is to impose a 3 billion dollar new program
to address this crisis. Basically more taxes, free housing for illegal
aliens, vagrants, and criminals fleeing criminal prosecution.. Where
safety abounds in SF, at the expense of the taxpayers expense and the
safety of it’s citizens.
Our Takeaway?
Well, first of all San Francisco needs to wake up.
Liberal ideology is not the answer. Democrat leadership has done
nothing but turn your city into a slum. A dangerous slum at that..
Human feces in the street can spread disease which can quickly turn into
a plague for a city. Dirty needles where children play and walk to
school is unacceptable for any city in America. Either stand up and
make a change in your community, or watch SF fall further into decay as a
third world country community. Socialism isn’t the answer. San Francisco is glaring proof of this.
What a put down for the dumb Dems that voted her in :-)
AOC says only a 'sea sponge' would believe her '12 years' doomsday remark, but most Dems bought it
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s
claim that the world will “end in 12 years” unless climate change is
tackled was accepted as a fact by two-thirds of Democrats, even though
she said herself that only those with the “social intelligence of a sea
sponge” could actually believe it.
The New York Democrat drew
mockery from Republicans after she made the doomsday warning in a bid to
convince people that radical action against climate change is needed.
“Millennials
and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us
are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if
we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we
gonna pay for it?'” Ocasio-Cortez said. A few months later she repeated
the claim again.
Earlier this month, however, Ocasio-Cortez
backtracked on the gloomy forecast and instead blamed the Republican
Party for taking her humor and sarcasm literally.
"This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and 'fact check' it," she wrote.
But it appears that more than two-thirds of surveyed Democrats took her literally.
A Rasmussen poll,
conducted earlier this week, found 67 percent of Democrats believing
that the U.S. has only 12 years to avert the “disastrous and irreparable
damage to the country and the world” stemming from climate change. Out
of all total likely voters, 48 percent of respondents believed the
apocalyptic claim.
Ocasio-Cortez has emerged as the key Democratic voice on how to tackle climate change, proposing the Green New Deal resolution that seeks to radically reorganize the economy to ensure climate change is tackled.
The
proposal was endorsed by a number of 2020 presidential candidates even
before the disastrous rollout of the proposal, which included the
now-infamous FAQ document that suggested making air travel obsolete and
supporting those “unwilling to work.”
Senate Democrats in March
failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to begin debate on the Green New
Deal proposal, with 42 Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., voting
“present.”
The
lawmakers said they didn’t vote for the proposal because it was brought
to a vote by Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for
political purposes.
Why Did Bar AOC Used to Work at Shut Down? Because of $15 Minimum Wage SHE Supports
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (shown) had been accused
of stealing tips from a coworker at a bar where she once waitressed.
Yet she also could perhaps be accused of helping steal the jobs, in a
manner of speaking, from workers at its sister establishment, in which
she also waitressed. This is because iconic New York City restaurant The
Coffee Shop closed its doors forever — largely because of its state’s
new $15 minimum wage — which Ocasio-Cortez supported.
The Coffee Shop was no failed business model. It was “frequented by
A-list celebrities and featured on ‘Sex and the City,’” wrote Investor’s Business Daily.
Opened by former Wilhelmina models Charles Milite, Eric Petterson, and
Carolyn Benitez in 1990, “it quickly became a sceney fashion
destination,” added Eater New York
last year. “There was even a long-standing rumor that the restaurant
only hired aspiring models as servers” (though Ocasio-Cortez’ employment
apparently debunks this rumor).
What isn’t a rumor is that the minimum wage minimized the
restaurant’s viability. “The times have changed in our industry,” owner
Milite told the New York Post. “The rents are very high and now the minimum wage is going up and we have a huge number of employees.”
If it makes Milite and the 150 now unemployed feel any better, Ocasio-Cortez did stop by last year, one last time, to pay her respects, a bit like a mafia hit man attending his latest victim’s funeral.
It has long been known that minimum-wage laws cost jobs and hurt
economies. Famed late economist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman not
only made this point, but also added in a 1966 op-ed:
The groups that will be hurt the most are
the low-paid and the unskilled. The ones who remain employed will
receive higher wage rates, but fewer will be employed. As Prof. James
Tobin, who was a member of president [sic] Kennedy’s Council of Economic
Advisers, recently wrote: “People who lack the capacity to earn a
decent living need to be helped, but they will not be helped by
minimum-wage laws, trade-union wage pressures or other devices which
seek to compel employers to pay them more than their work is worth. The
more likely outcome of such regulations is that the intended
beneficiaries are not employed at all.
This realization is what helped shake another famed economist,
Professor Thomas Sowell, from his youthful Marxism. While doing a summer
internship with the Department of Labor, he researched the minimum wage
and not only discovered it cost jobs, but also something else: The
labor-department bureaucrats didn’t even care. Their bureaucracy was getting a lot of money via administration of the minimum wage laws.
Friedman’s and Sowell’s position prevails in the wider economist community, too. As columnist Larry Elder noted Thursday, quoting from a survey of economists commissioned by the Employment Policies Institute:
“Nearly three-quarters of these US-based
economists oppose a federal minimum wage of $15.00 per hour. [Does the
last quarter work for the Department of Labor?]
“The majority of surveyed economists
believe a $15.00 per hour minimum wage will have negative effects on
youth employment levels (83 percent), adult employment levels (52
percent), and the number of jobs available (76 percent).
“When economists were asked what effect a
$15.00 per hour minimum wage will have on the skill level of
entry-level positions, 8 out of 10 economists (80 percent) believe
employers will hire entry-level positions with greater skills.
“When economists were asked what effect a
$15.00 per hour minimum wage will have on small businesses with fewer
than 50 employees, nearly 7 out of 10 economists (67 percent) believe it
would make it harder for them to stay in business.”
None of this is hard to understand. An employee brings a certain amount of value to a business. Now, if a worker’s labor will add $13-an-hour in value, can you pay him $15 hourly?
Creating a minimum wage above many existing workers’ value leaves employers only three choices:
• Fire those workers and, when possible, replace them with more
skilled/more productive employees who yield greater value than the
minimum-wage salaries you must pay.
• Fire those workers and, when economically feasible, automate.
• When neither of the first two is possible, close up shop — ergo, the erstwhile Coffee Shop.
Option one gets at why minimum-wage laws hurt low-skilled workers
(who are inordinately young, black, and/or Hispanic). After all, if for
$15 hourly you can hire a 23-year-old with some experience, why would
you hire a green 17-year-old or a young inner-city fellow with no
experience? You’re going to want to get what you’re paying for.
Thus, minimum-wage laws make it more difficult for young people to
land that important first job and gain the experience that can lead to
better employment. And without work, which “ennobles man” and can give life meaning, young people are more likely to be out on the streets causing trouble and joining gangs.
Yet as the Foundation for Economic Freedom put it last year, it can
be argued that minimum-wage laws were actually designed to kick the
“wrong people” out of work. In fact, it relates in the video below that
“early 20th-century socialist thought leader Sidney Webb
wrote an article entitled ‘The Economic Theory of a Legal Minimum Wage,’
in which he described married women; the disabled; and other, quote,
‘invalids,’ unquote, as parasites who were taking work from able-bodied
men. See, it was understood by many early on that minimum-wage laws were
there to price the ‘less fit’ out of the marketplace.”
Apropos to this, note that prior to minimum-wage laws’ advent, the United States’ black unemployment was actually slightly lower than white unemployment — this reversed after these laws’ birth.
It’s not fair to say these laws are the only cause of higher minority
unemployment or that all those advocating them today have bigoted
motives. But many are demagogues who callously use minimum-wage appeals
to gain power. Moreover, we could wonder if some understand the effect
these laws have — but want higher minority unemployment so that they can
blame “white supremacy” and portray themselves as saviors of minority
America.
At best, reflected in minimum-wage laws is minimal thinking.
Kamala Harris tells Colbert that Senate panel will push on with Trump probe
During Sen. Kamala Harris’ appearance on "Late Night with Stephen Colbert" on Wednesday, the 2020 presidential hopeful said the Senate Intelligence Committee will not stop its investigation into President Trump despite what Harris described as Trump's threats to “hold America’s infrastructure hostage.”
The
California Democrat and other intelligence committee members have been
investigating Russian election interference and Trump’s alleged ties to
Russia for two years. The panel is expected to call on several witnesses
to testify as it concludes the probe over the next few months.
Harris
vowed that the committee would not stop investigating Trump. She argued
the president's "self-interests" only hurt the American people.
When Colbert asked Harris if she would concede to Trump's demands, she flatly responded “No.”
“So he’s going to hold America’s infrastructure hostage -- right? -- over the issue of the investigation,” she continued.
Playing
devil’s advocate, Colbert suggested that the intelligence committee
could “halt” the investigation in order to work with the White House on
the nation’s infrastructure, but Harris rejected the idea.
“This
is a false choice,” Harris stated. “We cannot abandon our democracy for
the sake of appeasing somebody who is completely focused on his
interests only.”
Harris argued that Trump’s failure to work with Dems on infrastructure shows he does not represent most Americans.
“Almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval,” she said.
Earlier
Wednesday, Trump said he told Congress’ top Democrats to “Get these
phony investigations over with.” The president threatened not to
cooperate with his political rivals on a massive infrastructure proposal
if the probe continues.
“I told Senator Schumer and Speaker
Pelosi, I want to do infrastructure... but I can’t do it under these
circumstances,” he told reporters during a news conference in the White
House Rose Garden. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Extramarital affair with Kamala Harris? Former San Francisco mayor, 84, admits it happened
Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown addressed his past extramarital relationship with U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris in his weekly column Saturday, saying he may have boosted the presidential hopeful's career.
"Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago," Brown wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle.
"Yes,
I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state
commissions when I was [California] Assembly speaker. And I certainly
helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco."
Brown,
84, pointed out that he also helped the careers of other prominent
California Democrats, such as U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov.
Gavin Newsom and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
"The
difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent
word that I would be indicted if I 'so much as jaywalked' while she was
D.A.,” Brown wrote. "That's politics for ya."
Brown appointed
Harris -- about 30 years younger than Brown and just a few years out of
law school – to two well-paid state commission assignments on the
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical
Assistance Commission, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
"Whether
you agree or disagree with the system, I did the work," Harris said in a
2003 interview with SF Weekly. "I brought a level of life knowledge and
common sense to the jobs."
"The difference is that
Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would
be indicted if I 'so much as jaywalked' while she was D.A.” — Willie Brown, former mayor of San Francisco
The
former mayor also connected Harris with campaign donors, which helped
her outraise her opponent for San Francisco district attorney, Business Insider reported.
Brown's involvement in her election raised questions as to how Harris
would remain impartial, given his enormous political clout.
Questions about Brown’s relationship with Harris began anew after she announced her 2020 presidential bid on Martin Luther King Day.
During
his two terms as mayor of San Francisco, Brown was known for his charm,
arrogance and ego, according to a 1996 profile in People magazine.
Named
one of the world’s 10 sexiest men by Playgirl magazine in 1984, Brown
sometimes attended parties with his wife on one arm and a girlfriend on
the other, according to a reporter quoted by the magazine.
Brown
and Harris broke up in 1995 but remained political allies. In Saturday's
column, Brown said Harris is "riding a buzz wave the likes of which we
haven’t seen in years."
Fox News contacted Harris' office for a response to Brown's claims but did not receive a response.
For the past decade or so, Brown has reportedly been linked with Sonya Molodetskaya, a Russian refugee and socialite. He is said to be separated from wife Blanche Vitero, whom he married in 1958.
Brown and Vitero have three children, while Brown also fathered a child in 2001 with his former fundraiser, Carolyn Carpeneti, according to the Chronicle.
Michigan Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib told Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin at
a testy hearing on Wednesday that he should seek "personal" legal
advice, effectively issuing a thinly veiled threat following his refusal
to turn President Trump's personal tax information over to Congress.
"I
would be remiss, as somebody that truly believes in the rule of law, as
somebody that has practiced law and is an attorney, I would advise you,
secretary, to get personal legal advice," Tlaib said, smirking
slightly. "The cover-up by this administration, it goes beyond just
providing the taxes.
"You can consult the Department of Justice
but you, personally, making decisions – not on the best part of the
American people, but to cover up the occupant of the White House – I
think you need to be very, very clear about what your role is and what
your responsibility is to the American people," she continued.
Tlaib
added: "So, secretary, please seek out legal advice, personally, of
what your obligations are, because the Department of Justice is not
protecting you, it's protecting the president."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed Tlaib's remarks, charging later Wednesday that the president was "engaged in a cover-up." Responding to Pelosi's claim in a fiery Rose Garden press conference, Trump said simply, "I don't do cover-ups," and called for an end to "phony investigations."
Trump
added that he had walked out of a meeting with Pelosi and Senate
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and he asserted that pursuing
infrastructure legislation would be impossible while he was still under
aggressive investigation.
Mnuchin, for his part, testified he has no idea who wrote a confidential Internal Revenue Service legal memo that says that tax returns must be given to Congress unless the president asserts executive privilege.
Appearing
before the House Financial Services Committee, Mnuchin said he was not
aware of the existence of the memo until reporters from The Washington
Post asked about it.
Mnuchin said it was a draft document. He told
the committee he believed he was following the law by refusing to turn
over six years of Trump's tax returns, which have been requested by Ways
and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass.
Mnuchin said he expected the dispute to ultimately be decided by the courts.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testifies before the House
Committee on Financial Services on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. (AP
Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
Mnuchin has refused to turn over the tax returns
despite a 1924 law that gives the chairs of the tax-writing committees
in Congress the power to request the returns of any taxpayer.
Mnuchin last Friday refused to obey a congressional subpoena to turn over the returns, saying the request "lacks a legitimate legislative purpose."
Mnuchin
told lawmakers that he had not had any discussions on the issue with
Trump, who has said repeatedly that he can't turn over his taxes because
he is under IRS audit. Trump has not asserted executive privilege to
protect the returns.
Neal has said he expects to bring a lawsuit to force the administration to comply with his subpoena.
When
a number of Democrats pressed Mnuchin on the 1924 law, Mnuchin said
that "weaponizing the IRS is a major concern of ours which affects
taxpayers of both parties."
"So, Secretary, please seek out legal advice, personally, of what your obligations are." — Michigan Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib
Mnuchin's
appearance Wednesday before the House Financial Services Committee was a
continuation of a hearing that had ended with a tense standoff earlier in the month.
Back then, Mnuchin complained to Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters,
D-Calif., that the hearing was going on too long and forcing him to miss
a meeting with the head of a foreign country.
Waters and Mnuchin
were cordial with each other during Wednesday's hearing. Mnuchin stayed
until all lawmakers on the panel had the chance to ask their questions,
which covered a number of issues -- from Trump's taxes to the status of
the redesign of the $20 bill and the trade dispute with China.
The
administration increased tariffs on an initial $200 billion of Chinese
goods last week from 10 percent to 25 percent. But broadening the
tariffs to another $300 billion in goods will not go into effect until
after public hearings and a final decision by the administration. Fox News' Alex Pappas and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is disputing five-term U.S. Rep. Justin Amash’s call for President Trump’s impeachment.
Joining
a growing chorus of Republicans, McCarthy said Tuesday that Rep. Amash,
R-Mich., was out of step with others in the Republican Party and with
the American people.
On “Sunday Morning Futures”
this past weekend McCarthy told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo, “What he
wants is attention in this process. He’s not a criminal attorney. He’s
never met Mueller. He’s never met Barr. And now he’s coming forward with
this?”
“It’s very disturbing,” McCarthy remarked. “This is
exactly what you would expect from Justin. He never supported the
president. And I think he’s just looking for attention.”
“Mr. Amash always has a different voting record than most of us, anyway,” McCarthy told reporters Tuesday.
In
a series of tweets Saturday, Amash said attempts to obstruct justice as
outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian
interference in the 2016 presidential election were “impeachable
conduct.” He also accused Attorney General William Barr of misleading
the public, prompting swift backlash from his fellow party-members.
Amash is the first Republican to call for President Trump’s impeachment.
“While
impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances,”
he tweeted, saying that unlike many of his colleagues he had read the
Mueller report in full, “the risk we face in an environment of extreme
partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often
but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter
misconduct.”
Amash, who is a founding member of the conservative
House Freedom Caucus, told the Associated Press, “Their pressure doesn't
have influence on me. I really am not concerned about what Kevin
McCarthy thinks about it."
On Monday, the caucus voted to condemn Amash’s call for impeachment by a show of hands.
Representative
Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee
and a former chairman of the Freedom Caucus, said that every member in
attendance was unified in their opposition toward Amash’s comments.
Jordan tweeted in a response Tuesday: “The @freedomcaucus is about
FREEDOM. This isn’t not about Amash. It’s not even about the President.
It’s about what Emmet Flood said: if the intel community can target the
President for political reasons, imagine what they can do to any one of
us.”
President Trump also fired back Sunday, tweeting: “Never a
fan of @justinamash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our
great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his
name out there through controversy.”
“If he actually read the
biased Mueller Report, “composed” by 18 Angry Dems who hated Trump, he
would see that it was nevertheless strong on NO COLLUSION and,
ultimately, NO OBSTRUCTION...” said Trump. “Anyway, how do you Obstruct
when there is no crime and, in fact, the crimes were committed by the
other side? Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents
(sic) hands!”
National GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel accused Amash of “parroting Democrats' talking points on Russia.”
Closer
to home, Michigan state representative Jim Lowe said that he would run
for Amash’s seat in the Republican primary next year. While Michigan GOP
Chairwoman Laura Cox attacked Amash's lack of loyalty tweeting, "Now,
in a desperate attempt to grab headlines and advance his own
presidential ambitions, Amash is peddling a narrative that has
repeatedly been proven false. Shameful."
Any moves on impeachment
would be a formal charge by the House. The Senate would then hold a
trial on whether to strip President Trump of his office. House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi is holding her increasingly restless caucus to a
step-by-step process and say it would take more Republicans than just
Amash and broad public sentiment to trigger impeachment proceedings.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testifies before the House
Committee on Financial Services on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. (AP
Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
