JUST IN: GOP Takes Charge, Democrats Seethe As “Provable Evidence” Sent To DOJ
December 13, 2017
Democrat Representative Elijah Cummings spent 19 years practicing law and demands that the House Oversight Committee, of which he is ranking Democrat chair, is the proper place for hearing claims against the president. Cummings, whose Maryland congressional district is heavily gerrymandered to make him impossible to unseat, seeks to use the committee to make political hay of claims against Trump, rather than allowing an honest investigation into the claims.
As Al Franken’s replacement is being named and John Conyers is vacating his seat, it seems that Democrats are pushing on the idea that Trump should be investigated as well. They have made the demand of Trey Gowdy , a Republican congressman from South Carolina and chairman of the House Oversight Committee, even going so far as to have Democrat congresswoman from Florida Lois Frankel present him with signatures from Democrats demanding an investigation into claims against Trump.
Gowdy’s response was terse and to the point: “This Committee, nor any other Committee of Congress, does not, and cannot, prosecute crimes . This is true for many reasons but especially true in crimes of this serious nature.” Gowdy’s response continued on to point out that “Those alleging sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct deserve to be interviewed by law enforcement professionals, and charging decisions should be made by prosecutors based on the quantum and quality of the admissible and provable evidence.”
Trey Gowdy would be one to know. After all, he spent years of his life working in law, as well as working as a prosecutor. Drawing on that experience, Gowdy sent along the letter to the proper authority, the Department of Justice’s head and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the former Senator from Alabama. He further pointed out that “The victims deserved and received our compassion, patience, and gratitude at both the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office while I was there.”
Trey Gowdy, a Republican Congressman from South Carolina, spent 22 years practicing law, most of it as a prosecutor for the government. It is likely that he knows precisely what he is talking about when he recommends the proper venue for hearing claims made against President Donald Trump, whether Elijah Cummings wants to admit that or not.
Democrats , however, thinking they know better than Gowdy, who spent twenty years prosecuting various crimes at levels both state and federal, were infuriated by the decision. Elijah Cummings, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, who spent 19 years in the practice of law, disagrees with Gowdy.
Cummings, who sits in a safely gerrymandered congressional seat, says that claims of sexual harassment are within the bailiwick of the committee, and that they are able to hear such complaints. He has also previously disagreed with Gowdy concerning whether the House Oversight Committee was the proper place to hear matters concerning Michael Flynn, even though there was a criminal investigation led by Robert Mueller at the time.
According to Cummings, “Congress is in the midst of a critical and long-overdue examination of allegations against its own Members—both before and after they were elected to Congress.” Cummings goes on to say that the House Oversight Committee is the perfect place to hear claims against the President of the United States of America, concerning sexual harassment claims.
Trey Gowdy suggested to Elijah Cummings and his Democrat allies that the proper place for the hearing that they demand is in the Department of Justice, not in a political committee in the House or Senate. Jeff Sessions spent much of his life prior to becoming a Senator from Alabama as a prosecutor for the government, and has shown that he is more than capable of hearing complaints against the President of the United States.
Gowdy’s retort to Cummings and Frankel stated that any allegation that falls short of criminal conduct should be reported to the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over “allegations related to fitness for office and non-criminal matters.”
Realistically, it seems like the Democrat party is not truly interested in ‘justice’ of any sort. As any prosecutor could tell you, proving a crime a decade or more after the fact is nigh impossible; in fact, it’s part of the reason why United States law has limits for how long past the commission of a crime criminal charges can be brought against an individual. At a certain point, bringing charges for many crimes becomes pointless.
Further, it seems that they’re simply looking for a chance to posture in a committee while talking about what a terrible man Trump is because his language is coarse. It’s notable that when there were multiple claims against Bill Clinton for sexual assault and harassment, as well as a concept called ‘command rape’, many Democrats (including Elijah Cummings), felt that the charges did not merit a hearing, let alone debating where the hearing should take place.
Congresswoman Lois Frankel, a Democrat from Florida, collected signatures in an attempt to bully Trey Gowdy into bowing to her whims. Obviously, her attempt resulted in failure, as Gowdy has declined to hear the charges and suggested a more appropriate venue.
The idea of due process also includes a proper process for where evidence or claims should be heard. If the women accusing Trump (the ones who haven’t been debunked) are making the same claims they made during the election season, then Congressman Gowdy is correct, and they should be heard by the Department of Justice.
As Gowdy, a prosecutor with 20 years of experience pointed out, “Those alleging sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct deserve to be interviewed by law enforcement professionals, and charging decisions should be made by prosecutors based on the quantum and quality of the admissible and provable evidence.”
The Democrats are simply looking to make cheap political hay after two of their members were forced to resign to avoid dragging the DNC down with them. The Democrats in the last election cycle had a lot to say about arbitrarily ‘believing women’ without evidence, and they now have cause to regret it, and are looking to find a way to utilize their faux moral standard to damage the Trump presidency.
Tags
Who is online
111 visitors
I tell you what I want to know. I want to know where every cent of that $17,000,000 (17 million dollars) went to and each and everyone of the Congressmen or Congresswomen who caused us to have to pay it out because of their actions.
Aren't we getting a little tired of being treated like the children instead of the employer of these people who are suppose to be mature adults, but seem to think they are above the law and above having to answer to us?
Here, Here.
Cummings is just another political hack in line with Maxine Waters (although he doesn't slobber when he talks). It seems he "will do anything" to have the President removed from office.
It doesn't help that Gowdy has put Cummings in his place several times in front of, not only the comittee but congress as a whole.
"Further, it seems that they’re simply looking for a chance to posture in a committee while talking about what a terrible man Trump is because his language is coarse. It’s notable that when there were multiple claims against Bill Clinton for sexual assault and harassment, as well as a concept called ‘command rape’, many Democrats (including Elijah Cummings), felt that the charges did not merit a hearing, let alone debating where the hearing should take place."
Past non-action will ALWAYS come back to bite you in the ass Mr. Cummings.
Just ask ANY of your fellow members in congress.
"Equal rights, fair play, justice, are all like the air: we all have it, or none of us has it. That is the truth of it."
Maya Angelou
So can everybody just admit that the whole Russia thing is a flop and the Dems just want to redo the 2016 election instead of putting up new ideas or (heaven forbid) working with the GOP?
Hand raised on the yes and agree vote.
This entire money wasting investigation is in need of Viagra to get rid of it's flaccidness.
"According to Cummings, “Congress is in the midst of a critical and long-overdue examination of allegations against its own Members—both before and after they were elected to Congress.” Cummings goes on to say that the House Oversight Committee is the perfect place to hear claims against the President of the United States of America, concerning sexual harassment claims."
"Trey Gowdy suggested to Elijah Cummings and his Democrat allies that the proper place for the hearing that they demand is in the Department of Justice, not in a political committee in the House or Senate. Jeff Sessions spent much of his life prior to becoming a Senator from Alabama as a prosecutor for the government, and has shown that he is more than capable of hearing complaints against the President of the United States."
Funny how Republicans didn't feel that way when they impeached President Clinton. In fact, the only place where claims of misconduct which may not add up to any actual "crime" may be investigated and discussed IS in congress where the impeachment process has to play out. And even if the charges did amount to a crime it's not entirely clear that the Justice department is the proper place to investigate them when it concerns a sitting President.
" Mr. Kavanaugh, who is now a federal appeals court judge, also concluded that impeachment, not prosecution , was the right way to address a sitting president's crimes."
Clinton was impeached because of evidence proven in a court of law
The impeachment proceedings resumed during the post-election “lame duck” session of the 105th Congress. On Dec. 19, the House impeached Clinton of lying under oath and obstruction charges. Two other counts failed, including one accusing Clinton of abuse of power.
He was impeached for lying to a grand jury and for supposedly obstructing justice since Republicans claimed he told Lewinsky to lie. There was no court of law that tried the President for any crimes prior to the impeachment. There was an independent investigation done by Kenneth Starr, but there was no trial, just evidence presented by the Independent council which had been authorized to investigate the whitewater affair which turned up nothing.
Wrong. The State of Arkansas disbarred Clinton for his perjury as part of a plea deal with the Independent Counsel
It Takes A Plea Agreement
Clinton's `Moment Of Truth' A Meaningful Public Consequence
The breakthrough surely came when someone suggested expanding the negotiation to include the Arkansas disbarment case. Although technically beyond Ray's jurisdiction, the disciplinary proceeding against Clinton was based on the same facts--lying in the Paula Jones case deposition--as the independent counsel's grand jury investigation. Once Clinton's law license was put on the table, a package deal became a real possibility. Clinton would accept a penalty short of criminal conviction, but one which is nonetheless very public and very significant.
The agreement also includes an unequivocal admission of wrongdoing, with Clinton acknowledging that he gave false answers in his Jones deposition. As part of the deal, he was compelled to sign an "Agreed Order of Discipline" which states that he "knowingly" engaged in "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." That is the disciplinary equivalent of pleading guilty to obstruction of justice.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor).
Snopes is a run by a husband and wife who are operatives of the Democratic party
Let's see where that 17 million dollars went and who we, the taxpayers, bailed out behind out backs and for what reasons.
Of course they are. Reminds me of the Russian collusion, but Cummings wouldn't want to do a heavy duty investigation of the FBI and other intelligence agencies including Hillary Clinton and the DNC about the only collusion we already have proof of collusion with Russian concerning the 2016 elections now, would he? He wouldn't want to have anything to do with that.
The purpose of all this long-overdue examination is as transparent as it can be to quite a few of us. It is solely dedicated to getting Trump impeached and nothing more. The fact is the swamp is swallowing its own every day and it's like a hemorrhage to them and they have to stop it.
Some people say, they don't want people to see how much Trump can do in what took them 40 years to do, but I say they don't want Trump to allow the people to see what they did in the last 40 years or got away with during the last 40 years.
Every true American should be calling for Trump's resignation, for multiple reasons, the worst of which is that he is totally unqualified and unable to perform the duties of president. Having a petty, vindictive child with his hand on the nuclear button should concern the world.
We survived 8 years of an Anti-American lifelong communist (Comrade Hussein Obama)
I have a question for you Live Free. If everyone in America was as extremist as you are, where do you think our country would be?
living in the dream our founders sought to give us.
A nation formed to keep government out of our lives and businesses. If I'm extremist, then you must think that the founders were all extremists. How long have you hated our country and individual liberty?
My views come from Locke, Burke, Bastiat, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson to name a few.
"The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it."
--John Stuart Mill
Washington and Lee Law Review
Natural Rights And The Founding Fathers-The Virginians
Chester James Antieau
The philosophy of natural rights was championed by such Founding Fathers as Richard Bland, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, James Madison, George Mason, Robert Carter, Nicholas, Peyton Randolph, George Washington, and George Wythe.
Indeed, it would be amazing if any Revolutionary leader of the Commonwealth could be found who did not subscribe to the doctrines of natural law and right. Moreover, the doctrine was not limited to the select few who directed Virginia's destinies, but was widely held and continually expressed by the popular assemblages throughout the Commonwealth during Revolutionary days.
In their most generalized expressions the Founding Fathers spoke of their natural rights to life and liberty, adding at times, property, and on other occasions, the pursuit of happiness. To some contemporaries the alternative use of property and the pursuit of happiness may seem strange, but to many of the Fathers property meant the right to develop one's properties, that is, his faculties. The particular natural rights on which there was the largest measure of agreement among the Virginians were (i) freedom of conscience, (2) freedom of communication, (3) the right to be free from arbitrary laws, (4) the rights of assembly and petition, (5) the property right, (6) the right of self-government, to which were frequently appended (a) the right of expatriation and (b) a right to change the form of government.
In his Notes on Virginia,
Jefferson wrote: "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?"18 Speaking there of our natural rights, he concluded: "We are answerable for them to our God."'9 It was in the Summary View in which Jefferson asserted that Parliament had no power to encroach "upon those rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all."
No saying we will survive 4 yrs of Putins lap dog.