Stories about
Doug Collins


Douglas Allen Collins (born August 16, 1966) is an American politician and a United States Representative from Georgia's 9th congressional district since 2013. Previously he was a state representative in the Georgia House of Representatives, representing the 27th district, which includes portions of Hall, Lumpkin and White counties. Collins also serves as a chaplain in the U.S. Air Force Reserve with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He is a member of the Republican Party.

NRA-ILA

Published  6 days ago

The Nancy Pelosi Speaker Era 2.0 continued on Wednesday, Feb. 13, with a markup of H.R 8, the “universal” background checks bill, in the House Judiciary Committee. Following on the heels of last week’s Judiciary Committee hearing, the same committee held a markup on Wednesday, where amendments and corrections to H.R. 8 could be considered. Unfortunately, the markup was clearly designed to allow the anti-gun Democrats who control the Judiciary Committee to grandstand and promote attacks on law-abiding gun owners, rather than consider efforts to combat violent crime.

It was clear from the outset that the anti-gun Democrats had no interest in considering reasonable approaches to addressing violent crime. The committee’s Ranking Member, Doug Collins (R-Ga.), offered the first amendment to the bill, which sought other approaches to combating crime rather than “universal” background checks, which study after study have shown to be ineffective, or their effectiveness inconclusive. His amendment was simply dismissed as not germane, without any discussion of its merits.

Please Contact Your U.S. Representative and Ask Them to Vote Against H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112!

H.R. 8 and H.R. 1112 cause undue burden's to law-abiding gun owners!

Representative F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) offered the next amendment. It simply sought to add to the list of exemptions from the “universal” background check requirements anyone who possessed a valid permit to carry a firearm. Adoption of the amendment would have still left the bill as an anti-gun mess, but it was a reasonable proposal considering carry permit holders already undergo a background check in order to obtain their permits. The anti-gun majority made clear they were not interested in anything reasonable, and the amendment was defeated.

The Sensenbrenner amendment was attacked by anti-gunners on the committee with ridiculous arguments and inaccurate information. Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) objected because not all states that issue permits to carry firearms require any training, even though the “universal” background checks mandated by H.R. 8 have no training requirements.Representative David Cicilline (D-R.I.) objected because, according to him, some states have no issuing requirements for permits, which is patently false. Other anti-gun legislators tried to claim that some states that issue permits after an applicant has submitted to a background check actually don’t check an applicant’s criminal history.

This process repeated itself throughout the day, with other amendments seeking to make even minor improvements to a monumentally bad piece of legislation being rejected similarly, either voted down or ruled not germane, by the anti-gun majority and Chair. This includes simple amendments that merely sought to put a cap on the fees that could be charged for a “universal” background check.

The Chair even spoke out against an amendment that sought to exempt victims of domestic violence from “universal” background check provisions of H.R. 8 by raising the concern of “evidentiary standards” when determining if the victim is actually a victim, even though anti-gun politicians have consistently refused to acknowledge “evidentiary standards” when promoting legislation to strip gun owners of their firearms.

After several hours, H.R. 8 was passed after anti-gun Democrats rejected every amendment offered by Republicans. The Judiciary Committee then took up H.R. 1112, legislation that would change current law that allows an FFL the option to transfer a firearm after three days if a NICS check is delayed. That discussion was much shorter, being dealt with in under an hour.

Although the actual language for H.R. 1112 has still not been made available on Congress.gov, as anti-gun Democrats have been apparently trying to rush legislation to the floor before it is truly ready for consideration, Chairman Nadler explained that the bill would extend the “delay” period from three days to 10 business days. However, after 10 business days, the transfer is not allowed to go through. The prospective purchaser must first file a petition with the Attorney General. If a “proceed” message is still not received 10 business days after the filing of the petition, only then may the transfer go through. However, NICS checks are only valid for 30 calendar days, so this new proposed proceed provision appears to be practically worthless because in almost all scenarios it will take more than 30 calendar days to accomplish.

The entire premise of H.R. 1112 is predicated on the notion that it would have prevented the horrific murders committed in Charleston, S.C., on June 17, 2015. Proponents have argued that the perpetrator of that crime would not have been able to commit his crime if the background check had taken longer. That, however, is simply not true, as the violent murderer was not prohibited from purchasing the firearm he used and his terrible crime took place more than two months after he first attempted to buy a firearm, so even the extended delay of H.R. 1112 would have had no effect in his case.

Ranking Member Collins may have best summarized this week’s markup and last week’s hearing in his opening remarks on Wednesday, when he stated, “I’m sad the bill before us represents another missed opportunity to prevent violence in our communities.” Neither H.R. 8 nor H.R. 1112 will do anything to address violent crime, but both will surely create problems for otherwise law-abiding gun owners and prospective gun owners.

Please thank Ranking Member Collins and the 13 other members of the House Judiciary Committee who voted against the misguided and ineffective legislation that is designed to score political points, not address crime, violence or mental health.

Please use this link to let your elected officials know that you won’t be blamed for the actions of violent criminals. Ask your Representative to oppose H.R.8 and H.R 1112. Additionally, you may call your U.S. Representative using the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Democrats this week approved a bill to require background checks for all sales and transfers of firearms -- but rejected GOP-led efforts to amend the legislation to alert police when gun buyers, including illegal immigrants, fail those background checks.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee is demanding that former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testify before the panel, following McCabe's explosive claims in an interview this week that senior members of the Department of Justice considered removing President Trump using the 25th Amendment.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee is demanding to know why the panel's Democratic leadership made the "costly" decision this week to hire two prominent anti-Trump consultants to conduct a purportedly impartial investigation of the the White House.

AP News

Published  1 week ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler says he has hired two veteran lawyers and critics of President Donald Trump as his committee begins to investigate the president and his administration.

The hiring of the two prominent lawyers, Barry Berke and Norman Eisen, comes as lawmakers from both parties are pressuring Trump attorney general nominee William Barr to release a full accounting of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe when it’s complete. The new additions to Nadler’s staff could also provide expertise for impeachment proceedings, if Democrats decide at some point to pursue them.

Nadler said in a statement that the panel is determined to “ask critical questions, gather all the information, judiciously assess the evidence, and make sure that the facts are not hidden from the American people.”

He did not mention impeachment, but noted that Trump faces “numerous allegations” of corruption and obstruction.

“His conduct and crude statements threaten the basic legal, ethical and constitutional norms that maintain our democratic institutions,” Nadler said. “Congress has a constitutional duty to be a check and balance against abuses of power when necessary.”

Nadler said Berke and Eisen “have been retained on a consulting basis as special oversight staff” to the committee’s Democratic majority. He said they would consult on matters related to the Department of Justice and Mueller’s Russia probe.

Both men have been high-profile critics of Trump, and they co-authored a Brookings Institution report released last year that laid out a case for his impeachment. The report said “it has become apparent that the president’s pattern of potentially obstructive conduct is much more extensive than we knew.”

Eisen served as a White House counsel for President Barack Obama and has focused on government ethics and corruption as a co-founder of the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Berke is a top trial lawyer and white collar criminal defense lawyer who is based out of New York.

Democrats have been cautious in speaking about impeachment, with most arguing that they want to see the Mueller report before they would even consider such a step. Nadler has called impeachment a “trauma” that should be approached judiciously and with bipartisan support.

Still, he has said he believes Trump has engaged in a pattern of obstruction — one of the issues Mueller is investigating.

“This is a critical time in our nation’s history,” Nadler said in the statement.

Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel, criticized the hires and the “sharply partisan op-eds” that Eisen and Berke have written together.

“Looks like Democrats are staffing up for impeachment before Mueller’s report is even out,” Collins said.

Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 week ago

Rep. Devin Nunes warned Wednesday the FISC must take action against the people that abused the system or risk "repercussions."

MintPress News

Published  1 week ago

Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has been the subject of bipartisan bullying since she explicitly called out the number one Israeli lobby group, AIPAC.

Diamond & Silk

Published  1 week ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is no one’s puppet. He made this absolutely clear during a House Judiciary Committee when pressed by Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell.

Swalwell, a potential 2020 presidential candidate, questioned Whitaker on the Mueller investigation and whether he would relay a message to President Trump.

According to the Washington Examiner, the Democrat asked Whitaker if he thought Mueller was conflicted, or whether he was running an honest investigation.

Whitaker said he thought Mueller was truthful and not conflicted.

Swalwell then asked Whitaker if he would echo the following line to Trump: “Mr. President, Bob Mueller is honest and not conflicted.”

“Congressman, I am not a puppet to repeat what you’re saying,” Whitaker responded. “I have answered your question as to what I believe about the special counsel.”

Whitaker then gestured to the House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold “Jerry” Nadler who said Swalwell was out of time.

Swalwell retorted that Whitaker did not answer the question and that he still wanted to hear his answer.

Whitaker said he had thought he did answer the question and had nothing further to say.

Check it out:

Here’s more on Whitaker from the Washington Examiner:

Whitaker took over as acting attorney general in November after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced from the position. He previously served as Sessions’ chief of staff.

Since taking over the Justice Department in an acting capacity, Whitaker has come under scrutiny for his past comments about Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

His criticisms of the Russia probe led to calls for him to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation. However, the Justice Department said in December Whitaker would not step aside.

The House Judiciary Committee Hearing included a number of testy exchanges between Whitaker and Democrat lawmakers. The exchanges were called a “pony show” by Republican Congressman Doug Collins.

Check them out:

SARAH PALIN

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is no one’s puppet. He made this absolutely clear during a House Judiciary Committee when pressed by Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell.

Swalwell, a potential 2020 presidential candidate, questioned Whitaker on the Mueller investigation and whether he would relay a message to President Trump.

According to the Washington Examiner, the Democrat asked Whitaker if he thought Mueller was conflicted, or whether he was running an honest investigation.

Whitaker said he thought Mueller was truthful and not conflicted.

Swalwell then asked Whitaker if he would echo the following line to Trump: “Mr. President, Bob Mueller is honest and not conflicted.”

“Congressman, I am not a puppet to repeat what you’re saying,” Whitaker responded. “I have answered your question as to what I believe about the special counsel.”

Whitaker then gestured to the House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold “Jerry” Nadler who said Swalwell was out of time.

Swalwell retorted that Whitaker did not answer the question and that he still wanted to hear his answer.

Whitaker said he had thought he did answer the question and had nothing further to say.

Check it out:

Here’s more on Whitaker from the Washington Examiner:

Whitaker took over as acting attorney general in November after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced from the position. He previously served as Sessions’ chief of staff.

Since taking over the Justice Department in an acting capacity, Whitaker has come under scrutiny for his past comments about Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

His criticisms of the Russia probe led to calls for him to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation. However, the Justice Department said in December Whitaker would not step aside.

The House Judiciary Committee Hearing included a number of testy exchanges between Whitaker and Democrat lawmakers. The exchanges were called a “pony show” by Republican Congressman Doug Collins.

Check them out:

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

House Dems and Whitaker faced off Friday during a contentious six-hearing hearing focused primarily on the special counsel investigation. 

Dan Bongino

Published  2 weeks ago

Today’s ongoing House Judiciary Committee hearing for Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker was slammed as “pointless” and a form of “character assassination” by ranking GOP member Doug Collins (GA).

“This hearing is a character assassination on Acting Attorney General Whitaker, all pure political theater, to go after the president,” said Collins in his opening statement.

The congressman pointed out that Whitaker’s tenure was coming to a close. “By next Thursday, Bill Barr will be attorney general,” said Collins. “This gentleman is finishing up his term as acting attorney general.”

The congressman who then asked the committee to vote to abruptly end the hearing. The committee proceeded to vote, however the measure did not pass and the hearing went on as planned.

“The hearing follows an intense back and forth between the Justice Department and the Judiciary Committee a day earlier.

The Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to give [chairman Jerrold] Nadler the authority to issue a subpoena if necessary, despite Whitaker having already agreed to appear before the panel voluntarily.

Nadler made clear early Thursday that he did not want to have to subpoena Whitaker, but said a “series of troubling events” suggested it would be better for him to be prepared with that authority, just in case he decided not to show up for the hearing.

But Whitaker then warned he would not show up unless lawmakers dropped the threat.”

Whitaker wrote Nadler, “Consistent with longstanding practice, I remain willing to appear to testify tomorrow, provided that the Chairman assures me that the Committee will not issue a subpoena today or tomorrow and that the Committee will engage in good faith negotiations before taking such a step down the road.”

Nadler responded hours later, writing if Whitaker was “prepared to respond to questions from our members, then I assure you there will be no need for the committee to issue a subpoena on or before February 8.”

Watch Collins’ opening statement below:

For the full story, click HERE.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker silenced House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., on Friday during a heated exchange that led to several people in the room laughing and gasping. During his appearance before the House

The Federalist

Published  2 weeks ago

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee refused to allow Rep. Steve Scalise, a target and victim of gun violence, to give testimony in Wednesday’s hearing on gun control. Scalise nearly lost his life in the congressional baseball practice shooting less than two years ago.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said the “Hearing on Preventing Gun Violence in America” planned to “hear from a broad array of witnesses, representing diverse perspectives on the issue of gun violence.” But when the ranking Republican Rep. Doug Collins asked if Scalise could give his testimony in the hearing, Democrats said no.

Nadler said majority members denied Scalise’s testimony because they had too many members who wanted to testify.

“The uniqueness of Mr. Scalise’s testimony, being denied this voice is a tragic for all who attend…and just because he probably disagrees with the majority should not have been a reason to keep him out,” Collins responded.

In his opening statement, Nadler said other witnesses in the hearing would, “Educate us on the scope of the problem, and they will inform our consideration of various legislative options, so that we may—at last—take real action to address this crisis.”

Despite being nearly fatally wounded and undergoing the trauma of gun violence himself, Scalise is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

“It was people with guns who saved my life and so many others that morning in June 2017,” Scalise told Fox News. “[Democrats’] answer to gun violence is to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. Frankly, they ought to be focusing on punishing the criminals.”

In full testimony Scalise planned to give, which you can read here, he explains how the legislation Democrats are considering would not have prevented his shooting or any number of recent mass shootings.

“H.R. 8 would not deter a criminal from engaging in criminal activity, and it won’t decrease gun crime,” Scalise wrote. “Instead, it only succeeds in limiting the ways that law-abiding citizens could exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Madeline is a staff writer at the Federalist and the producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Follow her on Twitter.

Sponsored Links

Breathe Green Co.WAIT! - Did You Complete Your Breathe Green Order? - If not you can get an EXTRA 10% off today. Simply click here and the discount will be automatically applied!Breathe Green Co.

Ultimate Pet NutritionIf Your Dog Eats Grass (Do This Everyday)Ultimate Pet Nutrition

Blood Sugar Stabilizer | SupplementDiabetes Discovery That is Leaving Doctors Speechless (Try It Tonight)Blood Sugar Stabilizer | Supplement

Revitalizing Hair TherapyHair Doctor Reveals How To Fix Thinning HairRevitalizing Hair Therapy

Car Accident Attorney | Search AdsCheck Out The Most Successful Car Accident Attorneys in San FranciscoCar Accident Attorney | Search Ads

Vikings: Free Online GamePlay This for 1 Minute and See Why Everyone Is AddictedVikings: Free Online Game

WayneDupree.com

Published  2 weeks ago

Doug Collins, ranking member, bashed Democratic colleagues for trying to mislead others

The Washington Times

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker testified before the House Judiciary Committee Friday — and pulled no punches in fending off Democratic queries.

After telling the committee he had not spoken with President Trump or senior White House officials about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, Chairman Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat, was incredulous.

After a lengthy, contentious exchange, Mr. Whitaker finally replied: “Mr. Chairman, your five minutes are up.”

SEE ALSO: AG Whitaker snipes at Dems, denies interfering with Mueller probe

The chamber erupted with laughter to Mr. Whitaker’s response.

Here is what led to that back-and-forth: Mr. Nadler asked Mr. Whitaker if he had been briefed on the Mueller probe after his decision not to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation. Mr. Whitaker repeatedly pressed the lawmaker to explain his basis for the question.

“You are asking me a question as to your understanding, are you going to tell me where —,” Whitaker said before being interrupted by Mr. Nadler.

“I’m not going to tell you,” Mr. Nadler shot back. “Just tell me if it is correct or not. It is a simple question.”

Mr. Whitaker responded, “If every member today asked questions based on their speculation —,” before being interrupted a second time by Mr. Nadler.

The acting attorney general remained evasive, saying he would not talk about his private conversations with the president and adding he had not spoken with Mr. Trump or any other senior White House official about the Mueller probe.

Mr. Whitaker had signaled to lawmakers ahead of the hearing that he would not talk about his conversations with Mr. Trump.

The committee’s top Republican, Rep. Doug Collins, Georgia, blasted Mr. Nadler for holding the hearing, calling it “nothing more than character assassination.”

Mr. Collins also called the hearing “pointless,” noting that by this time next week, Mr. Trump’s pick for attorney general, William Barr, will be leading the department, not Mr. Whitaker.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

A House hearing for Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker erupted in fireworks Friday morning, as the top Republican on the judiciary committee accused Democratic Chairman Jerrold Nadler of “character assassination” against the temporary head of the Justice Department and called the hearing a pointless “dog and pony show.”

“This hearing is a character assassination on Acting Attorney General Whitaker, all pure political theater, to go after the president,” Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga, said in his opening statement while urging the committee to adjourn.

A vote was then taken on whether to abruptly end the hearing. The measure did not pass, and the hearing began as scheduled, with Whitaker addressing the issue Democrats are most interested in: his oversight of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.

In his opening statement, he said he never offered "promises or commitments" regarding the Mueller or any other investigation.

"There has been no change in the overall management of the special counsel investigation," he said.

Whitaker also said he's been briefed and the probe and, during a tense exchange with Nadler, said he has not discussed the status with President Trump or senior White House officials.

The hearing follows an intense back and forth between the Justice Department and the Judiciary Committee a day earlier.

The Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to give Nadler the authority to issue a subpoena if necessary, despite Whitaker having already agreed to appear before the panel voluntarily.

Nadler made clear early Thursday that he did not want to have to subpoena Whitaker, but said a “series of troubling events” suggested it would be better for him to be prepared with that authority, just in case he decided not to show up for the hearing.

But Whitaker then warned he would not show up unless lawmakers dropped the threat.

“Consistent with longstanding practice, I remain willing to appear to testify tomorrow, provided that the Chairman assures me that the Committee will not issue a subpoena today or tomorrow, and that the Committee will engage in good faith negotiations before taking such a step down the road,” Whitaker wrote to Nadler.

Hours later, Nadler responded that if Whitaker appeared before the panel “prepared to respond to questions from our members, then I assure you there will be no need for the committee to issue a subpoena on or before February 8.”

Whitaker accepted the assurances and testified Friday.

The hearing Friday comes as the Senate is close to confirming President Trump’s nominee for attorney general, William Barr. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted, along party lines, to advance Barr’s nomination to the full Senate for confirmation.

The president fired his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, the day after the 2018 midterm elections. Prior to Whitaker’s appointment as acting attorney general, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein oversaw the Russia investigation.

Nadler and other Democrats have criticized Whitaker for not recusing himself from the Mueller probe, as Sessions did due to his involvement with the Trump campaign in 2016, as Whitaker had made public comments criticizing the investigation.

The hearing is the committee’s first major oversight hearing looking at the Justice Department of this Congress. Whitaker told reporters last week that Mueller’s probe was “close to being completed,” the first official sign that the investigation may be nearing an end. His comments, though, were a departure for the Justice Department, which rarely comments on the status of investigations. Whitaker, though, said he had been “fully briefed” on the probe.

Fox News' Jake Gibson and Gregg Re contributed to this report.

dailycaller

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker delegated time to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on Friday while he was testifying in front of the committee, and the exchange drew a reaction.

“Mr. Chairman, I see that your five minutes is up,” Whitaker told Nadler during a contentious round of questioning regarding his involvement with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling.

“I’m here voluntarily,” Whitaker continued. “We’ve agreed to five-minute rounds.”

After an uproar ensued among the crowd, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the Republican ranking member of the House Judiciary, recommended that the committee take a break from further questioning. (RELATED: Matthew Whitaker: ‘Deeply Concerning’ Than CNN Was At Roger Stone Raid)

“I will point out that we didn’t enforce the five-minute rule on acting attorney general Whitaker,” Nadler responded and demanded that he answer if he “asked to approve any requests or action” for the special counsel.

President Donald Trump appointed Whitaker to serve as the acting attorney general after former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to resign. With the elevation, Whitaker assumed control of oversight of the Mueller’s probe.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

President Trump on Saturday blasted “vicious” Democrats for their conduct during a House Judiciary Committee hearing a day earlier that featured Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker -- and saw fiery exchanges between Whitaker and House Democrats.

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

Shooting survivor and U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) says the Democrats refused his request to testify against the gun control currently being pushed in the House.

Steve Scalise says Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) asked Democrats to let Scalise give testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and they told him no.

Fox News reports that Scalise decided to make public the testimony he would have given, testimony that explains why universal background checks will not reduce gun violence or make Americans safer.

Scalise referenced the June 14, 2017, Congressional baseball shooting in which he was nearly killed. He noted that the gunman acquired his guns via background checks, just as nearly every mass shooter of the 21st century has done. Because of this means of acquisition, Scalise notes that universal background checks would not have stopped the shooting from taking place.

The same can be said about the November 5, 2009, Fort Hood shooting; the July 20, 2012, Aurora movie theater shooting; the May 23, 2014, Santa Barbara shooting; the October 1, 2015, Umpqua Community College shooting; the June 12, 2016, Orlando Pulse shooting; the October 1, 2017, Las Vegas shooting; and the February 14, 2018, Parkland high school shooting, to name but a few. In each of these crimes, the guns used were acquired via background checks.

Would-be mass shooters can pass background checks because they have no criminal record. They have criminal intent, but background checks look backward not forward.

As for career criminals, they do not shop for guns in a retail store. Rather, they buy them on the black market or steal them. Scalise pointed out that “a DOJ study of federal inmates found that only seven percent who possessed a firearm while committing the crime they were serving time for purchased it legally from a firearms dealer under their own name.”

Again, universal background checks would do nothing to deter such criminals because they are avoiding the places where such checks would be conducted.

Scalise wrote, “I firmly believe we must never forget, nor minimize, the importance of the Second Amendment to our Constitution. H.R. 8, as well as other new gun control legislation currently being considered by the House Democrat majority, do not accomplish the goal of reducing gun violence.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

House Republican Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said Wednesday that Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee refused to let him testify at a hearing on gun violence about his experience as a victim of a congressional baseball practice shooting two years ago. The move infuriated his fellow Republicans.

Scalise told Fox News that he found out over the weekend that Democrats had chosen not to allow hiis testimony at the hearing --“Preventing Gun Violence: A Call to Action” --, something he said is a courtesy traditionally extended to any lawmaker who wishes to speak.

SCALISE: DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT YOU TO HEAR WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT GUNS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

“I thought it outrageous that they want to try to silence this message, because in the end I’m still going to get my message out. They can’t silence this issue,” he said.

Scalise was shot and injured in June 2017. But despite his experience and perspective, he said that committee Democrats said he would not able to testify -- although he could submit written testimony for the record, which he did.

“I was surprised, because it’s unprecedented,” he said. “In the past, when we were in charge on the Republican side, if the Democrats selected among one of their witnesses to be a sitting member of Congress, we always gave them the courtesy of testifying in a proper setting, and we were asking for that same courtesy -- and they denied it.”

A spokesman for the House Judiciary Democrats told Fox News that there were multiple members on both sides who wanted to be witnesses, and Republicans were given two of the eight slots on the panel -- and did not choose Scalise as one of their two designees. But Scalise’s office said there is a standard practice of having an extra member panel for those who are experts or who have experience of the topic, which was not allowed by Democrats in this case.

At the hearing itself on Wednesday, the decision led to a back-and-forth between Republican ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga., and Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who said that due to the number of members who wanted to speak, it was decided that no members would be allowed to testify in order to save time.

“It’s a debatable decision,” Nadler said. “We decided that, rather than hear from a lot of our colleagues who have other opportunities to address this issue in Congress, we’d rather hear from the witnesses.”

Collins pushed back: “The uniqueness of Mr. Scalise’s testimony being denied this voice is tragic for all who attend and all who have been a part of that, especially from his perspective as a lawmaker who will be voting on and working with this issue, and just because he probably disagrees with the majority is no reason to keep him out.”

“He wasn’t denied because he disagrees,” Nadler later said. “Majority members, we decided we needed to have a hard and fast rule today or we’d be here all day with members.”

In his submitted written testimony, Scalise says he applauds the intent to pursue a reduction in gun violence, but that he does not support new gun control restrictions being considered in the hearing, and that the focus should be on stopping criminals instead. He argued that the measures proposed in legislation to ramp up background checks (known as H.R. 8) would not have prevented any recent mass shootings, nor would it have halted the gunman who shot him.

“Instead, whether intentionally or not, the gun control proposals in H.R. 8 could turn law-abiding citizens into criminals while also failing to achieve the stated purpose of reducing gun violence,” he said.

Gun control has long been a sensitive issue where Republicans and Democrats have struggled to find common ground. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, said on Tuesday after President Trump’s State of the Union address that she was “saddened” that Trump did not mention gun violence.

“The president talked about security in so many ways and he totally ignored the gun violence epidemic in our country,” she said.

Scalise told Fox News that Democrats' decision to deny him a platform was a bad start for House Democrats going forward on hot-button issues.

“It’s not a good way for the Democrats to start their new majority by trying to suppress opposing viewpoints and there are going to be a lot of controversial issues that go before the Judiciary Committee in the next two years,” he said. “If they start to run it like a kangaroo court, it's going to really hurt their credibility and ultimately show that they’re not about getting facts out, they're just trying to promote a leftist agenda, and that would be a mistake on their part.”

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Wednesday on new gun control legislation Democrats plan to push on the American people. Democrats would not allow me to speak. Here's the testimony I planned to give.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

After a tense back-and-forth between congressional Democrats and the Justice Department, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler announced Thursday evening that Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, likely in his final days as the country's chief law enforcement officer, will appear Friday as scheduled before the panel.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Congressional Democrats are using their guest lists for the State of the Union address on Tuesday to score political points against President Trump on immigration, the government shutdown and more. 

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Congressional Democrats are using their guest lists for the State of the Union address on Tuesday to score political points against President Trump on immigration, the government shutdown and more. 

I Love My Freedom

Published  3 weeks ago

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham has a few questions for the FBI about the arrest of Roger Stone. For example, wasn't it curious that CNN was on the scene of the arrest? Here's the bulk of

mcclatchydc

Published  3 weeks ago

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell voiced concerns Tuesday about Democratic-led efforts to bolster the nation’s voting rights laws

americanthinker

Published  1 month ago

More information is supporting the theory that the current big Justice Department "investigations" are actually functioning as big cover-up operations. Robert Mueller's team is effectively hiding key evidence related to serious crimes committed by government officials. Mueller has nearly complete control over what the public or any investigator can see. He has control over what witnesses can talk about.

This means that the Huber and Horowitz investigations exist to make you think something is being investigated when it is not. That is why Representatives Doug Collins, Mark Meadows, and Jim Jordan sent a letter to Huber, the U.S. attorney, this week that essentially exposes the fraud.

The letter begins, "We write to request an update on the progress of your review of irregularities involved with the Department of Justice's (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) actions during 2016 and 2017[.]" The letter then points to facts that indicate that there has been no real investigation. None of the many key witnesses has been interviewed. Huber refused to testify at a recent congressional hearing about the Clinton Foundation. The letter then asks for information in four areas where Huber cannot reply without further demonstrating that this is a fake investigation.

There is also mounting evidence that hiding facts is common in deep state political crusades. A recent column by Marty Watters and Lee Cary exposes Mueller's long history of improperly hiding evidence. The column begins, "During his twelve-year reign as FBI Director, Robert Mueller not only protected his criminal friends by silencing those who could expose their bad acts, he projected his friends' crimes onto others."

One example cited is the case of William Campbell, who infiltrated Russia's State Nuclear Energy Corporation, Rosatom, for the FBI. Over a period of eight years, he documented the bribery and money-laundering involved in Russia's effort to get access to U.S. uranium assets. Massive donations were made to the Clinton Foundation, and absurdly high speaking fees were given to Bill Clinton by those who planned to profit from the deal.

The reason you have not heard Campbell's story is that FBI director Mueller forbade him to go public. Attorney General Loretta Lynch threatened Campbell with jail if he told the truth. The truth was hidden, and the deal went through.

You will remember the case of Valerie Plame, where a special counsel was empowered to find out who "outed" supposed covert agent Plame. It was known early in this politically motivated investigation that the chosen target, Dick Cheney's top aide, Scooter Libby, was not the person who had leaked Plames name. There were two earlier leakers whom Mueller's FBI knew about. But the special counsel did not want to let a good investigation go to waste, so he prolonged it for maximum political effect. Sound familiar?

We know that the person who leaked Plame's name to Robert Novak was Richard Armitage. The Watters-Cary column added a new twist to the story by introducing an earlier leaker, who was hidden by Mueller. An FBI employee, Sibel Edmonds, did not like the extensive illegal surveillance she was witnessing. She wanted to expose the criminal actions of the FBI. Director Mueller intervened on two occasions to silence her. Some of the information from the surveillance related to Plame. Watters and Cary write:

One of the "secrets" that Mueller did not want Edmonds to expose was that the FBI has a 2001 recording of Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman outing Plame's identity as a CIA employee to a Turkish diplomat. This was long before Richard Armitage claimed he "accidently" [sic] outed Plame to Robert Novak.

Silencing Edmonds enabled Mueller to position his protégé, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, to eventually appoint their mutual, close friend, U.S Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, as the Special Counsel tasked to discover who leaked Plame's identity as a CIA employee. Everyone with a need to know already knew the original leaker was Grossman. But the public didn't need to know, and so the spin-up to the lengthy Plamegate puppet show began.

Scott Johnson of Powerline has three posts about "Mueller's Cone of Silence" that relate to Mueller attempting to hide evidence in his Russian troll case. In February of last year, Mueller indicted Russian social media actors (some of whom do not even exist) for some trivial actions not aimed at any particular candidate. The apparent purpose of the indictment was to feed the Trump-Russia collusion fable by creating news stories containing the word "Russia." Mueller surely had no expectation that the Russians would answer the charges, but Concord Management did just that.

Concord's attorney has asked to see the evidence against its people. Mueller has essentially told the judge that the evidence is "sensitive," and he doesn't want to show it. Openly telling the defendant he can't see the evidence is one step more brazen than simply hiding the evidence. The Concord attorney responded this way in his motion to Judge Dabney Friedrich:

In this first-of-its-kind prosecution of a make-believe crime, the Office of Special Counsel maintains that it can unilaterally – and for secret reasons disclosed only to the Court – categorize millions of pages of non-classified documents as "sensitive," and prohibit defense counsel from sharing this information with Defendant[.]

It is interesting that Judge Friedrich is married to Matthew Friedrich, who is tied directly to Mueller in some well documented cases of hiding evidence from defendants. Sidney Powell's great book, Licensed to Lie, describes the extreme corruption of Mueller's prosecutors in the cases of Ted Stevens, Merrill Lynch, and Enron. Evidence was hidden in these cases on a grand scale. Later, after the damage was done, higher courts overturned verdicts and strongly rebuked the dishonest prosecutors.

In 2014, Sidney Powell wrote a column about what Eric Holder had done to four of the corrupt and discredited prosecutors described in Powell's book. Holder did the same thing that our current "dirty cops" expected from President Hillary Clinton. Holder "honored, promoted and protected" them.

Matthew Friedrich was one of the four, and Andrew Weissmann was another. Matthew Friedrich "personally told the jury facts that were directly refuted by [evidence he withheld][.] ... Mr. Friedrich rushed the indictment of Senator Stevens and micromanaged that corrupted prosecution, which cost the citizens of Alaska their senior Senator, changed the balance of power in the Senate, and facilitated the enactment of Obamacare. "

Judge Friedrich is a Trump appointee. Her rulings so far indicate that she may be just as effective for Trump as Jeff Sessions was.

Look at the big picture. Those in power regularly hide evidence of their crimes and get away with it. From Lois Lerner to Hillary Clinton to Strzok and Page, the dreaded "glitch" eats the most important evidence. From "Fast and Furious" to Benghazi to Comey's fake investigation of Hillary to Rosenstein's stonewalling to Mueller's "insurance policy" cover-up, hiding the facts is the primary goal.

Joseph Stalin is quoted as saying, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." It is also true that the actual evidence decides nothing. The people who control the evidence decide everything.

Image: James Ledbetter via Flickr.

Dan Bongino

Published  1 month ago

Republicans from the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees are demanding an update from the U.S. attorney appointed to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and surveillance abuse in the FBI and DOJ. The congressmen claim the attorney has yet to interview a number of key witnesses.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) sent a letter to U.S. attorney for Utah John Huber and told him they were “surprised” many witnesses have yet to hear from the attorney, despite the ongoing investigation lasting over nine months.

“Your investigation has been ongoing for over nine months,” the Congressmen write. “During the course of our extensive investigation we have interviewed more than a dozen current and former DOJ and FBI personnel, and were surprised to hear none of these potentially informative witnesses testified to speaking with you.”

They continue, “Further, last month, then-chairman Mark Meadows invited you to testify as a witness at the Subcommittee on Government Operations’ hearing ‘Oversight of Nonprofit Organizations: A Case Study on the Clinton Foundation.’ We were disappointed to learn from the department that you were not enthusiastic about testifying when declining the invitation.”

The Congressmen gave Huber a deadline of January 21 to provide a response to the following inquiries:

“1) The total number of witnesses you have interviewed, including names of specific individuals where possible, and the number of witnesses remaining to be interviewed;

2)The total number of FISA applications reviewed;

3)The total number of documents reviewed, including their substance and format (e.g. emails, meeting notes, phone logs, etc); and

4)A description and account of your coordination with DOJ IG Michael Horowitz”

In March 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Huber to investigate whether or not the FBI abused its powers when obtaining a FISA warrant on former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page.

The lack of communication and updates from Huber has been frustrating Republican members for months.

In October 2018, both Meadows and Jordan spoke to the Washington Times where they expressed their disappointment in the U.S. attorney.

“I would just like to know what he’s doing. I’ll take anything. All I know is that we haven’t heard a single thing about what he’s doing,” said Jordan.

Meadows said, “I have not seen a lot of evidence that Mr. Huber has done anything other than be appointed by Jeff Sessions. It’s been portrayed that he’s making great progress, but I’m not sure there is a whole lot to show for it other than rhetoric right now. I’m not aware of any substantial work that he’s doing.”

TheHill

Published  2 months ago

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) abruptly stepped aside on Thursday to allow his House Freedom Caucus ally, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), to run uncontested for the ranking member role on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee -- a position that he won.

Jordan, who won the race with no other competitors to challenge him, is expected to be a fierce defender of President Trump when Democrats take control of the panel next Congress. They are expected to become involved in a series of investigations into the Trump administration.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and two GOP lawmakers on the steering committee confirmed that Jordan won.

"The steering committee unanimously selected Jim Jordan to be our next ranking member. And I think he's going to do a great job and thought that it was a good move by the committee," Scalise told The Hill. "You never know what good things will happen along the way in these interviews."

The move is a stunning turn of events amid buzz that Meadows was vying uncontested for the role in the lead up to the steering committee vote.

Meadows arrived to the steering committee carrying a binder, which likely contained a layout of his vision for the panel. And part way into the meeting, Jordan entered the closed door meeting.

Jordan then confirmed to reporters that Meadows had pulled out of the race and that he had declared his interest.

"I just talked to them about the OGR ranking member position. The committee is discussing what they are going to do," Jordan told reporters. "I just went in and told them I am interested in the position."

When asked if Meadows was running, Jordan replied: "No, he is not."

Meadows at the time, however, declined to say that he was not running.

Jordan, the senior-most member on the Oversight committee, dropped out of the race for the House Judiciary Committee amid concerns he would not make it through the steering committee.

But by running in this particular race for Oversight, Jordan didn’t face the stiff competition he would’ve had if he chose to run for Judiciary, in which Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) -- who won there -- already appeared to be the clear favorite among GOP leadership and the steering committee.

Leading up to the steering committee vote on Oversight, it appeared Meadows was a shoo-in.

Members of the House Freedom Caucus — who have earned a reputation for being a thorn in leadership’s side — have faced an uphill battle in securing chairmanships. The group of hardline conservatives has long been pushing for better committee assignments and top positions on panels.

Fox News

Published  3 months ago

President Trump’s announcement Wednesday that he will support a bipartisan prison reform bill shows he wants to make deals with Democrats after they take control of the U.S. House in January so he can continue his record of achievement on behalf of the American people.

Fox News

Published  3 months ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker stunned onlookers and lawmakers during an already-contentious House hearing Friday, when he tried to call time on the Democratic chairman after yet another line of questioning regarding Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. 

dailycaller

Published  7 months ago

Anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok told Congress on Thursday that he still has a top secret security clearance, in contradiction with a claim made in June by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

“You currently have what classification?” Strzok was asked by Georgia Republican Rep. Doug Collins during a joint hearing of the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees.

“I have a top secret clearance with some SCI compartments,” replied Strzok, the former deputy director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division. “SCI” is an acronym for highly classified materials known as Sensitive Compartmented Information. (RELATED: Sessions Claims That Peter Strzok Lost Security Clearance)

Strzok’s statement is a surprise of sorts given comments that Sessions made during a June 21 interview with conservative radio host Howie Carr.

“Mr. Strzok, as I understand, has lost his security clearance,” Sessions said.

Strzok was escorted out of FBI headquarters on June 15, a day after the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General referred him to the FBI for a disciplinary review over his Trump text messages.

Strzok was the FBI’s top investigator on the probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. During that time, he spoke critically of Trump, calling the Republican an “idiot” and mocking his supporters.

He was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team in July 2017 after the discovery of his text exchanges. He currently works in the FBI’s human resources division.

The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment on the discrepancy between Strzok and Sessions’s statements.

100PercentFedUp.com

Published  1 year ago

Breitbart

Published  1 year ago

President Donald Trump invited members of Congress for lunch on Tuesday, but House Democrats turned down the invitation.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders criticized Democrats for refusing to work on a deal to end the partial government shutdown and fund border security.

“The President looks forward to having a working lunch with House Republicans to solve the border crisis and reopen the government,” Sanders wrote in a statement to reporters. “It’s time for the Democrats to come to the table and make a deal.”

The White House had hoped that more moderate Democrats would be willing to at least talk to the president about a bi-partisan solution.

Sanders confirmed that Trump had proposed a deal that would fund additional technology to screen ports of entry, allow minors to seek asylum in their home country, and fund a physical barrier of steel on the southern border instead of concrete.

“As Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi refuse to negotiate, President Donald J. Trump and his team are working hard to find solutions to solve the humanitarian and national security crisis at the border and reopen the government,” she wrote.

Reps. Susan Brooks (R-IN), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Doug Collins (R-GA), John Katko (R-NY), Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX), Van Taylor (R-TX), Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH) and Clay Higgins (R-LA) were on the White House guest list.

The White House did not reveal the lunch menu. On Monday, President Trump personally paid caterers to bring fast food to the White House for the Clemson football team to celebrate their national college championship victory.

Fox News

Published  2 years ago

President Donald Trump and his son-in-law scored a legislative victory Tuesday after the House overwhelmingly approved a prison reform bill that aims to help ex-convicts rebuild their lives after their release from prison.

The so-called First Step Act was authored by Reps. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and Doug Collins, R-Ga., who also worked closely with the White House -- particularly Jared Kushner, Trump’s senior adviser, who advocated for the reform after witnessing how his father, Charles Kushner, was treated in prison.

The act would provide $250 million over five years to expand and support programs that reduce reoffending rates and encourage good behavior, the New York Post reported.

It would also require prisoners to be housed within 500 miles from their relatives and prohibit prisons from shackling pregnant women. Some prisoners would also be allowed to spend more of their sentences in a halfway house or home confinement.

“President Trump promised to fight for the forgotten men and women of this country — and that includes those in prison.”

- Jared Kushner, White House senior adviser

“President Trump promised to fight for the forgotten men and women of this country — and that includes those in prison,” Kushner wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month.

“America is a nation that believes in the power of redemption,” Trump said Friday at a prison reform summit at the White House. “America is a nation that believes in second chances, and third chances, in some cases. And, I don’t know, I guess even fourth chances.”

The reform effort earned support from multiple diverse groups, including Dream Corps’ #cut50 initiative – a movement led by CNN analyst Van Jones, a longtime critic of Trump, Mother Jones magazine reported.

But Jones’ support for the bill heralded by Kushner came under fire from progressive Democrats who oppose working with the Trump administration. ShareBlue media’s Oliver Willis accused Jones of aiding racism, tweeting: “Van provides window dressing so racist administration can point to their black friend without really doing anything.”

Aiding Donald Trump is aiding racism. And Van Jones is aiding Trump (even worse he did a dog n pony show for Ivanka, Jared, and Rick Perry). It was gross and disgusting. https://t.co/RloxxfFEEv

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) May 23, 2018

“Aiding Donald Trump is aiding racism. And Van Jones is aiding Trump (even worse he did a dog n pony show for Ivanka, Jared, and Rick Perry). It was gross and disgusting,” Willis added in another tweet, prompting mockery for opposing a reform that helps inmates.

Jeffries said his bill would give additional funding to programs that allow inmates to attend vocational and college courses and get help with mental health and substance abuse issues.

“These are individuals who are in the system right now without hope, without opportunity, without a meaningful chance at transforming themselves,” Jeffries said on the House floor. “And the First Step Act will provide that. … Why would we possibly refuse that?”

The bill now moves to the Senate where it will face a tough battle as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he wants any prison reform linked to sentencing reforms as well.

->