A bill introduced by a Republican congressman would allow January 6 defendants and other out-of-towners facing trials in Washington, D.C., the right to move their cases out of the 92% Democrat jurisdiction in order to secure a jury of their peers.
The bill by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge,  says that &#8220;in the criminal trial of any individual for the commission of a criminal offense in the District of Columbia, the individual on trial may choose venue for the proceedings and trial to be in the district court for the district and division embracing that individual’s primary residence.&#8221;
The legislation is called the <a href="https://gohmert.house.gov/uploadedfiles/perna_bill.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Matthew Lawrence Perna Act</a> of 2022 after a man who killed himself because prosecutors wanted to put him in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/different-from-any-other-jail-in-america-a-january-6-prisoner-speaks-out" target="_blank" rel="noopener">prison</a> for years following his nonviolent presence in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
“He was a guy that graduated at the top of his class at Penn State. He liked to travel to other countries and teach. He was a gentle soul, he liked Bernie Sanders, but then he liked the message of Donald Trump better, and he went to the Capitol on January 6,” Gohmert told <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kHN1p-G9Ow" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Newsmax</a>. “He went into the Capitol without anybody trying to obstruct his entrance, he did nothing violent, he never has, yet he was a target by the FBI’s shock and awe campaign in which they used Gestapo tactics.”
Gohmert, who is retiring this year, said “The Democrats aren’t going to allow it to come to the floor before January 3, but it was important to file it to get that marker down so that when the Republicans have the majority after January 3, this should be pushed.”
Politically-charged cases often involve people from across the U.S., but also enough nexus to Washington, D.C. that prosecutors in the Biden administration appear to have taken to using D.C. grand juries and juries to secure easy indictments and convictions. D.C. juries have overwhelmingly convicted <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/eight-months-after-january-6-prosecutors-make-aggressive-maneuvers-as-defendant-attempts-suicide-another-beaten-in-jail" target="_blank" rel="noopener">January 6 defendants</a>, for example, while acquitting Michael Sussman, a Democrat lawyer who prosecutors said lied to the FBI in relation to Donald Trump’s purported involvement with Russia.
Judges have denied January 6 defendants’ motion for a venue change despite arguments that the jury pool in the overwhelmingly liberal city was prejudiced and did not represent a jury of one’s peers.
Juli Haller, a lawyer who has represented January 6 defendants, told The Daily Wire that change of venue is “a remedy so important it appears twice in rules based on Due Process, rules that are quickly getting whittled away by case law diluting the rule in exchange for what, convenience?”
“A right to an impartial trial is a constitutional right, but courts in recent years have steered away from granting change of venue motions to the theory of a good jury voir dire,” she said. That refers to the process where attorneys have opportunities to reject potential jury members in an attempt to get a balanced jury—but in D.C., which voted <a href="https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/district-of-columbia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">92%</a> for Joe Biden, securing a jury whose political leanings mirror those of the U.S. is still impossible.
An attorney for Thomas Edward Caldwell <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/50301219/347/united-states-v-caldwell/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">argued</a> in August 2021 that Attorney General Merrick Garland has compared January 6 to the Oklahoma City bombing&#8211;which the DOJ&#8217;s prosecutors, including Garland at the time, agreed to move out of Oklahoma because it could not provide the defendants a fair trial.
&#8220;The outrageous assertion by politicians and D.C.-based media that Caldwell and his codefendants are &#8216;white supremacists,&#8217; &#8216;white nationalists,&#8217; &#8216;racists,&#8217; and other despicable monikers is disgusting and completely guarantees that a truly unbiased jury will be impossible to seat. These disgusting racial attacks are particularly prejudicial in the District, where just under half of residents are African American,&#8221; a legal pleading said.
It said the government&#8217;s reference to the precedent for politicized trials taking place in D.C. dating back to the Nixon era is no longer applicable.
&#8220;The Government’s citation to trials involving H.R. Haldeman, Oliver North, John Poindexter, and Scooter Libby is unpersuasive. First, Haldeman, North, and Poindexter were tried more than 30 years ago, when the District was far less hostile to those on the Right,&#8221; it said.
&#8220;The Government’s citation to the Roger Stone case actually strengthens Caldwell’s transfer argument. After Stone’s verdict, internet sleuths discovered that the jury foreperson, contrary to her voir dire answers, was an obvious left-wing partisan who hid her disdain of Trump and his associates behind vague, misleading answers on her jury questionnaire,&#8221; it added.
Prosecutors said this argument was &#8220;offensive,&#8221; <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.231716/gov.uscourts.dcd.231716.312.0_1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">writing</a> &#8220;The defendants go on to make sweeping and offensive claims about District residents and their (allegedly homogenous) viewpoints, casting both aspersions and a wide net in their claim that so many District residents have such an &#8216;antipathy towards Trump and his supporters&#8217; that it would be &#8216;impossible&#8217; to locate impartial jurors here&#8230; His assertions that media coverage &#8216;ha[s] prejudiced the potential District jury pool&#8217; are based entirely on his own speculation.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/50260045/37/united-states-v-reffitt/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Guy Reffit</a> asked to move his trial to Texas, writing that “Prejudice requiring a change of venue is presumed when widespread, pervasive prejudice against the defendant and/or extensive prejudicial pretrial publicity saturates the community where he or she is to be tried… In some cases, a court can determine that the potential jury pool is irredeemably biased, when the alleged crime results in ‘effects . . . on [a] community [that] are so profound and pervasive that no detailed discussion of the [pretrial publicity and juror partiality] evidence is necessary.’”
“Actual prejudice may be shown when a large proportion of prospective jurors are dismissed for cause, because that demonstrates a pattern of prejudice that gives little weight to the remaining jurors’ assurances of impartiality,” his lawyer wrote.
In another case, prosecutors <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62601653/206/united-states-v-rhodes-iii/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> that &#8220;As Judge Amy Berman Jackson concluded last week in denying a motion for change of venue&#8230; the defendants’ arguments are “largely predicated on sweeping, unsupported assertions about a city [they do] not appear to know or understand.”

Jan. 6 committee report

House Bill Would Let January 6 Suspects Move Trials Out Of D.C. For A Jury Of Their Peers

Congress

Crime

Department of Justice

January 6

January 6 Committee

Louie Gohmert

Merrick Garland

The attorney for a group of former Capitol Police intelligence officers says that the Capitol law enforcement agency’s revamped vetting procedures potentially violate First Amendment rights.
Solomon Law Firm attorney Dan Gebhardt told Politico in a lengthy statement that his clients, five former members of the department’s intelligence division, have long held concerns over the Capitol Police’s intelligence gathering and vetting practices. Gebhardt’s clients all served in the Capitol Police during the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Gebhardt described some specific issues that his clients said were problematic. At one point, Capitol Police analysts were asked to comb through the history of a religious leader who oversaw a funeral attended by a member of Congress. In another instance, analysts were instructed to look into the background of the relatives of members of Congress, according to <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/19/capitol-police-vetting-practices-first-amendment-concerns-00025904">Politico</a>.
“Analysts’ complaints were filed with the USCP chain of command, Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and Inspector General (IG), as well as Congressional committees,” Gebhardt said.
The attorney also said that his clients raised concerns about Capitol Police procedures that were put in place after the January 6 riot. As part of normal operations, members of Congress and others hosting events on Capitol Hill share guest lists and other information with Capitol Police ahead of the planned event. As part of the Capitol Police’s new security procedures, intelligence analysts would use those guest lists to comb through the social media posts of attendees. Sometimes that background work spread to encompass Congressional staff.
The Capitol Police executive team denied the allegations in a statement.
“These old accusations continue to be misleading,” the Capitol Police said. “The USCP uses the same common sense best practices as other protective agencies to ensure the safety of Members of Congress and the public at a time when threats against lawmakers are higher than ever. An event assessment is only done at the request of the Member’s office or protection detail and are much more limited than a threat investigation. The work is ethical and lawful. Nevertheless, we requested an independent review by the Inspector General back in January.”
Republicans in Congress have accused the Capitol Police of spying on GOP members. Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) in February <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gop-congressman-accuses-capitol-police-of-spying-on-him">said</a> that Capitol Police in November of last year “entered [his] office without [his] knowledge and photographed confidential legislative products.” Nehls added that Capitol Police agents later questioned his staff while dressed as construction workers.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) released a <a href="https://twitter.com/replouiegohmert/status/1491112576247541760">statement</a> following Nehls’ claims saying that Gohmert’s mail was being illegally routed through the Department of Justice before coming to his office. He also suggested that Nehls’ allegations are an example of “Democrat’s spying on political opponents.”
Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger denied Nehls’ allegations in a statement afterward. Nehls also <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/capitol-police-investigate-spying-allegations-some-gop-lawmakers-1678187">revealed</a> in a January letter to Congress that the Capitol Police Inspector General would conduct an investigation into the spying allegations.

Thomas Manger

Whistleblowers’ Attorney Says Capitol Police Vetting Procedures Might Violate First Amendment

Capitol Police

Republicans

Whistleblowers

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), who was hit with a $5,000 fine for allegedly bypassing metal detectors on his way to the House floor, plans to fight back, saying the metal detectors are unconstitutional.
&#8220;This is a constitutional issue,&#8221; Clyde said on Laura Ingraham&#8217;s Fox News show. &#8220;Those metal detectors are there to detain us or to – and that’s a violation of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution. We’re going to the House floor to vote. We represent 700,000 people in our districts. And the Constitution says that we cannot be impeded when we go to the Florida vote,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;Congressman, are you going to pay the $5,000? Are you going to pay the $5,000?&#8221; Ingraham asked.
&#8220;I’m going to fight it. I’m going to appeal it. And then I’m going to take them to court, because this is unconstitutional. We’re all set up to do that. And – but I had to have standing, Laura,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;But are you going to do it again, because it gets $10,000 next time, because it’s like running up the tab here. Are you going to go – are you going to go through the metal detector next time?&#8221; Ingraham asked.
&#8220;I think I’ve already done it at least a couple of times. That fine was for a couple of days ago. I’ve had a couple of times since then, I think, so I’m probably up to $25,000 by now.&#8221;
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) last week reportedly docked $5,000 each from Clyde and Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX).
In a statement Friday, Gohmert <a class="x5l" href="https://gohmert.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399918" target="_blank" rel="noopener external noreferrer">addressed</a> the accusation that he broke the House Rule regarding metal detectors, saying, “This should come as no surprise, but Democrats are making up the rules as they go.”
He said he has complied with Pelosi’s “unconstitutional” policy for weeks:
<blockquote>For weeks, I have complied with Speaker Pelosi’s unconstitutional metal detector policy.
Yesterday, after complying with the metal detector screening, I was allowed to enter the House session where debate was occurring. Knowing that I would soon be giving a speech, I stepped off the House floor to use the restroom right beside the Speaker’s lobby as I have done many times since the metal detectors have been installed.
At no time until yesterday did anyone mention the need to be wanded after entering the restroom directly in front of the guards. The three main entrances have metal detectors, but the House floor entrance from the Speakers’ Lobby does not. Originally I had gone around the metal detectors a few times until it was mandated. I have been complying for weeks since.</blockquote>
Meanwhile, Republicans say they’re planning a “huge push” to force Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to pay a hefty fine after Pelosi reportedly skirted the metal detectors installed after the Jan. 6 riot inside the U.S. Capitol, defying her own rule requiring all members to submit to the increased security.
<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/calls-pelosi-pay-fine-she-imposed-bypass-metal-detector">Fox News reports</a> that members of the House GOP caught Pelosi using an alternative entrance to the House — an entrance that allows the Speaker to bypass the new security measures.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/republicans-demand-pelosi-pay-fine-after-speaker-defies-new-rule-bypasses-house-metal-detectors">Republicans Demand Pelosi Pay Fine After Speaker Defies New Rule, Bypasses House Metal Detectors</a>

Washington, DC Prepares For Potential Unrest Ahead Of Presidential Inauguration

GOP Rep Says House Metal Detectors ‘Unconstitutional’ — ‘I’m Going to Take Them to Court’

House Republicans

Nancy Pelosi

Two Republican congressmen were slapped with $5,000 fines this week after they were accused of skipping out on new security screenings when entering the House chamber.
Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Congressman Andrew Clyde (R-GA) appear to be the first two lawmakers to face fines under the new measures, which were enacted on Tuesday following a party-line vote in the House, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/06/gohmert-clyde-security-fine/">according</a> to The Washington Post.
Gohmert, who has served in Congress since 2005, released a statement Friday saying that he has been complying with the metal detector requirements and that he was only receiving the fine because he left briefly to go to the bathroom in the Speaker’s lobby.
&#8220;At no time until yesterday did anyone mention the need to be wanded after entering the restroom directly in front of the guards. The three main entrances have metal detectors, but the House floor entrance from the Speakers’ Lobby does not. Originally I had gone around the metal detectors a few times until it was mandated,&#8221; said Gohmert. &#8220;I explained to the Capitol Police officer that I had never been required to be screened again from the restroom immediately by the House floor since the metal detectors had been in place at the other doors. I said they had witnessed me walk the few feet to the men’s room, enter and take the few steps back. No one ever mentioned or made that a requirement until yesterday.&#8221;
&#8220;Unlike in the movie The Godfather, there are no toilets with tanks where one could hide a gun, so my reentry onto the House floor should have been a non-issue,” he added.
Clyde, a first-term congressman, told Laura Ingraham in a <a href="https://video.foxnews.com/v/6229672255001#sp=show-clips">Fox News</a> interview Friday that the security measures were a Constitutional issue: “Those metal detectors are there to detain us, and that’s a violation of Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution,” he said.
“We’re going to the House floor to vote, we represent 700,000 people in our districts, and the Constitution says that we cannot be impeded when we go to the floor to vote, and those metal detectors are unconstitutional,” said the Georgia congressman.
Clyde also vowed to fight the $5,000 fine, then appeal it, and then take it to court on Constitutional grounds. “We’re all set up to do that, but I had to have standing, Laura,” said Clyde, suggesting that he broke the rule on purpose in order to lobby a court challenge.
Back in mid-January, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced the House would vote on new rules that would enact a $5,000 fine for entering the House chamber without going through security screenings in the aftermath of the Capitol riot. Every Republican lawmaker who was present voted against it, <a href="https://www.axios.com/house-metal-detector-compliance-capitol-rule-fine-95d9e12b-f137-40ed-82b5-eedbde728688.html">according</a> to Axios. It still passed 216-210.
Should any member of Congress break the rule a second time, they would face a $10,000 fine. Fines will be deducted from a member’s salary automatically, per the rule.

McConnell Holds Trump’s Fate As Impeachment Heads To Senate

Two GOP Reps Hit With $5,000 Fines Under New House Security Policy

Capitol Riot

U.S. House of Representatives

A federal judge on Friday tossed out a lawsuit filed by several Republicans alleging Vice President Mike Pence had the “sole discretion” to name valid electoral college votes.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) led the lawsuit along with several Arizona Republicans as part of a last-ditch effort to keep President Donald Trump in the White House. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle &#8212; who was appointed by Trump &#8212; said in his ruling that Gohmert and the others who filed the lawsuit lacked standing. Gohmert and his fellow plaintiffs have already appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
As The Daily Wire’s Tim Pearce previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/group-republicans-sue-mike-pence-electoral-college-votes">reported</a>, Gohmert argued “that the Electoral Count Act of 1887 violates the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” The lawsuit argued that Pence “has authority under the Constitution to reject and approve electors in the case that two or more <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-republican-alternate-electors-barred-entry-to-michigan-capitol-for-electoral-vote">competing sets of electors</a> submit votes for the Electoral College,” The Daily Wire reported.
“[P]rovisions of Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act are unconstitutional insofar as they establish procedures for determining which of two or more competing slates of Presidential Electors for a given State are to be counted in the Electoral College, or how objections to a proffered slate are adjudicated, that violate the Twelfth Amendment,” the <a href="https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Gohmert-v-Pence.pdf">lawsuit</a> stated.
“This violation occurs because the Electoral Count Act directs the Defendant, Vice President Michael R. Pence, in his capacity as President of the Senate and Presiding Officer over the January 6, 2021 Joint Session of Congress: (1) to count the electoral votes for a State that have been appointed in violation of the Electors Clause; (2) limits or eliminates his exclusive authority and sole discretion under the Twelfth Amendment to determine which slates of electors for a State, or neither, may be counted; and (3) replaces the Twelfth Amendment’s dispute resolution procedure – under which the House of Representatives has sole authority to choose the President,” it continued.
Prominent Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and second-ranking Republican John Thune of South Dakota each suggested other members of the GOP stop supporting legal challenges to the 2020 election.
Gohmert’s lawsuit always faced major obstacles. Ohio State University law professor Edward Foley <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/531823-gop-lawmakers-sue-pence-in-bid-to-overturn-biden-win">told</a> The Hill after it was filed that it would probably be thrown out for lack of standing and that Judge Kernodle wouldn’t even address the merits of the case.
“The idea that the Vice President has sole authority to determine whether or not to count electoral votes submitted by a state, or which of competing submissions to count, is inconsistent with a proper understanding of the Constitution,” Foley said at the time.
“I’m not at all sure that the court will get to the merits of this lawsuit, given questions about the plaintiffs’ standing to bring this kind of claim, as well as other procedural obstacles,” he added.
As Pearce noted, the “vice president’s role in certifying the results of the election, scheduled to take place on Jan. 6, has historically been seen as ceremonial.”

Judge Tosses Lawsuit That Argued Mike Pence Could Name Valid Electoral College Votes

Donald Trump

Electoral College

Mike Pence

A group of Republicans are suing Vice President Mike Pence and asking a Texas judge to grant him the authority to name which electors are able to vote in the Electoral College for President of the United States.
Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert is leading the legal challenge, submitted to U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle in Texas, a Trump-appointee, arguing that the Electoral Count Act of 1887 violates the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs’ attorneys in the case assert that Pence has authority under the Constitution to reject and approve electors in the case that two or more <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-republican-alternate-electors-barred-entry-to-michigan-capitol-for-electoral-vote">competing sets of electors</a> submit votes for the Electoral College.
“[P]rovisions of Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act are unconstitutional insofar as they establish procedures for determining which of two or more competing slates of Presidential Electors for a given State are to be counted in the Electoral College, or how objections to a proffered slate are adjudicated, that violate the Twelfth Amendment,” the <a href="https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Gohmert-v-Pence.pdf">lawsuit</a> states.
“This violation occurs because the Electoral Count Act directs the Defendant, Vice President Michael R. Pence, in his capacity as President of the Senate and Presiding Officer over the January 6, 2021 Joint Session of Congress: (1) to count the electoral votes for a State that have been appointed in violation of the Electors Clause; (2) limits or eliminates his exclusive authority and sole discretion under the Twelfth Amendment to determine which slates of electors for a State, or neither, may be counted; and (3) replaces the Twelfth Amendment’s dispute resolution procedure – under which the House of Representatives has sole authority to choose the President,” the filing continues.
The case has already met with some pushback within the ranks of the GOP. Rep. Denver Riggleman of Virginia reacted to news of the lawsuit on Twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/RepRiggleman/status/1343618288677486595">writing</a>, “This is NUTS.” Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and second-ranking Republican Sen. John Thune (S.D.) have attempted to convince fellow Republicans not to support legal challenges to the election.
The legal maneuver appears to be a longshot with little chance of success, according to legal experts.
“The idea that the Vice President has sole authority to determine whether or not to count electoral votes submitted by a state, or which of competing submissions to count, is inconsistent with a proper understanding of the Constitution,” Ohio State University law professor Edward Foley said, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/531823-gop-lawmakers-sue-pence-in-bid-to-overturn-biden-win">The Hill</a>.
Foley added that Kernodle may not even bother to rule in the case, instead electing to throw it out for lack of standing.
“I’m not at all sure that the court will get to the merits of this lawsuit, given questions about the plaintiffs’ standing to bring this kind of claim, as well as other procedural obstacles,” Foley said.
The vice president’s role in certifying the results of the election, scheduled to take place on Jan. 6, has historically been seen as ceremonial. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden secured enough electoral votes on Dec. 14 to win the 2020 presidential election.
&#8220;Under the rules Gohmert is challenging, all it takes is a single member of each branch to challenge electors from multiple states to force a vote on the matter,&#8221; <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/28/gohmert-suit-pence-overturn-trumps-defeat-451485">Politico</a> notes. However, the outlet predicts, &#8220;any challenge is likely to fail under the expected rules,&#8221; with a Democrat-led House and a number of Republicans in the Senate signaling they will not support challenges.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-warns-senate-republicans-not-to-object-to-electoral-college-vote">Mitch McConnell Warns Senate Republicans Not To Object To Electoral College Vote</a>

President Trump, Mike Pence

Group of Republicans Sue Mike Pence, Claim VP Has ‘Sole Discretion’ To Name Valid Electoral College Votes

2020 Election

Constitution

Five Republican members of Congress voted against an otherwise unanimously passed non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives on Tuesday that expressed support for the peaceful transition of power between presidential administrations.
The five who voted against the resolution were Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Steve King (R-IA), and Thomas Massie (R-KY), according to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/518855-house-in-near-unanimous-vote-affirms-peaceful-transfer-of-power" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Hill</a>. The bill passed with 397 votes, with several of the 435 members of Congress either not present or abstaining.
Drafted by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), the resolution, which mirrored a similar one <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/518061-senate-passes-resolution-reaffirming-commitment-to-peaceful-transition-of" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">passed last week in the Senate</a>, said in part that the House “reaffirms its commitment to the orderly and peaceful transfer of power called for in the Constitution of the United States” and “intends that there should be no disruptions by the president or any person in power to overturn the will of the people of the United States.”
Swalwell said, &#8220;As the United States of America, the federal government has always had a peaceful transition of power. And it is a collective responsibility of this body to ensure that continues. Everyone in America knows that this is what makes us American. Everyone, that is, except President Trump.&#8221;
The contention against the resolution, according to its opponents quoted in <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/trump-lose-election-matt-gaetz-peaceful-transfer-power-result-bill-b719311.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Independent</a>, was that it was an indirect hit at President Donald Trump, who demurred when he was asked last week if he would accept the results of the 2020 presidential election. &#8220;Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful—there won&#8217;t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,&#8221; Trump maintained.
&#8220;This resolution was a disingenuous political statement meant to poke the president in the eye,&#8221; Massie said. &#8220;Isn’t it interesting that speaker Pelosi and leader McCarthy didn’t have the time or political willpower to take a recorded vote on the $2 trillion bailout package that passed in March, but they’re now happy to vote on this tripe?&#8221;
Higgins slammed the resolution as a &#8220;Democrat stunt&#8221; and &#8220;an attack against Mr. Trump that falsely asserts an intention to resist a peaceful transition of executive power after an uncontested election result.&#8221;
Gaetz also savaged the legislation, saying, &#8220;This resolution is a way for Democrats to attack the president and disguise the fact that they will refuse to accept the election results unless they win.&#8221; He claimed it is an attempt to lay the groundwork for &#8220;the ousting of an elected leader and calling it democracy.&#8221;
“But that&#8217;s not democracy,” Gaetz added. “It&#8217;s nothing less than the destruction of our cherished nation. I unequivocally support the peaceful transfer of power but will vote no on this resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. And I will pray that America survives the Democrats&#8217; mad and destructive lust for power.”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pelosi-doubles-down-says-biden-shouldnt-debate-trump-on-tuesday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pelosi Doubles Down, Says Biden Shouldn’t Debate Trump On Tuesday</a>

Matt Gaetz

‘Disingenuous Political Statement’: 5 Congressmen Vote Against Resolution Committing To Peaceful Transfer Of Power

Steve King (Iowa)

Thomas Massie

Speaking on <a href="https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/974532?section=newsmax-tv&amp;keywords=louiegohmert-andrewcuomo-texas-deaths&amp;year=2020&amp;month=06&amp;date=28&amp;id=974532&amp;oref=voat.co">Newsmax’s &#8220;Saturday Report</a>,” Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX), ripped into the mainstream media that has been focusing on the spike in coronavirus cases in Texas and Florida, saying of the numbers in the last month, “If you look at the deaths, the precious lives that have been lost, New York deaths are up over 8,000 in that period; Texas is up a little over 700.” Gohmert followed with a swipe at New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, adding, “Every life is precious, but we don&#8217;t have a governor sending people with COVID to our nursing homes. We don&#8217;t have them killing and spreading the virus to people who are most vulnerable like Gov. Cuomo did.&#8221;
Responding to a Washington Post article titled, “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/25/fox-news-hannity-coronavirus-misinformation/">New research explores how conservative media misinformation may have intensified the severity of the pandemic</a>,” Gohmert told host Grant Stinchfield, “That’s what they do: They lie; they misrepresent, and they&#8217;ve taken their lead – well, I&#8217;m not sure if they&#8217;ve taken their lead from the Democrats or the Democrats took their lead from the media, but either way they work together and they misrepresent the facts.”
The article stated:
<blockquote>In recent weeks, three studies have focused on conservative media’s role in fostering confusion about the seriousness of the coronavirus. Taken together, they paint a picture of a media ecosystem that amplifies misinformation, entertains conspiracy theories and discourages audiences from taking concrete steps to protect themselves and others.</blockquote>
Gohmert answered those in the media focused on Texas and Florida: “And if you look at the ‘upticks,’ we don’t have a complete explanation for those things yet, other than, like in Texas, you look back at numbers May 26 to this morning and Texas is up about 75, 76, 77 thousand new cases.”
He continued, &#8220;We&#8217;re testing people like crazy here in Texas. But, Grant, if you look at the deaths, the precious lives that have been lost, New York deaths are up over 8,000 in that period; Texas is up a little over 700. Every life is precious, but we don&#8217;t have a governor sending people with COVID to our nursing homes. We don&#8217;t have them killing and spreading the virus to people who are most vulnerable like Gov. Cuomo did.&#8221;
Gohmert stated, “So the numbers are up of cases, but we’re testing more than we’ve ever tested, and that’s a good thing. At least that’s what Pelosi and Schumer and those folks say.”
He pointed out, &#8220;We know that we&#8217;re getting a big influx of the coronavirus coming across our borders. The Left, Pelosi and Schumer have to know that, so for those that didn&#8217;t really want to believe it, you have to start believe that the Democrats don&#8217;t care about people getting the coronavirus here in America. They want them to get it, because anything they can do, no matter what lie, what kind of malicious prosecution they&#8217;re involved in, they want to defeat Donald Trump … That&#8217;s all they can think about right now.”
The Daily Wire, headed by bestselling author and popular podcast host Ben Shapiro, is a leading provider of conservative news, cutting through the mainstream media’s rhetoric to provide readers the most important, relevant, and engaging stories of the day. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

House Judiciary Committee Votes On Articles Of Impeachment

Texas Rep Louis Gohmert Targets NY’s Cuomo: ‘We Don’t Have A Governor Sending People With COVID To Our Nursing Homes’

Andrew Cuomo

An intense moment unfolded on the floor of the House of Representatives between Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) on Wednesday as lawmakers debated Democrats&#8217; partisan impeachment efforts.
“In 1998, Senator Schumer said, &#8216;This impeachment will be used as a routine tool to fight political battles.’ We thought it was a prediction,&#8221; Gohmert began. &#8220;It was a promise and now it’s playing out, that’s exactly what’s being done here and for those who say we don’t address the facts, here you go: The impeachment serves two purposes.&#8221;
&#8220;Number one, stop the investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and Ukraine into the corruption of Ukraine interference into U.S. elections in 2016,&#8221; Gohmert continued. &#8220;You said this was about this terrible Russia collusion and then that fell through [and now] it’s about emoluments, it’s bribery, it’s about extortion, it’s changed. But one thing hasn’t changed and that is: The intent to impeach this president, it’s always been there.&#8221;
&#8220;But let’s be honest, the president turning his back on Ukraine, that happened in 2009 because in 2008 Ukraine invaded Georgia, what happened? Bush put sanctions on Russia to teach him a lesson,&#8221; Gohmert continued. &#8220;What happened after that? Well, in March of 2009 Hillary Clinton was sent over to Russia with a reset button to say, ‘Bush overreacted, we’re okay that you invaded Georgia.’ It was a greenlight to Russia to invade Ukraine and what [did Obama] do? [Obama] sends blankets and MREs and you eat and be warm while the Russians are killing them. That is what the Obama administration did.&#8221;
&#8220;This is a travesty and we’re in big trouble because Schumer was right, now the bar is lowered even further, it will be used for political battles and this country’s end is now in sight,&#8221; Gohmert concluded. &#8220;I hope I don’t live to see it. This is an outrage.&#8221;
Nadler responded by saying, &#8220;I am deeply concerned that any member of the House would spout Russian propaganda on the floor of the House …&#8221;
Nadler did not cite any evidence to back up his claim that Gohmert was spreading &#8220;Russian propaganda.&#8221;
Gohmert, who had left the podium, stormed back after Nadler made his comments and began shouting at him for several seconds.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
WATCH:
Louie Gohmert&#39;s floor speech. <a href="https://t.co/3V9BvBJNT1">pic.twitter.com/3V9BvBJNT1</a>
&mdash; Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1207417496170565638?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Democrats went on to impeach Trump in the first purely partisan political impeachment in U.S. history as only Democrats voted for it and all Republicans voted against it along with multiple Democrats.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a harsh critic of Trump who votes for Democrats, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-critic-witness-tells-democrats-you-just-dont-have-the-evidence-to-impeach">warned</a> Democrats during his opening statement in one of the impeachment hearings that they did not have the evidence needed to impeach Trump.
&#8220;One can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president,&#8221; Turley said. &#8220;To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.&#8221;
&nbsp;

WATCH: Fireworks Erupt Between Nadler And Gohmert During Impeachment Speeches

Impeachment

Jerry Nadler

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) warned Democrats on Thursday that their continued push for impeachment and actions over the last three years were putting the country on the brink of a &#8220;civil war.&#8221;
A new Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service poll released this month <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/news/467143-voters-believe-us-two-thirds-of-the-way-to-edge-of-a-civil-war-poll">found</a> that the average American believed that the U.S. is two-thirds of the way to the &#8220;edge of a civil war.&#8221;
Speaking on Democrats&#8217; desire to impeach President Donald Trump, Gohmert said on the floor of the House of Representatives that what Democrats &#8220;want it to be a one-sided non-due process sham court and it&#8217;s about to push this country to a civil war if they were to get their wishes.&#8221;
&#8220;And if there&#8217;s one thing I don&#8217;t want to see in my lifetime, I don&#8217;t want to ever have participation in, it&#8217;s a civil war,&#8221; Gohmert continued. &#8220;Some historian, I don&#8217;t remember who, said, &#8216;guns are only involved in the last phase of a civil war.'&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Today on the House floor, <a href="https://twitter.com/replouiegohmert?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@replouiegohmert</a> ripped into Democrats on the &#8220;gross unfairness&#8221; and secrecy of the impeachment process. He calls the attempts to impeach <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> a &#8220;coup&#8221;. <a href="https://t.co/jXAgG5Njzb">pic.twitter.com/jXAgG5Njzb</a>
— (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) <a href="https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/status/1190064710671953920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
Partial transcript of Gohmert&#8217;s remarks on the floor of the House of Representatives:
<blockquote>You get to ask the questions, you see the questions, you get to hear the answers, and you get to observe the witnesses. It&#8217;s important and yet under orders of the speaker and Chairman Schiff this so called comparative grand jury kept the huge majority out of those hearings where we could hear and see for ourselves and now we find out through the vote today that yeah the judiciary committee is ultimately going to get this from the intelligence committee.
But never in the history of this country have we had such gross unfairness that one party would put armed guards with guns to prevent the duly authorized people from being able to hear the witnesses and see them for themselves and then all we hear from this resolution today, ‘we&#8217;re going to send you the depositions after we get through doctoring and looking at and editing the transcripts, we&#8217;ll send you those so you have the evidence you need.’ that&#8217;s not the kind of evidence that a coup should be based on. If we&#8217;re going to have what they&#8217;re trying to legalize as a coup, we ought to have a right to see each of those witnesses and the only potential use for the deposition should be impeachment of those witnesses, nothing else, not for anything substantive.
The president&#8217;s attorney, unlike in 74 and 98, were not allowed to be there even to see and hear the witnesses. So the references this being a star chamber are not inappropriate. It&#8217;s outrageous what&#8217;s been going on for people who truly care about due process. Regarding the procedures now, the judiciary committee must operate pursuant to the procedures imposed by the chairman of the rules committee. Well previously on the oldest committees in the house of representatives, the judiciary committee in prior impeachments made the rules for the impeachment hearing. We didn&#8217;t have it dictated by the rules committee, no, because this is the judiciary committee. These are people that are supposed to have expertise in constitutional issues. So, when you have the committee that has more expertise in constitutional issues, what did the majority do? ‘we don&#8217;t want the committee with the most expertise on constitutional issues dealing with these constitutional issues, we want to put armed guards outside a hearing and have it in a secret compartmented &#8216;information facility and we&#8217;re not going to let the other side call their own witnesses so we get a fair picture about what actually went on and we&#8217;re not even going to let them ask questions we don&#8217;t want them to ask. We’ll instruct the witnesses not to answer.
Because you see they want it to be a one sided non due process sham court and it&#8217;s about to push this country to a civil war if they were to get their wishes. And if there&#8217;s one thing I don&#8217;t want to see in my lifetime, I don&#8217;t want to ever have participation in, it&#8217;s a civil war. Some historian, I don&#8217;t remember who, said, ‘guns are only involved in the last phase of a civil war’
What&#8217;s going on here has not protected the Constitution, it&#8217;s not protected the institutions, it&#8217;s not protected this little experiment in self-government, no, what it is done has put it all at risk because what some people in this body don&#8217;t seem to understand is, when you set a precedent as dangerous as what we have been watching for the last three years, it won&#8217;t be me, but there will be republicans, if this isn&#8217;t stopped, there will be republicans that will take the precedent of what the Democrats have done here and use it against a democratic president, try to set him up and create a coup.
Like I said, it won&#8217;t be me, but that&#8217;s the way history works. Somebody sets a precedent, then eventually somebody, also not concerned about due process, is going to try to mimic that and go one further.</blockquote>

Gohmert Warns On Impeachment: ‘About To Push This Country To A Civil War’

We&#8217;re constantly told that climate change is a &#8220;threat&#8221; or a &#8220;crisis.&#8221; We&#8217;re told we have 10 or 12 years to live &#8212; even though we were told that 10 or 12 years ago, too.
Yet on Tuesday, House Democrats failed to show up for their own scheduled hearing on the topic of climate change, so Republicans adjourned the meeting and left. The House Natural Resources subcommittee held a hearing titled &#8220;The Denial Playbook: How Industries Manipulate Science and Policy from Climate Change to Public Health,&#8221; but only two of the subcommittee&#8217;s five Democrats showed up. After opening statements, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) moved to adjourn. Since all four Republican subcommittee members were present, they were able to out-vote the two Democrats.
Gohmert said the topic fell outside the subcommittee&#8217;s jurisdiction and should have been held by the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Science, Space and Technology Committee.
&#8220;This is now, though, the seventh oversight hearing related to climate change that the majority is holding this month,&#8221; Gohmert said at the hearing. &#8220;It appears today&#8217;s hearing topic is well outside our jurisdiction.&#8221;
Topics for Tuesday&#8217;s hearing, according to Gohmert, included &#8220;football, concussions, opioid addiction, [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] and epidemiology,&#8221; which should be covered by other committees.
&#8220;The subcommittee hearing&#8217;s witnesses included former NFL player Chris Borland, Ryan Hampton, a former opioid addict who has been in recovery for the past 10 years and founded the Voices Project, Alexandria Precup, a woman who was displaced by Hurricane Maria, and former Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health David Michaels,&#8221; <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/26/politics/republicans-climate-change-house-hearing-adjourn-10-minutes-2-democrats/index.html">CNN reported</a>.
Because the hearing was adjourned, Republicans left and dismissed the official congressional reporter. The two Democrats remained in the room and let the witnesses speak as the hearing continued to be broadcast online.
Nate Madden, a congressional correspondent at Blaze Media, reported on the adjournment and posted video of Gohmert&#8217;s comments to Twitter.
&#8220;House Democrats scheduled a subcommittee hearing on climate change. Not enough of them showed up to outvote the Republicans,&#8221; Madden tweeted.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
House Democrats scheduled a subcommittee hearing on climate change. Not enough of them showed up to outvote the Republicans.<a href="https://twitter.com/replouiegohmert?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@replouiegohmert</a> called to adjourn the meeting. The motion succeeded (4-2).
The hearing adjourned.
Full video: <a href="https://t.co/HzVP7pIJuW">https://t.co/HzVP7pIJuW</a> <a href="https://t.co/0pPGV31Xuy">pic.twitter.com/0pPGV31Xuy</a>
&#8212; Nate Madden (@NateOnTheHill) <a href="https://twitter.com/NateOnTheHill/status/1100515775322951681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

Democrats Schedule A Hearing On Climate Change, Then Fail To Show Up

Climate Change

Democratic Party

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) addressed the serious threat the massive caravan moving through Central America poses to the United States during an interview on Monday, calling it an &#8220;invasion.&#8221;
Gohmert&#8217;s appearance on Fox News comes as thousands of migrants, many of whom are young men, are waving <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/37444/massive-migrant-caravan-keeps-proving-trump-right-ben-shapiro">foreign flags</a> while marching through Central America with the intent of illegally entering the United States.
&#8220;We have got to have the DOJ investigate where the funding is coming from to send these thousands and thousands of people to the U.S. because you could use RICO [laws] to go after them,&#8221; Gohmert said.
&#8220;There is money coming in,&#8221; Gohmert added. &#8220;I&#8217;m sure there is some coming from the United States going to help this caravan along. It is building of its own momentum and it will take a very strong president, which we have, to stop it and we&#8217;ve got to make clear to Mexico they are not coming in.&#8221;
Gohmert noted that it is not possible to manage all of the people that are attempting to enter the U.S. in the caravan, saying, &#8220;All of these people trying to force their way in &#8212; it&#8217;s called an invasion and thank God we have a president that will stand up to an invasion like this.&#8221;
Gohmert also called on President Donald Trump to &#8220;close the border until this threat is over.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8220;You cannot manage it [<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MigrantCaravan?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MigrantCaravan</a>]. All of these people trying to force their way in &#8211; it&#8217;s called an invasion. Thank God we have a president who will stand up to an invasion like this.&#8221; VIDEO: <a href="https://t.co/Jky9hsGl0A">https://t.co/Jky9hsGl0A</a>
&#8212; Louie Gohmert (@replouiegohmert) <a href="https://twitter.com/replouiegohmert/status/1054434488946753541?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 22, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Gohmert&#8217;s comments come after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made the following <a href="https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2018/10/286805.htm">statement</a> over the weekend:
<blockquote>
The United States is closely following the migrant caravan, in which thousands of migrants from Honduras and other countries continue to make a dangerous journey through Guatemala and into Mexico. Many migrants are attempting to transit these countries and in the process are violating their sovereignty, their laws, and their procedures. As President Trump has stated, consistent with U.S. law, the United States will not allow illegal immigrants to enter or remain in the United States.
We are concerned that these migrants may be victimized by human smugglers or others who would exploit them. We also are deeply concerned by the violence provoked by some members of the group, as well as the apparent political motivation of some organizers of the caravan.
We understand Mexico will detain and repatriate migrants who enter Mexico in violation of Mexican law, and in instances where migrants apply for asylum, process the requests in accordance with Mexican law. We also understand that those who do not qualify will be returned in a safe and orderly process, consistent with Mexican law.
We welcome the Government of Mexico&#8217;s collaboration with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to address refugee and migration issues in the region, including the influx of people arriving in Mexico. The United States stands ready to assist the Government of Mexico in this effort.
</blockquote>

Menu