Chairman Devin Nunes Leading the Fight Against DOJ and FBI Abuse & Scheduled to Address the RNLA

Perhaps no one has fought against the alleged abuse of power and anti-Trump bias from high-level officials at the Department of Justice and FBI more than House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes. In February, Nunes released a memo despite fierce Democrat opposition claiming to have evidence of Justice Department abuse of power against President Donald Trump. As The Hill summarized:

For those on the right, the memo confirms every suspicion they have had about the U.S. government spying on the Trump campaign and political bias they say has reached the top levels of the DOJ and FBI. 

They say the memo proves that the FBI obtained questionable intelligence from partisan sources and shielded their methods from a surveillance court to investigate a candidate and campaign they were eager to see fail. 

The memo makes the case that the FBI and DOJ did not inform a surveillance court that Democrats had partly funded an anti-Trump dossier that was used, in part, to obtain a secret surveillance warrant in October 2016 for former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. 

The memo goes on to allege that Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the dossier, did so out of animus against Trump and that the FBI had not sufficiently vetted his claims when it obtained warrants to spy on Page...

These are serious charges by Chairman Nunes that must be answered for by the DOJ and FBI. As of June 3rd, Nunes informed the American public that he still has not seen the documents requested from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein despite his issuing a subpoena to have the Justice Department prove this is a legitimate and fair investigation. RealClear Politics reports:

"For almost a year now, we've been waiting for documents from the deputy attorney general," Nunes said. "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein could provide all the documents, all the information we need this week, and we could write a report by Friday."

"All the members of my committee don't believe that the counter-intelligence capabilities should be used to target a political party - none of my members on the Republican side do."

"We could finish this by Friday," Nunes said, if the DOJ would provide the documents he has asked for.

Chairman Nunes has not wavered in pursuing transparency and accountability at the highest levels of the Justice Department. He has been vilified by the left simply for demanding an honest and unbiased investigation of the President of the United States.

Despite these fierce partisan attacks, Chairman Nunes has consistently put the sanctity of a principled American justice system first and for that he should be applauded.


Upcoming RNLA D.C. Luncheon:

On Monday, June 25, the RNLA is holding a luncheon with Chairman Devin Nunes. PLEASE NOTE: This date has changed from its original date.

To purchase for this noon luncheon at Tony Cheng's Restaurant in Washington D.C.; please click here for more information.  Also, priority-seated tables are still available; to inquire about a table, please email RNLA Deputy Director Brittany Walker at walker@republicanlawyer.net.

We hope to see you there!

ICYMI: Obama DOJ in “Very Dramatic” Fashion Pressured FBI to End Investigations into Hillary Clinton

The politicization of the FBI is not good for the country and a sad day in the FBI’s proud history. Overlooked amidst the turmoil and allegations surrounding the firing of James Comey and Andrew McCabe, an important new detail has come to light on an old theme: the Obama Justice Department put unprecedented pressure on the FBI to not investigate or end its investigations of Democrat Party Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (emphasis added):

The [Justice] department’s inspector general exposed just how deep the feuding ran in a new report last week investigating the actions of former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The report recounted an August 2016 phone call from a high-level Justice Department official who complained the FBI had taken “overt” actions to investigate the Clinton Foundation, potentially embarrassing then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Mr. McCabe said he got the sense the Obama Justice Department was telling him “to shut down” the probe. Later he called the exchange [ ] “very dramatic” and said he’d never had a confrontation like that with the Justice Department.

The reason for the pressure was that the FBI, among other things, had found “suspicious activity” between the Clinton Foundation and a foreign donor:

The inspector general (IG) confirmed in its long-awaited report released Friday that in 2016 the FBI had ongoing field investigations of the Clinton Foundation in New York, Los Angeles, Little Rock, Arkansas and Washington, D.C. The multi-city investigation was launched when agents found “suspicious activity” between a foreign donor and Clinton Foundation activity in the Los Angeles area, as TheDCNF reported in August 2016.

Although both the Obama-appointed Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz and the non-partisan FBI Office of Professional Responsibility recommended McCabe be fired, in the media liberals’ defend McCabe from politicization accusations for leaking in part because the information “hurt” Hillary Clinton.  According to the IG, McCabe’s leaking was for self-preservation as he seemed worried about the strength of the narrative that the FBI's handling of the investigations into Hillary Clinton was unduly biased in her favor:   

McCabe was worried about an Oct. 23, 2016, Wall Street Journal article, which appeared to have damaged his reputation for impartiality because the journalist, Devlin Barrett, reported McCabe’s wife received a campaign donation of nearly a half million dollars from Clinton friend and political ally Terry McAuliffe for her run for a Virginia state seat.

In an alleged attempt to show he wasn’t impartial to the Clintons, McCabe leaked information to Barrett a week later that claimed he personally fought the Justice Department’s attempt to shut down the FBI’s investigation, according to the Inspector General’s report. Barrett’s article appeared Oct. 30 and was titled, “FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe.”  . . . 

McCabe authorized bureau officials to leak the information about the Aug. 12 call, the IG claims. “Specifically, McCabe stated that he authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to provide to Barrett the account of his August 12 call with PADAG because McCabe thought it was the ‘best example’ to counter the “incredibly damaging” narrative in Barrett’s intended story,” the report reads.

Comey and McCabe were concerned about the evidence or appearance of evidence that Obama’s Department of Justice and Clinton allies had successfully influenced FBI investigations into Hillary Clinton.  They were concerned that might taint her victory because at the time they thought her election to be certain.  Their actions just showed why they should have been fired.  The larger question is who in the Obama Department of Justice (or even the White House) was trying to pressure the FBI and why are they not facing consequences? 

Another op-ed on the topic is here. 

Democrats Oppose a Qualified Woman (Rachel Brand) Because of President Trump and She is Conservative

Among many other topics, the Senate today debated the nomination of Rachel Brand to be Associate Attorney General, the third position in the Department of Justice.  Leader McConnell spoke of her sterling credentials:

Rachel Brand's impressive background includes experience clerking for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, and she has already been confirmed by the Senate twice before.  She is extraordinarily talented, as Chairman Grassley noted at her hearing, and dedicated to the full and evenhanded enforcement of our laws. Ms. Brand also has the support of a bipartisan group of former senior officials at the Justice Department, including Jamie Gorlich and Seth Waxman, who in a recent letter on her behalf cited her stellar reputation for integrity, legal skills, and respect for the law.  As they pointed out, Ms. Brand's extensive private and public sector experience would serve her well as the Associate Attorney General, and they also noted she would be a trusted leader in the Department.  

After further outlining her impressive resume, Senator Kennedy of Louisiana noted that the responsibilities of the Associate Attorney General are important:

It's responsible for the oversight of the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Office on Violence Against Women, and many other important components of the Department of Justice. I think no matter what political party you happen to be in or whatever your political persuasion, we can all agree that right now it is particularly important not only to have a Department of Justice that is fully staffed, but to have it fully staffed with extraordinarily qualified people that every American can look at and go wow, is she qualified. . . . I fully support Mrs. Brand's nomination.  I sit on the Judiciary Committee, the committee of the Senate that vetted her.  She's highly respected. She's whip smart, she's well-qualified, and she is fully prepared to hit the ground running, and that is exactly what we need.

Yet, despite her credentials and how uncontroversial she should be, Democrats have obstructed and delayed her nomination, far more than similarly qualified and uncontroversial Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.  Why?  Because she is a strong, conservative woman nominated by President Trump, and Democrats are determined to attack and oppose President Trump to gain political points with their extreme liberal base in whatever way possible.  And Democrats particularly cannot allow a woman (or a minority in other cases - see Judge Thapar) who is a Republican to hold high office, as it disrupts their narrative of Republicans being anti-woman, anti-minority, etc.  

Senator Blumenthal admitted today that the opposition is not about Rachel Brand but about opposing President Trump and preventing the confirmation of Republicans to positions in the Department of Justice:

I will oppose this nomination, and I will oppose all nominations for the Department of Justice until public trust and confidence in the rule of law is restored and sustained by the appointment of an independent special prosecutor to investigate Russian interference in our last election and potential links to the Trump campaign and Trump associates.  

. . .  

But I also have disagreements with Rachel Brand.  I respect her record of public service.  I believe she is simply not the right person to serve as Associate Attorney General because of her long-standing apparently deeply held philosophy on the use and proper application of government power.  When the government engages in actions that threaten the privacy rights of innocent Americans, Miss Brand has advocated nonaction.  I believe that the United States must protect the privacy of her citizens.  And that fact is only one among many that cause me to disagree with her, but the failure to nominate and appoint an independent special prosecutor will lead me to oppose all of the nominations that are set forth by this administration, including anyone nominated for the F.B.I.  And I think it should now be clear if it was not before that such an independent prosecutor is necessary.

Setting aside the ridiculousness of the Democrats' demands for an independent special prosecutor, Sen. Blumenthal's opposition boils down to, in order: 1. Trump, 2. Russia, and 3. Ms. Brand has the audacity to be a conservative and Republican.

The Senate finally voted for cloture on the Brand nomination, with only 51 votes in favor of cloture.  Can you imagine the outrage if Republicans had delayed, obstructed, opposed, and voted against a woman nominated for a high position by a Democratic President?  Especially if for no other reason than pure politics.

Threats and Intimidation Against Electors

Yesterday, the Electoral College convened and voted to make Donald Trump the next President of the United States.  In most presidential election years, this process barely makes the news.  But this year, amidst celebrity calls for electors to abandon the person for whom they were pledged to vote, electors have been threatened with mountains of harassing emails, voicemails, and letters and even death threats:

The nation’s 538 presidential electors have been thrust into the political foreground like never before in American history. In the aftermath of a uniquely polarizing presidential contest, the once-anonymous electors are squarely in the spotlight, targeted by death threats, harassing phone calls and reams of hate mail. One Texas Republican elector said he’s been bombarded with more than 200,000 emails.

Just a few disturbing examples:

• By mid-November, 22-year-old Michigan elector Michael Banerian had already received hundreds of emails: “You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,’ ” he said. “I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”
• Every elector in Pennsylvania was assigned a plainclothes state police officer for protection: Thousands of emails land in their inboxes every day. Copies of the Federalist Papers and other books urging political courage are being mailed to their homes. They are even getting phone calls in the middle of the night.
• One elector in Arkansas had to file a police report due to "continual threats."

The duties, selection, and voting requirements of electors in each state are established by state law, and the electors who voted for Trump yesterday were fulfilling their legal duties.  To their credit, most Democratic leaders have decried the threats, but the Department of Justice has been strangely silent.  Such threats against electors likely fall under the prohibition against voter intimidation or harassment contained in Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which falls under DOJ's jurisdiction.  Interstate communications that threaten another person are punishable under 18 U.S.C. 875(c).

However, it appears that the FBI and DOJ have done nothing to investigate the threats against presidential electors.  We hope that the Trump Justice Department will investigate these threats, which not only threaten the electors individually but also our constitutional republic and the uniquely American nonviolent transition of power.

RNLA Supports Sen. Jeff Sessions for Attorney General

The RNLA released a statement today strongly supporting the selection of Sen. Jeff Sessions as President-elect Trump's nominee for Attorney General: 

The Attorney General serves as the chief law enforcement official for the federal government, leads the Department of Justice, and represents the United States in important legal matters. It is vital that the Attorney General be both a talented administrator and an excellent lawyer with immense respect for the rule of law. 

Senator Sessions is uniquely qualified to serve as Attorney General. He has served as a U.S. Attorney, as Attorney General of Alabama, and as longtime Senator from Alabama. As Attorney General, Sen. Sessions will re-introduce commitment to the rule of law and equal application of the law to the Department of Justice, which has become highly politicized over the past eight years. His experience in the Senate and in state government gives him a deep understanding of federalism and the separation of powers. 

"Senator Jeff Sessions is a committed conservative, skilled lawyer, and proven leader who will be an outstanding Attorney General of the United States. To underscore President-elect Trump's comments, Senator Sessions has a 'world-class legal mind.' He upholds the Constitution and will faithfully and fairly enforce our laws and ensure a fair and even-handed administration of justice," said Kimberly Reed, Co-Chair of RNLA. 

We applaud President-elect Trump for his excellent selection and look forward to the Department of Justice being led by Attorney General Sessions.

Judge Sanctions DOJ Attorneys for Putting Politics Ahead of Truth, Ethics, and Justice

In an astounding, unprecedented rebuke of the Department of Justice and its attorneys, Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued an order sanctioning the DOJ attorneys for their conduct in U.S. v. Texas, the challenge by 26 states to Obama's immigration policies.  Judge Hanen found that they deliberately and repeatedly misled and lied to the court, violating ethical rules:

According to Hanen, the Justice Department “admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts. It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements.” The only explanation DOJ had was that the lawyers “lost focus” or that the “fact[s] receded in memory or awareness,” a dubious and not very credible justification. That “lost focus” and memory problem caused the DOJ attorneys to “effectively” mislead the plaintiff states and “misdirect” the court. . . . 

Hanen lists the specific statements made by DOJ lawyers in court and on conference calls that were outright lies, and then he lists all of the applicable ethics rules that the DOJ lawyers violated. Those misleading statements put “to rest any doubt regarding misconduct.” Hanen said the representations were made in “bad faith” by DOJ lawyers and breached Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), which makes such conduct sanctionable.

Judge Hanen wisely decided not to make the American people pay for the attorneys' misconduct through imposing a fine:

He could also have awarded attorneys’ fees against the government and its DOJ attorneys. However, those fees would simply “be paid by taxpayers of the United States.” Thus, the Justice Department “would go unscathed.” There would be “no corrective effect and no motivation for the Government’s lawyers to act more appropriately in the future” because “there seems to be a lack of knowledge about or adherence to the duties of professional responsibility in the halls of the Justice Department.” 

So instead, Hanen ordered the Obama administration to take a series of steps: 

• Provide the court with a list of all of the aliens who were given benefits under the Obama amnesty plan; 

• All DOJ attorneys stationed in Washington, D.C., who appear in the courts of any of the 26 states that filed this lawsuit must take a yearly ethics course taught by someone unaffiliated with DOJ — and the attorney general must file an annual report with Judge Hanen for five years listing all of the DOJ attorneys who have appeared in those 26 states certifying their attendance at this ethics course; 

• Attorney General Loretta Lynch must file a comprehensive plan within 60 days “to prevent this unethical conduct from ever occurring again.” She must ensure that “Justice Department trial lawyers tell the truth — the entire truth”; and 

• Because he believes that whatever the Office of Professional Responsibility at DOJ is doing “has not been effective,” Hanen ordered Lynch to inform him within 60 days of the steps she is taking to “ensure” that OPR “effectively polices the conduct of the Justice Department lawyers and appropriately disciplines those whose actions fall below the standards that the American people rightfully expect from their Department of Justice.”

Hans von Spakovsky's entire analysis of the remarkable order is well worth reading.  Obama's Department of Justice attorneys, charged with representing the American people, put partisan politics above their duty, forsaking it so far as to lie to a court.  Yet again for the Obama Justice Department, politics triumphed over justice. It is encouraging that the courts are willing to keep DOJ in check, fulfilling their role under our system of separation of powers.

North Carolina and the Myth of Voter Suppression

Judicial Watch’s Robert Popper has an excellent piece in today’s Wall Street Journal about the ongoing federal litigation challenging several changes to North Carolina’s election laws and how statistics from November’s election dispel the myth the changes suppressed the vote there. As we have seen in other states that have adopted voter integrity measures such as photo ID laws, North Carolina’s changes are proving to have zero impact on minority turnout, despite the hysterical claims made by the NAACP and Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ). In fact, African-American voter registration and turnout increased for the 2014 election.

Popper explains the various legislative changes at issue. For example, North Carolina moved to eliminate same day voter registration, a contentious policy that increases a state’s risk of Election Day fraud. North Carolina also tweaked its state law to require voters to vote in the precinct in which they are registered, hardly a novel or extreme measure. Another change challenged in the lawsuit is the reduction of days available for early voting from 17 to 10, although counties were required to offer the same number of early voting hours as they did before the changes kicked in. North Carolina also adopted a photo voter ID law in the legislative package although it does not take effect until 2016.

North Carolina was sued in two separate suits in August, 2013 by the NAACP, Common Cause, League of Women Voters and others. Later, a third suit was brought by Holder’s DOJ. (Click here for the pleadings and for other information on the case.) Among the extraordinary claims by DOJ as chronicled by Popper:

One expert in the Justice Department lawsuit claimed that more than 200,000 black voters, along with 700,000 white voters, would be “burdened” in an off-year election. Another expert concluded that particular provisions “will lower turnout overall” and “will have a disparate impact on African-American voters.”

Reality?

Those predictions were not borne out. The 2014 elections were the first test of the impact of North Carolina’s new laws, including a “soft rollout” of its voter-ID requirement—under which poll workers asked voters if they had ID and if not, to acknowledge the new requirement in writing. Board of Elections data showed that the percentage of age-eligible, non-Hispanic black residents who turned out to vote in North Carolina rose to 41.1% in November 2014 from 38.5% in November 2010.

The percentage of black registrants voting increased to 42.2% from 40.3% in the same period, and the black share of votes cast increased to 21.4% from 20.1%. The absolute number of black voters increased 16%, to 628,004 from 539,646.

As Popper notes, this is just “the latest example of allegedly “suppressive” laws that failed to suppress votes.” Plaintiffs and left-wing groups like the Brennan Center continue to cry wolf over these laws but the results are clear: common-sense voter integrity measures simply do not suppress the vote. As the Brennan Center and others continue to lose credibility based on their outrageous claims, they are only getting more desperate and it is showing. While some activist and sympathetic judges may continue to (at least temporarily) stop these laws from being implemented, the truth is finally emerging. Even Rick Hasen and other liberals have begun to question the Chicken Little “Sky is Falling” narrative being spun by plaintiffs in these suits and groups like the Brennan Center.