Tag Archives: Chuck Grassley

SENATE KILLS BACKGROUND CHECK AMENDMENT

 

Background-Check Amendment Fizzles

The Huffington Post

The Senate failed to muster sufficient support Wednesday for a gun-buyer background check bill that’s supported by nearly 90 percent of Americans, voting the measure down in a procedural vote that likely dooms any major legislation to curb gun violence.

The measure — painstakingly crafted by the bipartisan duo of Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) — was seen as the key to getting the first measure in decades to address the sorts of mass slaughters that so recently horrified the country in Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and six teachers were gunned down, and in Auroro, Colo., where moviegoers where killed in a theater.

The amendment failed 54 to 46, falling short of the 60-vote threshold needed to break a filibuster of the measure, even as victims of the Sandy Hook shootings watched from the Senate gallery and activists at a vigil outside the Capitol read the names of people slain since then, hoping to prompt action.

Passage of the background check amendment had been seen as key because it represented a bipartisan agreement in a highly polarized debate, and would have preserved a major part of the overall bill that many advocates against gun violence saw as a minimum step toward stemming gun massacres.

Stronger measures up for a vote also appeared headed for failure, including a ban of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The only significant steps that all sides agreed on were stemming illegal trafficking of weapons and improving mental health efforts.

The background check measure would have expanded the current check system to cover sales of weapons on the Internet and at gun shows.

Democratic aides privately conceded that with the failure of background checks, the rest of the bill would likely go down. One described it as a “pyrhic victory,” noting that a majority of the Senate backed the bill that is so popular outside the halls of Congress. “It’s the farthest we’ve come,” said the aide, speaking on background to talk freely.

The aides saw little hope of it being resurrected, although leaders kept that option open.

Opponents argued that the expanded check system would have laid the groundwork for a national registry of gun owners, although the measure expressly forbid such a step with a 15-year jail sentence for anyone who tried to do that.

They also called it a useless step that would achieve little.

“Expanded background checks would not have prevented Newtown,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Neb.) said.

But Toomey said his amendment would have at least been a modest step in the right direction.

“The goal was to see if we can find a way to make it a little bit more difficult for people who have no legal right to have a gun for them to obtain it,” Toomey said. “That was the goal.”

The Seante failed to meet it.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Gun Control Legislation, Gun Lobby

Top GOP Senator: Native American Juries Are Incapable Of Trying White People Fairly

In Washington, DC it’s no secret that Senator Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is not very bright.

Think Progress

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

Republicans have offered a number of reasons why they oppose the Violence Against Women Act. Some think it’s unconstitutional. Others argue that it’s just a meaningless bill with a patriotic title.

On Wednesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) added a new one: Native Americans supposedly aren’t capable of holding fair trials.

Last week, Grassley was one of just 22 senators—all Republican men—who voted against reauthorizing VAWA. During a town hall meeting in Indianola on Wednesday, a woman asked him to explain his vote. Grassley responded that the legislation is unconstitutional, a belief shared by at least five of his colleagues.

Since the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to a trial among a jury of peers, Grassley reasoned that white men would be deprived of their rights if those who were accused of violence against Native American women had to appear in a tribal court. “On an Indian reservation, it’s going to be made up of Indians, right?” Grassley said. “So the non-Indian doesn’t get a fair trial.”

GRASSLEY: One provision that non-Native Americans can be tried in tribal court. And why is that a big thing? Because of the constitutionality of it, for two reasons. One, you know how the law is, that if you have a jury, the jury is supposed to be a reflection of society. [...] So you get non-Indians, let me say to make it easy, you get non-Indians going into a reservation and violating a woman. They need to be prosecuted. They aren’t prosecuted. So the idea behind [VAWA] is we’ll try them in tribal court. But under the laws of our land, you got to have a jury that is a reflection of society as a whole, and on an Indian reservation, it’s going to be made up of Indians, right? So the non-Indian doesn’t get a fair trial.

Watch:

There is actually no requirement that juries reflect “society as a whole.” The Sixth Amendment requires juries to be drawn from the “State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” and Supreme Court decisions establish that criminal defendants also have a right to a jury which is “drawn from a fair cross section of the community,” where the trial court convenes to hear their case. But this does not entitle anyone to be tried by a jury that reflects the whole of American society.

A person who is tried in Vermont is likely to have an all-white jury because over 95 percent of Vermont is white. Similarly, a person who commits a crime in the Navajo Nation will face a jury of Native Americans because the population of the local community is made up of Navajo people. There is no reason to believe that Navajo jurors are any less impartial than white Vermonters, and Grassley is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Grassley went to great lengths to tell attendees that he had supported VAWA in the past. “I support 98 percent of what’s in the bill,” he said. If it weren’t for his belief that Native Americans’ are incapable of conducting a fair trial, perhaps he would have voted for it again.

If you want Congress to reauthorize VAWA, sign ThinkProgress’ petition here.

Comments Off

Filed under Sen. Chuck Grassley, VAWA

Senate Passes Violence Against Women Act, With No Help From 22 Republican Male Senators

Score one more point against the GOP winning over the women’s vote in 2014 and 2016…

Think Progress

The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization passed through the Senate on Tuesday afternoon, by a vote of 78 to 22. Of those opposing the legislation, all 22 were Republican men. Every female Senator supported the bill.

Among the most notable votes against the bill were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). Here’s a look at all 22 opponents of VAWA:

VAWA expired during the previous Congress, and because of Republican opposition to provisions for Native Americanundocumented, and LGBT victims of domestic violence, the different versions approved by the House and by the Senate were never reconciled, and the bill died without final passage at the end of 2012.

Since its inception in 1994, VAWA has established a system for helping women in danger. The law created the National Domestic Violence Hotline, made stalking illegal, and helped drive down the number of partner homicides.

Two Senators — Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) — also offered significant amendments to the VAWA bill. Grassley’s amendment stripped all Native American, LGBT, and undocumented victim protections. It was voted down on Thursday of last week. Cornyn’s, aimed exclusively on the bill’s language relating to tribal lands, failed on Monday.

Last week, eight Senators voted against even moving to debate on the revived legislation, and they are among those who voted against its passage. Four of them did so because their radical interpretation of the constitution precludes federal protection for domestic violence victims.

The version passed by the Senate today will next go to the House for a vote, where it is expected to encounter some difficulties, particularly over the protections of tribal women included in the bill.

1 Comment

Filed under Violence Against Women Act

N.R.A. DEFENDS RIGHT TO OWN POLITICIANS (Andy Borowitz)

lapierre-nra-boro.jpg

The New Yorker

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, National Rifle Association C.E.O. Wayne LaPierre warned that the N.R.A. would vigorously oppose any legislation that “limits the sale, purchase, or ownership of politicians.”

“Politicians pose no danger to the public if used correctly,” said Mr. LaPierre, who claims to have over two hundred politicians in his personal collection. “Everyone hears about the bad guys in Congress. Well, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a vote is a good guy with a vote. I’m proud to be the owner of many of those guys.”

Mr. LaPierre’s comments drew a sharp rebuke from Carol Foyler, a politician-control advocate who has spent the past twelve years lobbying for stricter limits on the sale of politicians.

“Right now, a man like Wayne LaPierre can walk right into Congress and buy any politician he wants,” she said. “There’s no background check, no waiting period. And so hundreds of politicians are falling into the hands of people who are unstable and, quite frankly, dangerous.”

In addition to limiting the sale of politicians, Ms. Foyler said, it is time for society to take a look at the “sheer number” of politicians in the U.S.: “There’s no doubt that we would be safer if there were fewer of them.”

For his part, the N.R.A. leader ended his testimony by serving notice that he would “resist any attempt” to take away the hundreds of elected officials he says are legally his.

As if to illustrate that point, he clutched Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) close to his chest and bellowed, “From my cold, dead hands.”

4 Comments

Filed under Humor

Five Signs You May Be A Fast & Furious Conspiracy Theorist

 

Get out your tin foil hats…

TPMMuckraker

[...]

So, let’s say you want to think the Obama administration sent thousands of guns across the border in a mad plan to keep Americans from owning them at home. Here are five things you’d have to to believe in order to fully subscribe to the theory.

1.) That the Obama administration wanted to spend political capital on gun issues.   When Fast and Furious started in 2009, the Obama administration was not talking about guns. There’s been little movement on the issue of guns their whole time in office — even after a member of Congress was shot — and the administration has in fact expanded gun rights in national parks and on Amtrak trains. The idea that they’d even want to touch the issue, or even thought that they could make any progress on it is simply not supported by the available facts.

2.) That DOJ officials contemporaneously created evidence to suggest that they never knew about the tactics being used.   There are plenty of emails showing top DOJ officials rejecting the first suggestions that guns were allowed to walk during Operation Fast and Furious. For the Republican-backed gun control theory to be true, officials would have had to fake conversations in which they denied that the ATF allowed guns to walk to begin with. In an email sent on Feb. 2, 2011, then-U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke called staffers for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) “willing stooges for the Gun Lobby.” Not exactly the kind of thing you’d write in an email if you secretly knew the allegations were true and could anticipate such an email being publicly released.

3.) That the number of weapons going to Mexico wasn’t already sufficient enough.   Plenty of weapons from the U.S. were headed to Mexico before Fast and Furious got underway in 2009. In fact, more weapons were recovered at crime scenes in Mexico before Fast and Furious got underway than after it had been going on for awhile. As Holder told Congress, Fast and Furious was “a flawed response to, not the cause of, the flow of illegal guns from the United States into Mexico.” In short, the few thousands weapons sent across the border as part of the program are a fraction of the total number of American firearms that end up as part of Mexico’s drug war.

4.) The whistleblowers who brought the tactics to light were also in on the gun-control conspiracy.   Last spring, ATF agents tried to testify about how “toothless” gun laws weren’t allowing them to do their jobs. Issa tried to shut down the testimony, but it’s important to note that the very same individuals who were upset with the tactic being used also believed that Congress wasn’t doing enough to stop gun trafficking.

5.) The White House pretended not to know about an emergency reporting rule request.   The one measure that the Obama administration has implemented since “Fast and Furious” is a minor regulation which treats so-called “long-guns” the same as handguns, but it is only in place in four border states. The measure (which Issa contends wasn’t necessary because he trusts dealers to provide the information voluntarily) was first proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2010, before Fast and Furious became a scandal and around the same time Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry died. Emailsobtained by TPM though a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request show that officials with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) chastised the ATF for not notifying them before publishing an emergency request. Under the gun-control theory, they were lying in the email on the off-chance that someone eventually would FOIA the information.

Comments Off

Filed under Fast & Furious Gun Walking Program

BREAKING: Obama Asserts Executive Privilege Over ‘Fast & Furious’ Documents

 

 

Here’s the thing…

The Right has had a major conniption over possible legislative attempts to expose their millionaire donors to the Romney campaign.

Yet Darrell Issa and company are just about ready to explode over the idea of President Obama claiming executive privilege over certain White House connected high level documents pertaining to the Department of Justice’s Fast and Furious campaign.

 

The hypocrisy and double standard is astounding but that’s not even the half of it…

 

Think Progress

 

President Obama is asserting executive privilege over documents Republicans are requesting from the Department of Justice in the Fast and Furious investigation.

 

“After you rejected the Department’s recent offers of additional accommodations, you stated that the Committee intends to proceed with its scheduled meeting to consider a resolution citing the Attorney General for contempt for failing to comply with the Committee’s subpoena of October 11, 2011,” James M. Cole, the Deputy Attorney General wrote in a letter to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) Wednesday morning. “I write now to inform you that the President has asserted executive privilege over the relevant post-February 4, 2011, documents.” The move is certainly not unprecedented: President George W. Bush asserted executive privilege six times during his eight years in office, while President Bill Clinton did so 14 times.

 

UPDATE 

 

Bush invoked the privilege repeatedly: to block a Congressional committee’s subpoenas for documents relating to the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to reject California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in the US attorneys scandal that brought down Alberto Gonzales, to prevent Josh Bolten from turning over documents, and to protect Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor and Karl Rove and Scott Jennings from testimony.

 

UPDATE 

Issa on March 20, 2012: “We very clearly want to respect the history of executive privilege.”

 

UPDATE 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on June 11, 2012: “The only constitutionally viable exception to the Department of Justice`s obligation under the subpoena would be executive privilege. The President hasnt asserted that privilege, presumably because the vast majority of the documents at issue aren’t related to communications with the White House. Because the documents don’t fit the category of executive privilege, the department is obligated to turn over the documents.”

 

UPDATE 

Responding to Obama’s use of executive privilege, Issa says “the untimely assertion by the Justice Department falls short of any reason to delay today’s proceedings.”

 

UPDATE 

Grassley has also issued a statement decrying Obama’s action: “The assertion of executive privilege raises monumental questions. How can the President assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the President exert executive privilege over documents he’s supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? The contempt citation is an important procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances. The questions from Congress go to determining what happened in a disastrous government program for accountability and so that it’s never repeated again.”

 

UPDATE 

The House Oversight Committee will consider this contempt resolution, which Democrats are opposing.  As Rep. Elijiah Cummings (D-MD) explained to Issa, “You accused him of a cover-up for protecting documents that he was prohibited by law from producing.”

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under GOP Overreach, GOP's Obama Derangement Syndrome

Politico’s: The week in one-liners: Rubio, Newt, Obama

Politco

The top quotes in politics …

‘The campaign will go bye-bye.” — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich talking about his political future.

“Good riddance, see you later.” — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on the Nets moving to Brooklyn.

“Can I get an Amen?” — President Barack Obama while speaking about student loans.

“They think he’s like Marx or something.” — Former White House chief of staff Bill Daley on how the business community views Obama.

“Who knows who might be using prostitutes?” — Sen. Chuck Grassley weighing in on the Secret Service sex scandal.

“I am sticking to club soda tonight.”— Secretary of State Hillary Clintonquoted by the New York Post, at a gala in Manhattan.

“I’m nervous.” — Comedian Jimmy Kimmel on hosting the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

“Does anybody have my last page?” — Sen. Marco Rubio after losing part of a speech.

Comments Off

Filed under Politico's Top Political Quotes

Republicans Politicize Secret Service, GSA Scandals

Karl Rove

I have to agree with Karl Rove, which in and of itself is an anomaly.

If history is any indication, when the GOP impeached Bill Clinton  for lying and obstruction of justice, Clinton’s job approval poll numbers remained high.  It appears that most Americans, regardless of party affiliation, believe in fairness and political overreaching can backfire on the accusing party.

TPM DC

Karl Rove warned Republicans that attempts to link President Obama to the ongoing Secret Service and GSA scandals would be perceived as political overreach. But so far, they haven’t been able to help themselves.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) pushed full speed ahead this week, writing a letterto the White House seeking answers on whether others were somehow involved in the Secret Service prostitution scandal. Then on Tuesday he suggested on anIowa radio station that the Colombian prostitutes at the heart of the inquiry may have been Russian spies.

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), the GOP’s point man for unearthing Obama-related scandals, and Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-NY), are insisting that more people were involved in the Secret Service scandal than the agency is admitting.

Regarding the General Services Administration employees’ spending spree in Las Vegas, the GOP has been no less restrained.

Issa portrayed it as evidence of “the most corrupt government in history.” During a Tuesday appearance on Bloomberg TV, he linked the scandal to the bank bailout and stimulus in an attempt to bash Washington’s out-of-control spending. “This money going though the hands of political leaders is corrupting the process, whether it is Solyndra, GSA or a number of other scandals,” Issa said.

High-ranking Republican Rep. John Mica (FL) claimed the White House “knew about it, did nothing, kept it quiet” until forced to ‘fess up. He then admitted that the scandal helps him attack Obama. “No, no, I’m not scoring political points,” Mica said on Fox. “But I am labeling [President Obama] as a big spender.”

To date there is no evidence that the White House tried to cover up the scandals or that any high-level Obama aides, let alone the president himself, were involved. The scandals have dominated Beltway chatter for weeks, and several individuals guilty of wrongdoing, along with the GSA chief, have already been forced out of the agencies.

The political phenomenon is one both parties fall prey to when they believe they have a winning story: Incessantly push until you overdo it and surrender the high ground. Democrats recently fell into a similar trap when they took the RNC chairman’s “war on caterpillars” line out of context, and when they hammered Romney’s call to cut public funding for Planned Parenthood by falsely implying he wanted to “get rid of” the organization itself.

These sorts of missteps risk being seen by voters as partisan opportunism, as Rove warned his fellow Republicans last Sunday.

“Every argument in politics generates a counter-argument,” Rove said on Fox News. “And the counter-argument that will be generated if Republicans try and make this a big push against President Obama is the ordinary American will look there and say, you know what, that is going over the top.”

2 Comments

Filed under Karl Rove

When Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault are “Family Values”

Taking a stand against domestic violence is a start.  Trying to get the idiots (on the Right)  in Congress to renew the Violence Against Women Act is like pulling teeth.  And they claim there’s no war against women coming from their camp…

The People’s View

Domestic violence and sexual assault. The original and literal war on women. And now, the Republicans in Congress are refusing to re-authorize the assistance for abuse victims. Yesterday, Vice President Biden gave a sobering speech on the importance of the Violence Against Women Act, genuinely stunned that the GOP has gone down the road this far. Joe Biden is not a Johnny come lately to this fight. He is the original author of the VAWA. He is the original author of the law.

Republicans are blocking it in the Senate right now, and even if the Democrats can muster enough votes to overcome a filibuster, the Republican House is not so keen on bothering to stop domestic violence. Why? There are stuff in there that are not “consensus items”, argue Republicans.

 Iowa Senator Charles Grassley (R), who leads opposition to the law’s renewal, said, “I wish we could proceed in a consensus fashion again. But there are provisions in the bill before us that have never been part of VAWA before. They’re not consensus items.

Well, what are these non-consensus items that’s forcing the Republicans hands to put at risk resources to fight sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence and physical abuse? What is the big poison pill? Not to spoil the surprise, but it’s teh gays, teh “illegals” and teh Indians.

If you ask why the Republicans are holding it up – other than their fierce hatred for anything the administration is for – they have an interesting answer: it’s because this version of VAWA includes protection for people who they do not believe deserve equal protection of the laws: LGBT people, undocumented immigrants, and native Americans. Because, you know, gay people don’t experience domestic violence (or maybe if we do), sexual battery against women is fine so long as the woman doesn’t have papers, and native American reservations don’t deserve any federal funds for housing and protecting victims of sexual assault because… well, just because.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has put together the most succinct statement rebutting the Republican disgraceful opposition to the bill.

 “Whether you are gay or straight, whether you are Caucasian or Native American, whoever you are–you should have access to services that protect you from domestic violence. It is very important for millions of American women all across the country.

“I ask those who are threatening to block this bill: If the victim is in a same-sex relationship, is the violence and danger any less real?

“If a family comes to this country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody pulp, do we say, ‘Well, you’re illegal, I’m sorry, you don’t deserve any protection?’

That is exactly what the Republicans are saying. If you’re gay, or transgender, then you deserve to be beaten up at home, and suffer sexual and physical assaults at the hands of a partner in the dark corner of social stigma and a lack of resources. If you are undocumented and your husband or boyfriend is assaulting you, you should have no place to go. If you’re a native American, you’re just shit outta luck.

There is another overarching, despicable umbrella point to conservative opposition of the Violence Against Women Act, and it is the conservative support for violence against women.

 Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land and two dozen other conservative leaders urged the Judiciary Committee to reject the bill, claiming VAWA would harm the family while maintaining programs that are ineffective. They acknowledged the “very real problem of violence against women and children,” but countered with VAWA “encourages the demise of the family as a means to eliminate violence.” The letter also indicated the latest version of VAWA would add expensive programs, including one that would have the effect of re-educating “school children into domestic violence ideology.”

That’s nice. VAWA “encourages the demise of the family as a means to eliminate violence.” Does it ever occur to these morons that the building blocks of a family – love, faith, trust, care, and respect - are decimated the moment domestic violence is perpetrated? The demise of the family does not come from interventions to assist the victims of domestic violence; it comes from the perpetration of domestic violence itself. A family where domestic violence is the norm is already demised.

But, when ending domestic violence means breaking up family – after all, the battered wife may have to get a divorce from her husband who might one day kill her – I suppose it’s nice to know that the conservative movement would rather see continued battery of the abused instead. After all, how dare you suggest women (or men) be able to escape from a “family” that gives them a black eye once every night?

It says something about conservative family values. When the social pressure to keep a dysfunctional unit nonetheless intact takes precedence over the protection of the abused, that is what a conservative family values society looks like. Good to know.

Nah, there’s no Republican war on women. Why do you ask?

1 Comment

Filed under VAWA, Violence Against Women Act

Politico’s: The Week In One-Liners

Politico

“New York is the city that is open to everyone from everywhere. … Greeks, Geeks, Gleeks. We love them all.” – Mayor Mike Bloomberg, upon meeting the cast of “Glee.” 

“I’m glad you’re asking these key, important questions, guys.” – White House press secretary Jay Carney, mocking reporters for pressing him on why the White House did not release a statement marking Easter Sunday.

“Karl Rove is a loser.” – Donald Trump, making friends with the GOP establishment.

“Don can be a grumpy guy. We all know that.” – Condoleezza Rice, reacting to some jabs that one-time colleague Donald Rumsfeld took at her in a recent interview. 

“I’ve had lot of Qs abt my “Z” tweet yestrday. It is as simple as a mistake. Evrybody: get a goodnite sleep” - Sen. Chuck Grassley, explaining a tweet he sent by accident. (The tweet simply read “Z.”) 

“Fox News can confirm the president of the United States is a citizen of the United States. Period.” – Fox News’s Shepherd Smith, clarifying and mocking at the same time. http://mediaite.com/a/rgbhv 

“I’ve come to New Hampshire today because I’m very concerned. I want to see the original long-form certificate of Donald Trump’s Republican registration.” – Sen. Rand Paul, turning the tables on The Donald. 

“I’m really pissed!” - Whoopi Goldberg, railing against gas prices.

“I do chase women, like the prime minister of Italy, but that’s about it.” – Arne Moltis, a candidate for West Virginia governor, confessing.

“Obama watched some television coverage of the royal wedding.” – White House press secretary Jay Carney, telling reporters that the president is just like us.

Comments Off

Filed under Politico, Politico Top 10 Quotes of the Week