Archive for the ‘Josh Hawley’ Category

The day after the Democrats’ establishment ended Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, Chuck Schumer threatened a pair of Supreme Court justices. Standing in front of the Supreme Court while the justices heard oral arguments, Sen. Schumer threatened Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. It didn’t take long for Josh Hawley to jump into action. Hawley announced that he’ll introduce a censure resolution that criticizes Sen. Schumer.

First, Sen. Schumer criticized the Justices, saying “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” After a predictable backlash forming, Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman tried spinning Sen. Schumer’s statement:

Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision. For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices [Sonia] Sotomayor and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.

This wasn’t a “misinterpretation.” Here’s what Sen. Schumer said:

Goodman is lying. There’s no question that Sen. Schumer made comments that went after GOP senators. The important point, though, is noticing that Sen. Schumer didn’t’ make that statement until after Sen. Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Any person with a sixth grade comprehension level understands that.

Sen. Josh Hawley is introducing legislation to censure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for saying that two Supreme Court justices “will pay the price” for voting against the wishes of abortion advocates.

Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, announced on Twitter Wednesday that he plans to introduce a motion to censure the New York Democrat for threatening Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Hawley’s announcement follows a torrent of criticism toward Schumer for his comments, including from Chief Justice John Roberts.

“I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame. So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of #SupremeCourt,” Hawley wrote.

This is the appropriate action to take. Removal from the Senate requires a two-thirds majority vote of all the senators. That means 67 or more votes. Censure requires a simple majority.

It’s important to understand that Sen. Schumer would run the Senate if Republicans lost their majority this November. Further, it’s important to note that Sen. Schumer is a nastier partisan than Harry Reid. In terms of honesty, in a two-man contest on honesty, they’d both finish 4th.

It’s time to help Republicans gain seats in the Senate this November. That means contributing to GOP candidates and GOP incumbents. In the interest of full disclosure, I just contributed to Jason Lewis’ campaign. Follow this link to contribute to Jason’s campaign to unseat Tina Smith.

Back during the House’s impeachment inquiry, the conventional wisdom was that President Trump had to beef up his communications team. Rather than hiring a bunch of consultants to help with that, President Trump beefed up his legal team, hiring people like Alan Dershowitz, Robert Ray and Ken Starr. President Trump wasn’t finished, though. Later, he “announced eight House Republicans will join his legal defense team.”

Joining the team were Jim Jordan, John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik, Doug Collins, Lee Zeldin, Mike Johnson, Debbie Lesko and Mark Meadows. These aren’t the only reinforcements, though. Since the trial started, senators like Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, John Kennedy and Tom Cotton have played a more prominent role in defending President Trump against the House Democrats’ impeachment accusations.

This morning, for instance, Sen. Cotton was interviewed by FNC’s Sandra Smith:

Sen. Cotton is right. If Democrats had compelling evidence, they’d present it and “let it speak for itself.” They don’t have compelling evidence, which is why they’ve repeated the same things over and over again.

Since beefing up their legal team, these attorneys have applied a full-court press. Dershowitz has appeared on ABC’s This Week, CNN’s State of the Union and on FNC’s Hannity and Ingraham Angle shows. Robert Ray has been on multiple shows, as has Elise Stefanik, Doug Collins, John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton. They’ve taken turns highlighting Adam Schiff’s dishonest statements. When Trump’s legal team makes their presentation, expect them to include many of Schiff’s dishonesties in that presentation.

If witnesses are called, expect Hunter Biden to be called. If he’s called, here’s why:


Talk about opening a door of opportunity for Republicans. BTW, this is what a confident, polished attorney looks like:

President Trump’s legal team and communications team are fitting together perfectly. They’re confident and well-prepared for each contingency. That’s what a team of professionals looks like.

This afternoon, GOP senators sent an unmistakable message to Speaker Pelosi. With Josh Hawley as the leading co-sponsor, co-sponsors “Sens. Rick Scott of Florida; Mike Braun of Indiana; Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee; Ted Cruz of Texas; Steve Daines of Montana; John Barrasso of Wyoming; Tom Cotton of Arkansas; Joni Ernst of Iowa; David Perdue of Georgia; and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma” joined with him “to introduce a resolution allowing the chamber to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump for lack of prosecution, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delays sending the case for trial.”

Next, Sen. Hawley delivered this powerful, stirring speech:

Here’s part of what Sen. Hawley said in his speech on the Senate floor:

In the real world, when a prosecutor brings a case but refuses to try it, the court has the ability and the defendant has the right, the constitutional right, I might add, to have those articles, those indictments, those charges dismissed. That is precisely the action that I am proposing today.

Here’s the heart of Sen. Hawley’s official statement:

Speaker Pelosi started this bogus impeachment by claiming President Trump was an urgent ‘threat to democracy’ who had to be removed now. But after a bipartisan vote against the articles in the House, and with the public opposed to the Democrats’ partisan games, Pelosi has changed her tune. Now she wants to prevent a Senate trial, perhaps indefinitely. But the Constitution gives the Senate sole power to adjudicate articles of impeachment, not the House. If Speaker Pelosi is afraid to try her case, the articles should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and Congress should get back to doing the people’s business.

This impeachment is a travesty. I’ve written multiple times that Democrats don’t have any proof of high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democrats’ case, if you can legitimately call it that, specializes in hearsay testimony. If this was being tried in a court of law, at least 75% of the Democrats’ testimony couldn’t be admitted because it was hearsay. Sen. Cruz added this statement:

Since the start of the impeachment process, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have made a mockery of our Constitution and abused impeachment for political gain. Now, they’re undermining the role of the Senate by attempting to dictate the terms of the Senate’s trial. Under our Constitution, the Senate has the sole authority to try impeachment. It is the Senate’s duty to take up these articles without delay, and to resolve them in a timely and constitutionally appropriate manner.

The Sixth Amendment requires the right to a speedy trial. Serious people question whether Pelosi’s Democrats are interested in upholding President Trump’s civil rights. Pelosi and Pelosi’s Democrat minions lied about the need to impeach President Trump on an expedited schedule. Then she decided to hold the official but flimsy articles of impeachment rather than transmit them to the Senate where a trial could be held.

Chairman Schiff told the American people that not impeaching President Trump on an expedited basis was the equivalent of arguing to just let him cheat one more time:

We were told that democracy itself hung in the balance. Now we’re being told that Speaker Pelosi wants to negotiate better terms for Senate Democrats by not transmitting the articles of impeachment. This afternoon, Josh Hawley essentially told Pelosi to butt out and let the Senate run the Senate.

What a shock! Supposedly pro-border security Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee boycotted a hearing that would fix most of the problems with the US-Mexico border. Once again, this proves how unserious Democrats are on the subject of border security. What these Democrats are quite skilled at is complaining about Republicans’ bills.

The article notices that “Ms. Feinstein said Mr. Graham’s bill went too far to eliminate the Flores Settlement, which she said included important protections for migrants when they are in custody. She also complained that he hadn’t worked hard enough to make his bill bipartisan. ‘We believe that the solution on the immigration issue can and should be done on a bipartisan basis,’ the California Democrat said.”

This is a political stunt. Anyone that complains about the minor details in a bill without offering an amendment to fix that detail isn’t interested in bipartisanship. They’re interested in signaling to the media to cover, then criticize, the Democrats’ PR stunt.

Sen. Josh Hawley, (R-MO), nailed it with this analysis:

I triple-dog dare a Democrat to tell me what serious bills Democrats have submitted in either the House or Senate. I’m not worried about the results because Democrats aren’t serious about border security. Yesterday’s stunt was proof that Democrats care more about the optics of the issue than they care about fixing the problem.

In 2020, Americans will need to decide whether they’d rather have a president and a unified congress that wants to fix problems or whether they’d rather have a congress that’s mostly interested in obstructing. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for obstruction. In the House, Democrats haven’t written a single serious bill that would fix our asylum laws or would fix the Flores Decision.