Tag Archives: Senator Josh Hawley

One Possible Source Of Funding

Posted on by

One of the nagging questions about the Los Angeles riots is the source of the money to pay the protesters, the bricks, the fact masks, etc. Well, one Senator seems to have a pretty good idea of what that source is,

On Wednesday, Townhall reported:

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, announced he is launching an investigation into one of the entities that possibly funded the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles.

The lawmaker posted a letter addressed to the executive director of the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights on social media informing her of the probe.

“While peaceful protest is a cornerstone of American democracy, these demonstrations have escalated into lawless mob actions,” Hawley wrote. “They have obstructed federal law enforcement, endangered public safety, and disrupted the rule of law. This lawlessness is unacceptable. It must end.”

The senator further stated that “Credible reporting now suggests that your organization has provided logistical support and financial resources to individuals engaged in these disruptive action” and argued that “bankrolling civil unrest is not protected speech. It is aiding and abetting criminal conduct.”

The article concludes:

The riots kicked off over the past weekend in response to several ICE raids in Los Angeles. Rioters engaged in looting, vandalism, and targeting law enforcement officers. President Donald Trump responded by sending 2,000 National Guard troops to the area, along with Marines, to quell the unrest.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration has filed a lawsuit against the administration, accusing it of trying to militarize the city. He filed an emergency motion on Tuesday to block Trump’s troop deployment. But a federal judge rejected the motion.

Why would the Governor or California not want the National Guard to help quell the riots? Why would the Mayor of Los Angeles step into the chain of command and delay help for the endangered police and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents? There are a lot of questions we need answers for, and I suspect that there are a lot of people who need to be held accountable for their actions,

The Name For This Proposed Law Was Pure Brilliance

Posted on by

Insider trading by Congress has been a problem for a long time. It is one of the ways that a person can enter Congress with a net worth of about $800,000 and become a multi-millionaire in a few years. There have been a few efforts to end insider trading in Congress, but oddly enough those efforts have been voted down.

On Tuesday, Townhall posted an article about the latest effort to end Congressional insider trading.

The article reports:

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is again turning up the heat on Washington corruption by reintroducing the “PELOSI Act,” a bold effort to ban members of Congress and their spouses from trading individual stocks. Named after former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), whose financial dealings have long raised questions, the bill directly targets the insider privilege, allowing lawmakers to profit off the markets while shaping policy.

This week, Hawley reintroduced the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act, which would ban members of Congress from trading or holding individual stocks. The senator argued that lawmakers should prioritize serving their constituents, not profiting from stock trading using insider information. He said that the act would help restore public trust in the government.

Hawley first introduced the act in 2023, but it stalled under President Joe Biden’s administration. With President Donald Trump back in office, the legislation is gaining traction. Trump has pledged to “absolutely” sign the bill if it reaches his desk, stating he “watched Nancy Pelosi get rich through insider information.”

The PELOSI Act would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from buying, selling, or holding individual stocks while in office. However, they would still be allowed to invest in diversified mutual funds, ETFs, or U.S. Treasury bonds. Lawmakers would have 180 days to comply with the law, and those who fail to do so would be required to forfeit any stock profits to the U.S. Treasury and could face fines from congressional ethics committees.

The Republicans hold majorities in both the House and the Senate. There is no excuse for not getting this done.

What Happened On July 13th?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Legal Insurrection posted an article containing more information on the shooting of President Trump on July 13th. The information comes from Senator Josh Hawley who appeared on the Jesse Watters show on Monday night.

The article reports:

It turns out that the security lapses that day were even worse than previously thought. Hawley also stressed that this information was being shared with him because these whistleblowers are worried that this could happen again.

…The incident has led both Republicans and Democrats to intensely scrutinize the Secret Service in recent weeks. On “Jesse Watters Primetime,” Hawley claimed that the lead site agent was known to be inexperienced and “incompetent.”

“The site agent, the lead agent, was known to the Trump campaign to be inexperienced, to be ineffectual, to be, frankly, incompetent at their job,” Hawley said. “I’m also told by whistleblowers that on that day, she was not enforcing the normal security protocols.”

“She was not checking people’s IDs. She did not use Secret Service agents,” Hawley added. “Most of the agents there that day were not Secret Service agents. They were Homeland Security agents.”…

“Whistleblowers are coming forward from the Secret Service because they can’t believe what leadership is doing,” Hawley said. “They cannot believe that Secret Service is not taking action to clear out the rot.”

The fact that most of the agents were Homeland Security agents rather than Secret Service agents is troubling. No one wants to view this as an inside job, but the level of incompetence is stunning.

Forced To Face The Music

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The New York Post posted an article about the appearance of Attorney General Merrick Garland before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. A number of Republican Senators used the appearance to point out how unevenly Merrick Garland’s Justice Department is enforcing various laws.

The article reports:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) excoriated the attorney general’s extraordinary inaction over the past 10 months as pro-abortion protesters have harassed Supreme Court justices at their homes in the wake of the leaked Dobbs decision, despite a federal law that bans “picketing or parading” near a judge’s residence.

“When rioters descended on the homes of six Supreme Court justices, night after night after night, you did nothing,” raged Cruz.

“The department did nothing when extremist groups, like Ruth Sent Us and Jane’s Revenge, openly organized campaigns of harassment at the homes of justices …

“When the same groups posted online information about where the justices worship, or their home addresses, or where their kids went to school, you again sat on your hands and did nothing. 

Next Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) pointed out the following:

Next, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) grilled Garland about the disparate treatment of Christian pro-life activists arrested outside abortion clinics compared to pro-abortion activists who have gone unpunished after firebombing pregnancy centers.

He cited the case of Mark Houck, the Catholic father of seven acquitted in January of federal assault charges over an altercation outside a Philadelphia abortion clinic.

Houck was arrested at gunpoint in front of his terrified family in an FBI raid.

“This is a case where a Catholic pro-life demonstrator, a father, was accused of disorderly conduct in front of an abortion center,” Hawley said.

“The Philadelphia DA, who is a Democrat, very progressive, declined to prosecute. There was a private suit that got dismissed. Then after all that, your Justice Department sent between 20 and 30 agents in the early-morning hours to the Houck residence to arrest this guy after he had offered to turn himself in voluntarily.”

Garland said the FBI “dis­agreed” with that description of the raid.

So Hawley got out an easel and displayed a blown-up photo of fearsome-looking FBI agents with long guns, ballistic shields and bulletproof vests.

There is no excuse for this sort of behavior by the Justice Department. If we do not elect people who will uphold the law and who will appoint people who will uphold the law, we will descend into tyranny.

A Threat To The Second Amendment?

Posted on by

FBI Director Christopher Wray had a bad day in Washington on Thursday. Congress kept on asking him questions he didn’t want to answer. There was one very interesting exchange reported by Breitbart on Friday.

The article reports:

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) called out FBI Director Christopher Wray during a hearing Thursday after Wray refused to explain why his agency is seeking information on Missouri concealed carry permit holders.

Hawley brought up the FBI’s pursuit of information on Missouri concealed carriers, saying, “Why are you asking for [this information] now, from the state of Missouri, from our sheriffs, when you didn’t ask for it in the past?”

Wray responded, “I’m going to have to get more information to be able to provide you a written response.”

Hawley followed up with another question. “What steps would the FBI take to be sure the information remains private, if you’re able to obtain it from these sheriffs all across Missouri?”

Wray said, “Again, the same answer, I really want to be careful not to speak when I don’t have all the facts.”

Hawley said, “Okay, so you’re not going to answer my questions.”

It’s interesting to me that the FBI was interested in concealed carry permit holders in Missouri. If you remember, in 2020 the McCloskeys, a Missouri couple, was indicted for brandishing weapons on their front porch to defend their home against some protesters who said they wanted to kill them. It seemed like a pretty obvious case of self-defense, but the Soros-backed Attorney went after them and used their actions in a fund-raising campaign. That attorney was eventually removed from the case. The McCloskeys were eventually pardoned.

Just a note: if you have seen the video of the McCloskeys, you understand that it is a mini-lesson in how not to handle firearms. Although I believe they were correct in wanting to defend their lives, the way they handled their firearms in the process was not correct.

What Should The Sentence Be?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Epoch Times reported that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Tuesday blocked legislation in the Senate that would have strengthened penalties for child porn possession, saying the bill “doesn’t reflect the realities of today.”

What realities of today is he talking about?

The article notes:

The legislation—put forward by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and cosponsored by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Rick Scott (R-Fla.)—comes after weeks of heated debate over Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s track record in sentencing child porn offenders.

After one such debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Durbin, who chairs the committee, said that the Senate had been derelict in its duty to update child porn law, which was originally designed to deal with physical images rather than digital ones.

“I hope you will agree we all want to do everything within our power to lessen incidents of child pornography and exploitation,” Durbin said last week. “I want to tell you, Congress doesn’t have clean hands. We haven’t touched this now for 15, 16, or 17 years.”

Durbin added that Congress had shown “inattention and unwillingness to tackle an extremely controversial issue.”

“I don’t know if you’ve introduced a bill to change this—I’ll be looking for it,” Durbin told Hawley. “If we’re going to tackle it, we should.”

Referencing that interaction, Hawley said on the Senate floor Tuesday: “I agree 100 percent. I agree we should tackle it, this is the time to tackle it, and I’m here to do that today.”

In 2003, Congress passed legislation instituting mandatory minimum sentencing for child porn offenders. In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker struck down the mandatory minimum laws, which bind judges’ hands, as unconstitutional.

This is not the time to be ‘looking at it”–this is the time to do something about it.

Do We Really Want Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson On The Supreme Court?

Posted on by

There are multiple sources claiming that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has a history of being very lenient in sentencing sex offenders–particularly those involved in child pornography. When the ‘fact checkers’ checked this, their defense of Judge Jackson was very telling.

On Monday, Townhall posted an article about Judge Jackson.

The article reports:

An attempted “fact check” by ABC News regarding Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) statements about Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record of lenient sentences for child porn offenders ended up proving the Senator’s statements to be accurate.

ABC’s piece, published early Monday, argues that while Jackson did impose lighter sentences on child porn offenders than what federal guidelines recommend, Hawley’s statements lack “critical context”:

“While court records show that Jackson did impose lighter sentences than federal guidelines suggested, Hawley’s insinuation neglects critical context, including the fact that the senator himself has voted to confirm at least three federal judges who also engaged in the same practice.

Federal Appeals Court Judges Joseph Bianco of the Second Circuit and Andrew Brasher of the Eleventh Circuit, both Trump appointees, had each previously sentenced defendants convicted of possessing child pornography to prison terms well below federal guidelines at the time they were confirmed with Hawley’s support, an ABC review of court records found.”

The fact-checkers are not arguing that Judge Jackson was not lenient in her sentencing of sex-offenders–they simply argued that Senator Hawley had voted to confirm other judges guilty of the same thing. That’s sort of like an argument between siblings over who ate the first cookie.

The article concludes:

“It just keeps getting worse. It’s now clear why the Biden administration does not want this side of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s history to get out. Jackson’s record shielding child predators from the punishment and justice they deserve should trouble every sane person. Judge Jackson went to bat for those who prey on the most vulnerable members of society. Judge Jackson must explain herself at her upcoming hearing. If she fails to adequately justify her disturbing record, every senator who votes for her must be held accountable,” said Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, in a press release.

Does this judge belong on the Supreme Court?

Changing The Rules One Rule At A Time

Posted on by

Yesterday American Greatness reported that the Senate Ethics Committee will be investigating Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) because  of their objections to the electoral results of the 2020 election.

The article reports:

The two Republican senators were the most vocal advocates for challenging the results of the electoral college, after widespread evidence and allegations of voter fraud in key swing states that may have swung the election away from President Donald Trump and in favor of Joe Biden. The investigation comes after seven Democrats in the Senate filed complaints against Hawley and Cruz; chief among them was Chris Coons (D-Del.), who is the Chairman of the Ethics Committee, who called for both senators to resign.

The ranking Republican on the committee is James Lankford (R-Okla.), who said that no statements or leaks will be made regarding the investigation until it is concluded, saying “we don’t bring up anything on the ethics stuff at all. We don’t confirm anything and we’re pretty lockstop about that.”

A spokesperson for Cruz’s office condemned the investigation, declaring that “it sets a dangerous precedent when ethics complaints are used as a political tool to try to intimidate and punish.”

The last time the Senate Ethics Committee conducted an investigation of any kind was in 2017, against then-Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.), who was credibly accused of sexual misconduct in the past and ultimately resigned from the Senate. The committee previously failed to take any action against Senator Bob Menendez (R-N.J.), despite overwhelming evidence of corruption and bribery between Menendez and one of his top donors.

I have previously pointed out that Democrats have historically raised objections to electoral college votes when Republicans were elected. Somehow that did not result in an ethics investigation.

In case you have forgotten, I have previously posted on the subject:

On December 31, 2020, Fox News reminded us:

The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.

That forced the chambers to leave their joint session and debate separately for two hours on whether to reject Ohio’s electoral votes. Neither did. But the objection by Boxer and Tubbs serves as a modern precedent for what is likely to happen in Congress on Jan. 6.

Notably, some Democrats lauded Boxer’s move at the time, including Durbin himself.

This is not a direction we should be heading. Our government in Washington is looking more like tyranny every day.

A Moderate That May Not Be So Moderate

Posted on by

Townhall posted an article today about West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. Senator Manchin is currently seen as a possible brake on some of the more radical policies being discussed by the Biden regime. A recent remark during an interview might cast a shadow on that idea.

The article reports:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has become the moderate Democrat with much more sense than his colleagues. He repeatedly said he thought impeaching President Donald Trump, for a second time, was “ill-advised,” especially since there are not 19 Republicans in the Senate that would move to convict. But now the West Virginia senator has a suggestion: using the 14th Amendment to remove Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) from office.

“Let me read you what the 14th Amendment, Section 3 says. ‘No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.’ Would you support, senator, the removal of Sen. Hawley and Sen. Cruz, through the 14th Amendment Section 3?” PBS News’ Margaret Hoover asked. 

‘Well, they should look – absolutely. I mean, basically, that should be a consideration. And he should you know, he understands that, Ted’s a very bright individual and I get along fine with Ted. But what he did was totally outside of the realm of our responsibilities,” Manchin explained. “Listen to the conversations that people have had, listen to some of the congress people that are still speaking, you know? Listen, around the country, people in different law, in elected positions, these people should be held accountable, because it’s sedition.”

Manchin went on to explain that the United States was formed because our Founding Fathers were tired of living under the tyrannical rule of King George. They believed in a republic so much that they “gave up everything” in pursuit of this new adventure. In his eyes, Cruz and Hawley’s objections to certifying the election results went against the Founding Fathers’ intentions and beliefs.

First of all, how did Senators Hawley and Cruz engage in insurrection? Was it because they contested the 2020 presidential election?

Might I remind you (from Fox News December 31, 2020)

The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.

That forced the chambers to leave their joint session and debate separately for two hours on whether to reject Ohio’s electoral votes. Neither did. But the objection by Boxer and Tubbs serves as a modern precedent for what is likely to happen in Congress on Jan. 6.

Notably, some Democrats lauded Boxer’s move at the time, including Durbin himself.

If Democrats want to bring Americans together and heal our divide, this is not the way to do it.