Senate democrats to boycott Barrett vote — and will fill seats with women directly impacted by confirmation
October 21, 2020
For customer support issues contact
support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to
corrections@rawstory.com.
Stories Chosen For You
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing this Thursday on the “weaponization” of the federal government, aiming to examine allegations that the Biden administration influenced social media companies in regards to information about the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) is accusing the Biden administration of colluding with social media companies to censor information.
During one point in the hearing, Jordan dismissed a panel of witnesses after his questioning had concluded, but was immediately met with objections from fellow committee members who said they were denied a chance to cross-examine the witnesses.
"Mr. Chairman, these witnesses are being dismissed without the ability to cross examine their statements," Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) said. "They've made some outlandish allegations here, and consistent with the work of especially this select committee and congressional hearing in general, we should have the ability to question their statements."
IN OTHER NEWS: 'He's lost his mind!' Trump buried over his latest bizarre pronouncements
Lynch went on to tell Jordan that he believes some of the testimony given at the hearing was "false," adding that "I would like the opportunity to cross examine those witnesses."
Jordan cut him off, telling Lynch he would eventually get a chance to conduct his cross examination. When Lynch protested, Jordan cut him off again, accusing him of just trying to make a "speech."
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) then chimed in to point out that Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) had previously "presented testimony that was pretty salacious and was allowed to leave the room, and we were not allowed to cross examine him."
From there, other committee members joined in, causing the hearing to temporarily descend into disarray.
Watch the video below or at this link.
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Kansas Republican asserts ‘God-given’ gun rights during tense debate on concealed carry fees
March 30, 2023
TOPEKA — Paying for a license to carry a concealed firearm violates “God-given rights,” a House Republican argued during a tense discussion on gun law ethics this week.
A day after a deadly mass shooting in Nashville, Tennessee, Rep. Rebecca Schmoe, an Ottawa Republican, advocated for a bill reducing concealed carry licensing fees out of concern that lower-income Kansans cannot afford to pay them. Schmoe said it was wrong to have to pay to “exercise a right” and that people who opposed the bill were discriminating based on finances.
“It means that you do believe in separate access to rights based upon income, and that low-income need not apply.” Schmoe said. “I urge you to stand for the rights that we are granted — our natural, God-given rights.”
Kansas legalized the concealed carry of firearms in 2015. Under state law, anyone 21 or older can carry concealed weapons in the state without a license or permit, but getting a license allows Kansans to concealed carry a gun in other states.
A concealed carry permit costs $132.50, with $100 going to the Attorney General’s Office and $32.50 paid to the applicant’s county sheriff. To get the license, applicants have to undergo an eight-hour weapons safety and training course and obtain a certificate of completion from a certified trainer.
Schmoe and other bill supporters said the legislation would increase overall firearm safety in the state. The bill would get rid of the $100 payment to the Attorney General’s Office and remove permit renewal fees and late fees. Concealed carry licenses cost $16, with half of the money placed in the state highway fund. That fee also would be eliminated by the bill.
The Kansas Department of Revenue has issued an average of 21,139 concealed carry licenses every year for the past five years, and doing away with the licensing fees would cost an estimated $1.2 million loss in fee collections in the next fiscal year.
Attorney General Kris Kobach spoke in support of the fee reduction during a March 7 House committee hearing on the bill.
“One should not have to pay the state a fee in order to exercise a constitutional right,” Kobach said. “We don’t have to buy a license to exercise our right to speak here today. Church goers do not pay the state in order to attend church, and lawful gun owners shouldn’t have to pay for the privilege of bearing arms in a manner that is the most common way of carrying in the 21st century.”
During Tuesday’s debate, House Minority Leader Rep. Vic Miller, a Topeka Democrat, supported the bill on the grounds that it would encourage more people to go through the training process.
“If they’re going to carry a weapon, I prefer they have the training,” Miller said.
Concealed carry opponents
Other Democrats spoke against the state’s loose gun control laws.
Reps. Barbara Ballard, Jo Ella Hoye, Stephanie Sawyer-Clayton and Linda Featherston all tried to shepherd gun control measures into the bill by introducing amendments on increased training, safe gun storage and tighter controls on gun access.
All amendments were pulled because GOP members ruled the changes weren’t germane to the licensing process.
Featherston, a Overland Park Democrat, said she initially thought about supporting the bill because it would encourage more people to get trained. Featherston changed her mind after speaking with one of her constituents, a pregnant mom terrified for her family’s safety.
Featherston said the mom told her she was worried about taking her children in public spaces because of fears of gun violence.
“I’m not sure at this point that I can betray that mom nor do anything that would allow one more hidden, loaded gun on a college campus,” Featherston said.
Hoye said she was angry about debating the bill a day after the latest U.S. mass shooting. A former student at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, killed three children and three adults before police officers killed the shooter.
Hoye said it was time to tighten Kansas gun laws and challenged the ruling that her proposed amendment wasn’t germane.
“Frankly, I’m tired of inaction from lawmakers like us,” Hoye said. “I’m willing to break the rules to protect our kids.”
Her rule challenge failed.
The House passed the legislation 91-33 on Wednesday morning. The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.
Kansas Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: info@kansasreflector.com. Follow Kansas Reflector on Facebook and Twitter.
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Jim Jordan gets called out at his own hearing for weaponizing the government to protect Trump
March 30, 2023
A Democratic lawmaker called out Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) for weaponizing the federal government to protect Donald Trump from a criminal investigation in Manhattan.
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) debunked the Ohio Republican's claims that President Joe Biden had improperly pressured social media companies to restrict certain content during the 2020 election campaign because he would not even had any authority to do so at that time.
"You know, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep shouting that the Biden White House somehow influenced a private company to take down disinformation in 2020 before a Biden White House even existed," Sanchez said. "Chairman Jordan wanted to make this point so badly that he had the two Republican attorneys general who began this sham lawsuit come in and make five-minute statements where they could make all kinds of wild allegations, and then he let them scurry away so nobody could ask them any questions about their claims."
RELATED: Dem Stacey Plaskett throws document back in 'mansplaining' Republican's face
"But I really want to focus on the in on the fact that this hearing really isn't about social media companies and it's really not about COVID deniers," she added. "It's not even about Elon Musk. It's about protecting former President Donald Trump, and I'd like to spend a few minutes looking at what congressional Republicans are doing to try to keep him out of legal trouble."
Watch video below or at this link.
03 30 2023 12 15 18 youtu.be
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}