Connect with us

The Swamp

BREAKING: Maxine Waters Hit With FEC Complaint

Published

on

Democratic California congresswoman Maxine Waters is the subject of a new Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint alleging that she broke the law.

Waters, running for re-election in the 43rd district against Republican challenger Omar Navarro, has consolidated power in the Democratic Party in recent months by loudly beating the anti-Trump drum and making over-the-top statements to express her disdain for the president of the United States.

Now, Waters might be facing an investigation from the federal government.

Trending: Democrats Move to Ban Trump Supporters From Joining the Military and Holding Federal Jobs

Fox News reports:

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters is facing a new complaint about an obscure fundraising tactic that rakes in thousands from state politicians in exchange for being listed on her slate mailers — this time, involving supporters of a former Los Angeles mayor defeated in the June gubernatorial primary.

The National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Waters, her campaign and a pro-charter school group called Families and Teachers for Antonio Villaraigosa — which backed the former Democratic mayor of Los Angeles.

The pro-Villaraigosa group paid $25,000 to the Citizens for Waters Committee on May 25 to include Villaraigosa in her slate mailer, according to the complaint. FEC guidelines, however, say only a candidate’s committee can pay for the mailers — sample ballots traditionally mailed out to about 200,000 voters in Los Angeles highlighting whom Waters supports.

Waters’ mailers have faced scrutiny since 2010 because the campaign, since 2004, has paid her daughter Karen Waters, or her public relations firm Progressive Connections, to produce, print and mail the sample ballots.

Legally, candidates are paying a reimbursement for the slate mailer, rather than buying an endorsement. But it’s difficult to prove whether the Waters endorsement comes as a result of the payment or if already endorsed candidates are paying for their share, Adav Noti, a former FEC assistant general counsel, recently told Fox News while explaining the peculiar process.

Fox News passage ends

Maxine Waters was famously confronted by Laura Loomer for Big League Politics after Waters called for liberal activists to consistently harass President Donald Trump’s employees.

Big League Politics reported in July:

A petition on the official White House government website to expel Congresswoman Maxine Waters from the House of Representatives reached 100,000 signatures on Thursday. The petition, hosted through the ‘We the People’ function of the White House’s website established in 2011, reached the necessary amount of signatures required to receive an official response from the Executive Branch under the loosely-followed rules of the platform.

The petition made it clear that those who signed were appropriately calling upon Congress to act, as expulsion from the House of Representatives would require a 2/3rds majority of U.S Representatives to vote for it. The White House potentially could call upon Speaker of the House Paul Ryan to allow a vote on the expulsion.

The petition made its case for expulsion on the basis of Waters’ “calling for attacks and violence against all Trump officials,” in reference to Waters’ remarks at an open borders rally, when she told progressive agitators that “if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” Ironically enough, Waters’ demand that her followers badger and harass Trump administration personnel backfired badly, finding herself in turn overwhelmed with armies of conservative patriotsdemanding her impeachment during town halls held in her Los Angeles congressional district. Waters had also been confronted by Big League Politics’ Laura Loomer, and refused to retract her demands for the harassment of Trump supporters.

The President himself could be interested in calling for expulsion proceedings for Waters, based upon his own statements in regards to her history of aggressive, belligerent calls for personal attacks against her political opponents. In his most recent Montana rally, the President described Waters as being a “low IQ individual,” speculating that her IQ was probably somewhere around the mid-60’s. It’s even possible that some Congressional Democrats would find themselves relieved to be rid of one of the most deranged, insane, and hateful Members of Congress ever to serve in the House, allowing a vote on Water’s expulsion to reach a wide bipartisan majority.

The Swamp

What Happens If John Roberts Decides Not to Preside Over Trump’s Post-Presidency Impeachment Trial?

Trying to make sense of a messy situation.

Published

on

Several Republicans and Democrats familiar with the negotiations over Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial have said that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts does not want to preside.

A Politico report that broke the news reads as follows: “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says. A spokesperson for the chief justice declined to comment.”

As if it weren’t unprecedented enough for a president to have been impeached twice, Democratic lawmakers are hell-bent on holding an impeachment trial for a man who is no longer president. And it sounds like they’re going to get their wish: Senate leaders agreed Friday that the trial would begin Tuesday, February 9. It does not appear that Roberts’ decision is a factor either way.

This clown show needs some unpacking. First off, Roberts has very good reason to reject presiding over Trump’s impeachment trial. The Constitution states that the chief justice will preside when the president is tried. Not the ex-president, the current president. That alone should be sufficient.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Despite this, there may not be anything that expressly forbids Congress from impeaching and convicting former officials. Some legal experts have pointed out that “nothing in the text of the Constitution bars Congress from impeaching, convicting, and disqualifying former officials from holding future office.”

In light of all this, the radio silence of the Founders on this matter allows both sides to justify their support or opposition. Those in opposition say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there are no grounds to hold the trial. Those in support say that because there’s nothing in the Constitution about trying a former president, there is no legal reason to oppose the trial.

Furthermore, law professor Frank Bowman, speaking to the Washington Examiner, argued that if a trial is going to be held, it might be prudent for Roberts to preside.

“The vice president does have a personal interest in the outcome, insofar as conviction would eliminate Trump as a future political rival, either to President Biden or to Harris herself,” Bowman said. “I think the constitutionally safer call is that he should preside. That way, there can never be a later objection on the ground that the tribunal was not properly constituted.”

If Chief Justice Roberts decides to extricate himself from this mess, Democrats are said to be discussing the possibility of having Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also the president of the Senate, preside. Also being floated is president pro tempore and longest-serving senator Patrick Leahy.

Harris has a conflict of interest if she were to preside, however. And indeed that is why the Founders wanted the chief justice of a (theoretically) non-political entity of government to do so. Harris is not only of the opposite party and was on the ticket that defeated the Trump/Pence ticket, she might very well have aspirations for the presidency if Biden decides not to seek reelection. Trump himself may have his eye on the presidency once again as well, meaning that Harris would be presiding over the impeachment trial of a potential political opponent.

So if the legality of convicting an ex-president is gray, then it becomes a question of prudence. And prudence dictates that the impeachment trial should not proceed. The side that’s calling for “unity” is engaging in something fundamentally disunifying. Any attempt to convict a former president with no clear legal grounds is most definitely not a recipe for “unity” and “healing.” Our senators should just move on and worry about governing. Enough with the political shams and shenanigans.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending